Sitting of 1 December 1999

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

  UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Read a Second time, and committed.

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

    English/Welsh Border
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What discussions he has had with (a) other members of the Government and (b) the National Assembly to ensure co-ordination of decisions affecting communities on the English/Welsh border. [98876]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have frequent discussions with my colleagues in the Government and with the members of the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales on a variety of issues. Co-ordination of decisions affecting communities on the Welsh/English border is a matter for bilateral discussion between the Assembly and the lead Whitehall Department. I would become involved if I were asked to intervene or to help to resolve a difficulty. I have received no such request.
    Mr. O'Brien: In the light of that general position, will the Secretary of State answer a specific and current question of real concern to my constituents who live on the Welsh border? In the interests of co-ordination, now that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has announced that beef on the bone is safe, can I have an assurance that Griffiths butchers in the high street in Farndon in my English constituency and its rival, 200 yd away, in the high street in Holt in Wales, will be treated equally and will not be prosecuted for selling beef on the bone from yesterday?
    Mr. Murphy: I wish both butchers well, obviously with a slight preference for the Welsh butchers. Following the decision by the chief medical officers for all the countries in the United Kingdom, there will be consistency in their recommendation. It rests with the
    286
    individual Administrations to put the lifting of the ban into practice. That is the desire and the wish of the Welsh and the English Agriculture Ministers.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the communities of Itton, Devauden and St. Arvans in my constituency, which are very close to the border, are deeply concerned and disturbed by the decision of Forest Enterprise Wales to sell Chepstow Park wood for a private holiday development? The wood is in an area of outstanding natural beauty. When he has meetings with Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and with Welsh Assembly Secretaries, will he reassert the fact that the Government's policy is to have a moratorium on the sale of large-scale forests and say that Forest Enterprise should put a stop to the sale?
    Mr. Murphy: I am very conscious of the problem, as I am a Gwent Member myself. My hon. Friend has raised the matter on several occasions. I have raised it with the First Secretary, who in turn is discussing it with Forest Enterprise. I know how important the matter is to my hon. Friend and I am convinced that there will be a satisfactory outcome to the campaign that he has led so effectively.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Secretary of State consider the situation in parts of Powys, where there is a lack of co-ordination of the bus services crossing the border to cities and towns in England? There has been a breakdown in funding and some of the services have stopped running. Many people living in remote areas cannot get to the cities and towns. Will he also note that I had a meeting on Monday with Shropshire county council, Herefordshire county council and the Highways Agency about the refusal of road signs on the A49 in England, running along the border, to market towns in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: I have taken great note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He highlights the important point that it is essential to have co-ordination and cross-border co-operation between the National Assembly and the appropriate authorities on the English side of the border, to ensure that we have the most efficient public transport and road systems.

    New Deal
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: When he plans to meet the head of the Employment Service in Wales to discuss progress with the new deal. [98877]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have had regular contact with the director of employment services to discuss progress on the new deal and other welfare-to-work issues in Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to meet the director in the near future.
    Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend will be aware of how the new deal has revitalised employment services in Wales.

    287
    Will he seriously consider transferring the adult training programmes that are currently with the TECs to the employment services, or at least ensure that the forthcoming Bill on reorganising training will allow that possibility?
    Mr. Hanson: The Bill has not yet been published, but when it is, those points will be taken on board and considered seriously. As it happens, I am meeting the director of employment services in Wales tomorrow, and we will certainly discuss those issues. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity to consider them as the Bill progresses through the House.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that there is no evidence whatever that people in Wales get jobs through the new deal for young people that they would not otherwise have secured, and plenty of evidence that people who go through the new deal do not secure jobs at the end of their course, what assessment has the Minister made of the cost to public funds of 1,710 young people in Wales going through the new deal only to end up going through the revolving door of benefit dependency?
    Mr. Hanson: Some 22,030 young people aged between 18 and 24 have entered the new deal in Wales since its inception, and some 10,109 have secured jobs. That is 10,109 people who have secured jobs that the hon. Gentleman would not have had them secure. He would have had them face further unemployment. The real issue is the cost of unemployment, and how much it cost in the Conservative years. This Government are committed to ensuring that people are in productive, long-term employment, and the new deal is a great contributor to that aim.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the plight of disabled people in Wales? How many people with disabilities have been able to take advantage of the new deal and how many have found jobs that are unsubsidised?
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Some 3,416 disabled people have joined the new deal since its inception, and the new deal for disabled people in the eastern valleys pilot area has seen some 221 people secure full-time employment. The new deal is about giving people the opportunity to learn new skills, to have an opportunity to contribute to society and to gain full-time employment. The scheme works for disabled people, young people and older people in the pilot in north-east Wales, and in the extensions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—but the Conservative party would scrap it.

    Block Grant
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: When he last met the First Secretary of the National Assembly to discuss the block grant. [98878]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the Assembly First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Swayne: Can the Secretary of State tell us how much match funding he has managed to acquire for objective 1 status? Can he assure us that that will have no impact on the block grant?
    Mr. Murphy: It is fair to say to the hon. Gentleman that had the matter been left to the previous Government there would have been no objective 1 funding in the first place. It is important to understand that the commitment that was made in getting objective 1 status, which was echoed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he said that he would not let Wales down, sets the context for our enjoyment of that status.
    The hon. Gentleman knows, because it has happened for several years, that all such matters will be taken into account in the comprehensive spending review. However, it is clear that objective 1 status for Wales means that we will go into the next century with a revitalised economy and a reskilled and retrained people.
    Mr. Barry Jones: When my right hon. Friend discusses the block grant with the First Secretary, will he tell him that I want £25 million of it for my airbus workers, so that we can have a Welsh input into the A3XX project? I would also like my right hon. Friend to say that I need £530 million of repayable launch investment, because that would bring 1,400 jobs to my constituency, which we could share with cross-border communities in Cheshire.
    Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend has been assiduous in making the case for funding for the new project at Broughton. I visited the plant in his constituency recently, and I understand that it is one of the biggest in the United Kingdom—certainly in Wales—and employs people from both England and Wales. I have met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss the issue and I will discuss it with the First Secretary on Monday next week.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State will recall that some three weeks ago he gave me an undertaking that he would raise with his Cabinet colleagues the question of the unfairness of the Barnett formula in connection with the division of European structural funds. Does he have an announcement to make on that; and can he apprise the House of the progress he has made on the issue?
    Mr. Murphy: I have no announcement to make to the hon. Gentleman or to the House on the issue, because we are in the process of considering the comprehensive spending review for the coming years. However, I repeat what I said in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs—it is important for everyone to realise that the awarding of objective 1 status to Wales is unique. It was not anticipated when the previous CSR was announced, so the new one will have to take account of the new circumstances.
    Mr. Llew Smith: When my right hon. Friend next meets the First Secretary, will he raise

    289

    with him the issue of that part of the block grant that goes to theatre and education? Will he convey the anger felt by communities throughout Wales that some of the block grant money is being used for a drama strategy that is described by the chairperson of the Arts Council as a tragedy that will harm some of the most deprived communities? Will my right hon. Friend remind the First Secretary that yesterday evening the Welsh parliamentary Labour party demanded an inquiry into the spending of that money?
    Mr. Murphy: Like my hon. Friend, I am a Gwent Member of Parliament. I value what the Gwent theatre in education scheme has achieved over many years. My hon. Friend was able to secure an Adjournment debate this morning on the matter, in which he expressed his anger in a robust way, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already taken up the matter and he and I will discuss it with the First Secretary at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The House will have noticed that the Secretary of State ducked the question from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), so I shall ask him an easier one. He will be aware that, because of the overspending by four local authorities, the Welsh Assembly has put a surcharge on all the other local authorities of between £59 and £79. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the block grant is sufficient to meet the needs of local authorities in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: I believe that there is sufficient money in the block grant to meet those needs, but it is not for me to say how the block grant should be shared to meet those needs. I shall raise the point with the First Secretary, but this is essentially a matter for the National Assembly.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The block grant is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. If funds are insufficient to meet local authorities' needs, that would certainly be a matter for him. When the Secretary of State meets the First Secretary, will he apprise him of the fact that the Government of Wales Act 1998 did not give the Welsh Assembly the power to raise taxes? The Assembly does not have the power to impose a fine on every council tax payer of between £59 and £79 to cover the overspending of which all but one of the Labour local authorities in Wales are guilty.
    Mr. Murphy: What the Assembly has is the power to distribute the block grant according to the devolution settlement. Devolution means that the Assembly has to take its own decisions. That is what the House—and the people of Wales—voted for.
    Mr. John Smith: When my right hon. Friend next meets the First Secretary, will he stress the importance of the transport element in the block grant? Will he remind the First Secretary and the Transport Secretary in Wales that yesterday the Government and the House expressed their support for the reopening for passengers of the Vale of Glamorgan railway line?
    Mr. Murphy: I will certainly convey that good news to the First Secretary.

    Beef on the Bone
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary regarding the ban on beef on the bone. [98879]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I met the First Secretary yesterday and high on our agenda was the welcome news that, after the statutory consultation, the ban on beef on the bone is likely to be lifted before Christmas.
    That is good news for our Welsh beef industry. The Assembly's Agricultural and Rural Development Committee voted this morning for the lifting of the ban. In addition, I joined my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this morning in a meeting with representatives of the beef industry, including Welsh farming union leaders. The meeting examined ways in which we can promote the excellence of British—and especially Welsh—beef.
    Mr. Robathan: Well, we are all delighted at the lifting of the ludicrous ban on beef on the bone. I cannot hold the Secretary of State responsible for that ban, as he was not in office when it was imposed. However, does he recall that the First Secretary—who was Secretary of State for Wales at the time—famously ate beef on the bone on 1 March this year? The ban has caused enormous losses to Welsh farmers: will the right hon. Gentleman estimate the total cost? Is he aware that it has always been more dangerous for hon. Members to bicycle to the House than to eat beef on the bone?
    Mr. Murphy: We must welcome the good news that the Welsh beef industry, and farming in general, has received. The hon. Gentleman knows that the lifting of the ban was based entirely on the scientific and medical evidence.
    It is however important that we can tell the world that we are confident our beef can be exported, and that Welsh beef is the choicest, tastiest and safest beef in the world.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a pity that the response of the Conservative party in government was ludicrous when issues were raised about BSE, and that all the suffering of Welsh and British farmers was down to that fundamental error at the end of the 1980s? Can he assure me that the way in which the British Government have ensured that safety is our top priority means that we will now have a successful campaign to sell British beef across the world, and that the Welsh element of that will have a very high profile?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight the difficulties that arose because of the BSE crisis. It cost nearly 50 lives and some £4 billion. However, we are out of that crisis. Today's news is good news and I am convinced that the future of the beef industry, particularly in Wales, is bright.
    Mr. Robert Walter: We welcome the lifting of the beef-on-the-bone ban, but will the Secretary of State say what discussions he has had with the First Secretary regarding the parlous state of Welsh agriculture,

    291
    caused by the ban and compounded by the Government's insensitivity to the plight of Welsh farmers and the ineptitude of Welsh Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary, Christine Gwyther? She has lost the confidence of Welsh farmers and been censured by the Welsh Assembly. If she were a Minister in this place, she would resign. Does he agree with the First Secretary about not sacking her? Does he care about Welsh agriculture? He represents the interests of Wales on 21 Cabinet Committees. Why is he on none concerned with agriculture or rural affairs?
    Mr. Murphy: The Cabinet Committee on rural affairs essentially concerns England, but I will receive the Cabinet papers. If I think that they or the agenda affect Wales, I will go to the meeting.
    On the general point on agriculture in Wales, I would not sack Christine Gwyther, who has done an excellent job. In September, £15 million was given to hill farmers in Wales. Since that decision, £750 million has been identified for calf processing schemes, £350 million has gone to organic aid, £350 million to processes and marketing grants, £50 million to promote the dairy industry, and farming has benefited from £78 million resulting from the deferral of inspection charges. An awful lot of money has gone to Welsh farming since September.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Philip Hammond: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly on the number of people in Wales who are (a) on the NHS waiting list for in-patient treatment and (b) awaiting a first out-patient consultation. [98880]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I regularly have discussions with the First Secretary and Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary about important matters affecting Wales. That often includes the NHS in Wales and waiting lists have been included in our discussions.
    Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister confirm that the number of patients waiting 18 months or longer for in-patient treatment in Wales—under the Government's policy targets, there should be none—has increased by 122 per cent., and the number of patients waiting six months or more for their first out-patient consultation by 430 per cent. since March 1997? Will he further confirm that in the Bro Taf health authority area, 19 per cent. of all patients waiting for in-patient treatment have been waiting for more than 12 months? Does he agree that that represents a disastrous failure of his Government's policy? Will he confirm that there is a terrible crisis in the NHS in Wales and say what he will do to help solve it?
    Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman should be aware—though coming from Runnymede, he may not be—that the Assembly is responsible for the health service in many respects. This is about partnership between central Government and the Assembly. Today, the Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary, Jane Hutt, has announced that 95 per cent. of patients have been admitted to hospital for treatment within 12 months in the past year.
    292
    Since the Government were elected in May 1997, £291.6 million extra has gone into the NHS in Wales, and in the comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that a further £1 billion will be available for the Assembly to spend over the next three years on health services. Would the hon. Gentleman cancel that money? Would he have put it in? The answers to those questions are yes and no.
    Ann Clwyd: As my hon. Friend knows, when health funding is calculated in England, an assessment of deprivation is made. When will deprivation be included in an assessment for health funding in Wales by the Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Hanson: The point that my hon. Friend has mentioned is valid. I hope that the Assembly will take the matter on board. I shall certainly raise it with the Assembly Secretary, Jane Hutt, but ultimately it is for the Assembly to determine.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Tim Loughton: When he last met the First Secretary to discuss assistance for small businesses in Wales. [98881]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular meetings with the First Secretary and discuss a wide range of issues, including assistance to small businesses in Wales.
    Mr. Loughton: That is all very interesting, but did the First Secretary think that small businesses in Wales had been helped or hindered by the £30 billion of new business taxes introduced by the Labour Government?
    Mr. Murphy: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that what is important in Wales today is that the Welsh Federation of Small Businesses has announced that it has confidence in the way in which our Government are running the economy, that small businesses in Wales are more optimistic than ever about their future, and that 25 per cent. have increased their work force.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best things for developing small businesses in Wales would be the establishment of a development bank for Wales, as called for by the Federation of Small Businesses as well as, of course, Plaid Cymru. Will he give us an assurance that the objective 1 money for Wales, which can be used on a 7 per cent. basis ahead of demand, can in part be made available for such a development bank so that small businesses get the aid that they so clearly need?
    Mr. Murphy: I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am careful not to commit the National Assembly for Wales, of which he is a Member, to any policies. I agree with the thrust of his comments. As he knows, an innovations fund with £5 million of venture capital was announced in Cardiff by the Welsh Development Agency and National Westminster bank.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Small businesses feel that they have not been sufficiently

    293
    consulted about objective 1 and 2 status funding. Is the Secretary of State willing to consider further consultation with small businesses to ensure that they can make their creative views known to him?
    Mr. Murphy: As I told the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is essentially for the Assembly, but I shall convey his views to the First Secretary.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: What representations he has received concerning the problem of child poverty in Wales. [98882]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I regularly discuss this issue with colleagues and the appropriate Assembly Secretary to ensure that we are working together to achieve the Government's target of ending child poverty in Wales within 20 years. I am pleased to note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is in Cardiff today to meet the First Secretary and to invite the Assembly to take part in a joint ministerial group on tackling child poverty.
    Mr. Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that most of the poorest families in Wales have young children? The working families tax credit will be a massive help, but so far only half the 2,000 families entitled to it in my constituency have applied. Will he arrange that, wherever Father Christmas goes in the next few weeks, he will take with him a bunch of leaflets explaining the credit?
    Mr. Hanson: The working families tax credit is an important part of the Government's overall strategy on tackling child poverty. In Wales, some 65,000 people could benefit from it. Take-up is one of the important issues that we need to face. The important thing about the working families tax credit is not just that the Government have provided it but that the Opposition voted against it.

    Pre-Budget Statement
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: If he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the impact on Wales of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-Budget statement. [98884]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the Assembly First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Jones: When the Secretary of State next meets the Chancellor, will he convey to him my encouragement for his bold ambition to achieve full employment? Will he tell him that his policies have already created in my constituency a 78 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment and a 57 per cent. reduction in long-term unemployment? Those are important steps; but does he share my concern that a whole generation have lost their
    294
    most valuable productive years through living under a Conservative Government who did not share that ambition?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. The next time I meet my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall let him know that the people of Wales believe that his policies of fairness, stability and enterprise are paying off in Wales, and that his policies are right for us in Wales. I shall also be able to tell him and the people of Wales that, since May 1997, total unemployment in Wales has fallen from a little more than 80,000 to a little less than 60,000; that is progress in anybody's language.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dan Norris: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Dan Norris: By any standards, this has been a truly momentous week in the history of Northern Ireland. Will the House join me in paying tribute to the hard work and courage shown by politicians—especially the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—and everyone else in Northern Ireland?
    Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying that it is incumbent on all those currently involved in the Northern Ireland peace process to ensure that they continue to show that courage, and that they carry on their tireless work so that the best possible opportunity for peace in a generation can properly be grasped and turned into reality?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that this afternoon the Queen made the order that devolves powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly from midnight tonight. That will create the first Government in about 25 years who are directly accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. It will come alongside the creation of new north-south institutions, changes to the Irish constitution, the dropping of the territorial claim to the north and the appointment by the IRA of an authorised representative to discuss the modalities of decommissioning with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning. I pay tribute to the leader of the Ulster Unionists, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and to all those in Northern Ireland who have had the courage to drive the process forward. There will be many difficulties on the way to the achievement of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, but I believe that one huge, giant step forward has been taken.
    Mr. William Hague: May I concur with the sentiments and hopes expressed by the Prime Minister? I congratulate all those involved and I thank the

    295
    hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) for his remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
    On a different subject, today, the Audit Commission described benefit fraud as a serious and growing concern, and stated that progress in dealing with it has been "disappointingly slow". Is not it time that the Government introduced new proposals, including the Opposition's proposal to give benefit fraud officers and inspectors the same powers as those held by tax inspectors?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, we have introduced further powers to tackle benefit fraud—and, indeed, tax fraud. I agree that we must be vigilant at all times in respect of those matters. However, at the same time as we are cracking down on the abuses and the fraud, it is important to ensure that we provide opportunities for people—especially the young unemployed. That is why it is important that, while we are tightening up the benefit system, we are also introducing the new deal to give those young people hope.
    Mr. Hague: I am asking a specific question about what will be done about benefit fraud. If the Prime Minister thinks that the problem is currently being tackled by the Government, he is not living in the real world. The National Audit Office pointed out that there is no evidence of any improvement in stemming losses. This morning's Audit Commission report states that substantial work is needed to tackle fraud more effectively.
    Does the Prime Minister know of any reason why he should not adopt our proposal to give benefit fraud officers the same powers as tax inspectors—to search premises, to investigate accounts and to collect information? That would show that we are prepared to bring the full force of the law against those who cheat the taxpayer?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, we should use the full force of the law to defeat those who are engaged in benefit fraud. Last year, we saved about £200 million in income support alone. During the course of a Parliament, that would add up to a saving of £1 billion [Interruption.] Before Opposition Members shout about this, they should remember that they were in power for 18 years and faced the same problem. However, I agree that we should constantly look at ways that we can improve the service, which is why we have taken some seven or eight different measures to tackle benefit fraud since we came to office. But of course we shall always carry on looking for more and better ways of doing it.
    Mr. Hague: It is no good for the right hon. Gentleman just to say that he is considering various options. That is what he has been saying to job applicants from the Liberal party for years, and nothing happened. He says these things, but nothing is done.
    The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who used to be Minister for Welfare Reform, said earlier this year—[Interruption.] It is no good for hon. Members to shout about it. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money are at stake, spent on the authority of this House. The right hon. Gentleman says:
    "Taxpayers have every right to feel genuinely angry about the Government's inability to tackle benefit fraud. Talking about tackling the problem is not enough."
    296
    That is the comment from the Labour Benches.
    Will the Prime Minister adopt the following proposal—tougher penalties for people who deliberately defraud the system, including community service sentences on top of existing penalties?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman said that we were not taking any measures. We are of course taking measures. We have invested an extra £100 million in checks on housing benefit claims. We have extended, for example—[Interruption.] Conservative Members asked for measures; I am just telling them what they are. Section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 has been extended to housing benefit from September this year. The benefit fraud inspectorate has been beefed up and changed, and can now play a far greater role in ensuring better standards in the tackling of benefit fraud.
    As a result of the measures that we have taken, total social security spending is actually falling in the areas of economic and social failure, for the first time in decades. Under the last Government, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, the social security budget rose by 4 per cent. in real terms every year. By contrast, it is now rising by only 1 per cent. in real terms. That is due to the measures on child benefit, working families tax credit and pensioners, and it is deliberate. Tackling fraud is one part of it; the other part is reforming welfare, which, after 18 years during which Conservative Governments did nothing, we are finally tackling.
    Mr. Hague: The right hon. Gentleman attacks the last Government, but the last Government had "spotlight on benefit cheats" campaigns that saved tens of millions of pounds, which the present Government have abandoned. The last Government introduced new penalties to make them available to local authorities, which have now not been implemented.
    The right hon. Gentleman is not answering the questions that I am putting to him today. I am asking about false claims. Anyone would think that that was his strong subject, after most of his answers in recent months. Is he aware, from today's report, that 40 per cent. of councils do not even require applicants to give their national insurance number on their application for benefit? So will he adopt this common-sense proposal—[Interruption.] A common-sense proposal—he is allowed to adopt common-sense proposals. Will he oblige all local authorities to ask for national insurance numbers on benefit claims?
    The Prime Minister: I am totally happy to consider all those measures, but I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have been trying to tell him in my answers, that we are taking a series of measures, which we believe are the most effective measures, to root out fraud.
    Anyone would think that this issue had just arisen in the last two years. It was there under the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a part. We are actually tackling the problem. For the first time, for example, all local authorities must abide by the same rules in rooting out benefit fraud. That was never done under the Conservative Government.

    297
    I return to the point that I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has not denied, which is that, under the last Government in the last Parliament, social security spending was rising by 4 per cent. in real terms every year, and now it is falling in the areas of economic and social failure. That is the biggest saving for the taxpayer that we could have.
    Mr. Hague: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the rules applying to local authorities, but today's report clearly says, on page 23:
    "At present, only one in five councils is actually following the rules."
    I am simply suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman how to make local authorities follow the rules. The truth is that he has not tackled the issue because he will not tackle Labour local authorities that are not fighting fraud.
    Millions of people work hard and pay ever higher taxes under the present Government. Billions of pounds of their money are being fraudulently taken away. Is it not the case that if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give fraud inspectors the powers that we have talked about and toughen penalties and require local authorities to deal with the problem, he will have gone on talking about this issue but not dealing with it?
    The Prime Minister: We are of course dealing with it. As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is quick with his jokes, but less quick with his judgment. If he looks at the measures that we have taken, he will see that they compare very well with the measures that were taken under the previous Government. However, I agree: we must always look at how we can do more. However, in taking more measures, it is important to tackle benefit fraud, but, at the same time, we are encouraging people to get off benefit and into work, because that is the single, biggest element of fraud.
    Under the previous Government, we know what we ended up with—one in five non-pensioner households with nobody working at all. The new deal has put 150,000 young people alone into work and the economic policies of the Government have cut unemployment with 700,000 extra jobs now in the economy. Of course, we must deal with the fraud aspect, and we are doing it a darned sight better than the right hon. Gentleman's Government ever did. However, we will not tackle that side of the problem properly unless we also grant people opportunity, which is what we are doing. His policy—by getting rid of the new deal, abolishing the working families tax credit and pursuing measures that would push up unemployment—has the opposite effect.
    Mr. David Stewart: The Prime Minister will be aware that, this week in my constituency, 3,000 workers lost their jobs in the Barmac fabrication yard, which is a tragedy for the work force and for the families facing a bleak Christmas without a wage or any earnings. Will he urge the key oil companies—British Petroleum, Shell and Texaco—to bring forward their exploration work in the North sea and provide my constituents with a new year full of hope rather than despair?
    The Prime Minister: There is obviously a limit to what we can do because of the situation in which we find
    298
    ourselves with the maturing of the United Kingdom's oil and gas fields which has caused the downturn in fabrication work and with the 1998 collapse in world oil prices. However, we can try to put all the main bodies together, which we are doing in the oil and gas industry task force. We are looking now at how we can develop the right initiatives to protect the livelihoods and jobs of people in the position of my hon. Friend's constituents. I know the concern about this. We believe that the task force will be able to bring forward proposals that will help such people, though I again have to say that there will be a limit to what we can do given the state of the market.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I assure the Prime Minister that the only Opposition party leader worried about a job application should be the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). It arrived from Kensington and Chelsea yesterday afternoon and gift wrapped in time for Christmas.
    May I return to the exchanges with the Prime Minister last week about policy for the tube in which he dismissed our policy of a bond issue, which would save £150 for every Londoner? He also said that such a policy had bankrupt New York, but a senior former official in New York described that statement as a complete and utter untruth. Will he justify his policy by means of genuine argument and not by inaccurate rubbishing of international comparisons?
    The Prime Minister: I did not say that; I said that New York had gone bankrupt. The bonds were issued not by New York, but by the state government, and they are another matter altogether. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, as I doubt he is, that central Government issue bonds for the London underground, he will have a lot of explaining to do in the course of the election campaign.
    There are three alternatives. The first is the Conservative proposal that was confirmed again last week by the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), which is to privatise the entirety of the tube. The second is the proposal of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) for bonds, but to keep everything in the public sector. That would mean that we would not get the construction work done on cost and to time. The best way—[Interruption.] I am capable of doing my own publicity for that.
    The best way is to have the public sector do what it does best—run the trains and the underground and be responsible for safety and for drivers—and have the private sector come in to do the construction work needed by the tube. The alternative is to leave everything in the public sector, including the construction work. We would be back in the position that we faced with the Jubilee line, which overran by £1.4 billion and came in almost two years late. That would not save people in London money; it would cost them money.
    Mr. Kennedy: But only last week, our mutual friend was telling me that his policy would get the tube completed on time. Seven days later, what has happened? Railtrack has been deemed unable to submit a bid; the Deputy Prime Minister is performing a U-turn; there are further delays to tube improvement, and the

    299
    Government's policy is completely off the rails. Will not the Prime Minister admit that, in seven parliamentary days, his policy has gone from rolling stock to laughing stock?
    The Prime Minister: We have had one Leader of the Opposition's top 10 jokes, and we do not need another from the right hon. Gentleman.
    The policy that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward does not answer my key point. Under that policy, the construction work of the tube would be left in the public sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it would. I had better explain the Liberal Democrats' policy to them. Their policy is to construct the London underground through bonds. Yes? Which are issued by London—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a free-for-all. The Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box.
    The Prime Minister: That policy certainly would not be free for Londoners, and everything would stay in the public sector. If the right hon. Gentleman considers what has happened with the Jubilee line, he will realise the dangers of having that construction work in the public sector. The best way is to let the public sector do what it does well, but get the private sector to do the construction work, which means that the private sector carries the risk and we get the work completed on time and to cost. That is the sensible way, rather than privatising everything or keeping everything as it is, because those two alternatives do not work.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: I welcome very much the Prime Minister's decision to have a review of the Government's policies on the north-south divide, which I know will be much appreciated in the north-west. However, as well as reviewing the Barnett formula in that process, will he encourage my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to consider ways in which we can imaginatively use brownfield sites to bring housing back into our inner cities? I am thinking particularly of ways in which small and medium businesses could be allowed, with concessions, to renovate for housing the areas above their shops.
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that when we came to office we raised the amount of building that had to be done on brownfield sites. We have increased it from the previous Government's figure of about 40 per cent. of new housing and set a target of 60 per cent. We have also increased the amount of greenbelt land. We have to make sure also that we get the right balance in housebuilding in the south, which is why we are now studying the independent report that we have been given.
    There is a real sense in which we have to make sure that the future of our regions is a planned future. Another measure that will help is the regional development agencies, which will be set up throughout the country. Another point that people should note about the shadow Environment Secretary is that last week he gave a firm commitment on behalf of the Conservative party that he
    300
    would abolish every regional development agency. That is something that we will be reminding him about closer to the election.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the Prime Minister aware that all Staffordshire Members of Parliament had a crisis meeting with our chief constable yesterday? Is he aware that after using all reserves and the maximum available council tax, and following the most recent financial settlement, which was announced by the Home Secretary only a few days ago, the chief constable is having to dissolve the rural crime unit and disband 250 men and women from the service, including 165 front-line police officers? Is he aware that that is happening up and down the land? My specific question for the Prime Minister is, does he agree that fewer policemen equals less crime prevention and less crime detection?
    The Prime Minister: That is the reason we are recruiting more officers, after years of falling numbers under the Conservatives. Because the hon. Gentleman raised the same matter the last time he questioned me in the House, I looked up the numbers, and I do not really understand his point. The Staffordshire constabulary had more officers at the end of March 1999 than in March 1997; crime in Staffordshire fell in the 12 months to March 1999; and the funding for Staffordshire constabulary will increase by more than the national average, at 3.3 per cent. In its recent report on Staffordshire, the inspectorate of constabulary said:
    "The force can justifiably be proud of the continuous improvement it has made in an area of crime that is of major concern to many communities."
    That is a good write-up.
    The figures do not appear to accord with the hon. Gentleman's words. I shall, of course, look into the matter, but must point out that, if we compare the funding that we are giving to police services throughout this country with the funding set out in the previous Conservative Government's plans, we find that we are increasing the amount of funding over and above the Conservative plans. That is true, not only in the area of crime, but in schools and hospitals. The one set of people that is not entitled to complain is comprised of Conservative Members of Parliament who supported the previous Government.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister ready to disclose to the House the nature of the discussions he has had with Liberal leaders about their relations? Did they include discussions about a coalition, the possibility of appointing Liberal Members to the Cabinet, or the long-term desirability of a coalition? His answer has a considerable bearing both on the balance within the House and on electors when they come to make up their mind as to the meaning of their vote in any future general election.
    The Prime Minister: The answer is, no, I do not intend to disclose the contents of private conversations. However, my right hon. Friend can look at my Cabinet and see that there are no Liberal Democrat members of it, as far as I am aware.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Today is world AIDS day. Does the Prime Minister agree

    301
    that few of us realise the true scale of the HIV epidemic, with up to one in four adults HIV positive in some parts of the developing world? Is he aware that, in 1998, the United Kingdom recorded the highest number in its history of HIV sufferers diagnosed in one year? Will he make the fight against AIDS, both in the UK and abroad, a Government and a personal priority?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. In this country, there are more than 18,000 people—a larger number than most people realise—living with HIV-AIDS and receiving treatment from the national health service. We are spending £234 million on treatment. Internationally, we are leading on the issue and we are contributing to the effort to find a vaccine. At the Commonwealth conference in Durban, I announced a contribution of £14 million to the international AIDS vaccine initiative; thus, we are the first Government to donate to that initiative.
    Of those with HIV, 95 per cent. live in developing countries. In some of those countries, life expectancy has fallen from the mid-60s to the mid-40s. We have to tackle the problem, not only through international support, but through education. With the Department for International Development, we are working hard in those countries to break down taboos about talking about the issues. In that way, we can get education programmes in place, and funding should then follow.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that support for the working families tax credit and the minimum wage comes from those who benefit from them and from the vast majority of people who support a fair and just society?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the vast majority of people support the minimum wage and the working families tax credit because they are making work pay. One of the reasons why we have managed to reduce unemployment and to increase employment while keeping inflation under control is that we have reformed the tax and benefit system and made work pay. That is why it would be a tragedy if the Conservative party were returned to government. It is pledged to scrap both the minimum wage—it confirmed that again last week—and the working families tax credit. Its return would mean millions of low-income families having their income cut. I cannot think of anything more regressive and foolish.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: This time last week the Prime Minister confirmed to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) that the guarantee of the Secretary of State for Health that no one will be denied the drugs that he or she needs remains valid. In the light of that, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tomorrow his Government, notwithstanding the assurances that were given when the National Institute of Clinical Excellence
    302
    was set up, will attempt to impose by regulation a change in the constitution of that body so that it not only promotes clinical excellence, which is its ostensible function, but explicitly takes into account available resources in doing so? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is tantamount to confirmation that patients will be denied drugs that they need on the ground of cost, and that the Secretary of State's guarantee is worthless?
    The Prime Minister: The idea that the institute should not take into account cost effectiveness is absurd. Of course it should do that. The Conservative party's approach to this issue is one of complete hypocrisy. I shall give the hon. Gentleman three facts. First, we are increasing spending on drugs in the national health service by about 8 per cent. a year. Secondly, for the first time, NHS spending as a proportion of national income under this Government will rise by more than 6 per cent. Thirdly, the additional money that we are putting into the health service—far more money than was ever promised by the Conservative Government—is opposed by the hon. Gentleman's party as reckless and irresponsible. Again, the one group that should not complain is that of Conservative Members, whose answer to the problem of the health service is to privatise a large part of it.
    Mr. Brian White: Given that certain countries in Seattle are trying to limit the agenda of the World Trade Organisation talks, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the British delegation will push for the widest possible discussion so that our objectives of protecting the environment, recognising fair employment laws and tackling world poverty can be achieved?
    The Prime Minister: At Seattle we shall be pushing for free trade because we believe that that is in the interests of the entire world. It is particularly in the interests of the developing world. We are in favour of good labour practices and high environmental standards, but we must ensure that all these things are conducted in such a way that they do not become a back-door form of protectionism, which would be wrong for developing countries.
    In addition, as a result of the initiative on third world debt, 38 of the world's poorest nations will have their debt cut by $100 billion. That has been pioneered by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development. It is something of which this country can be justly proud.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: As a man who fully intends to live with his cancer rather than let it kill him, I have a vested interest in the answer to this question. Is the Prime Minister aware of the enormous discrepancy between the amount of money that is being poured into the cancer that kills most women and the trickle of money that is going into the cancer that kills

    303
    most men, namely prostate cancer? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will keep the matter under review and secure the necessary funding so that the next generation may be at less risk.
    The Prime Minister: That is a perfectly fair point. It is true that we have put more money into breast cancer. We are going to move on to other cancer areas, including prostate cancer. By December 2000 all urgent GP referrals will be seen by a consultant within two weeks. I know that there is still a very long way to go but we will get there. I hope that if we continue with the prudent management of the economy, the three-year good spending round that we have had for this financial year and the next two financial years can be carried on in the later three-year period.
    Jane Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Women's
    304
    National Commission on its 30 years of work to ensure that the voices of women are heard in government, and in particular on its recent work to end the conspiracy of silence surrounding domestic violence?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to congratulate the Women's National Commission on its sterling work over the past 30 years. We recently published a document on domestic violence, and we are giving a great deal of support to women through the first steps national child care strategy, the biggest ever rise in child benefit, the working families tax credit, and extra cash for cervical screening and breast cancer treatment. We are providing support for part-time workers and support through the minimum wage. We are giving many women the chance of paid holiday for the first time in years. Those measures have two things in common: they were all introduced by a Labour Government, and they would all be abolished by a Tory Government.

Wembley Stadium
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of Wembley stadium.
Wembley stadium is synonymous with the best of British sport, and has been the stage for some of this country's greatest sporting achievements. Our aims for the new national stadium that we all want to see at Wembley are to ensure that we have a world-class sporting venue that is ready to seize the opportunities of the new century, and to provide a fitting centrepiece to England's hosting of the FIFA world cup in 2006.
It has hitherto been the desire of this Administration—and, indeed, of the previous Government—that England should have a stadium able to stage a wide range of the world's major sporting events. As the House knows from previous debates and questions, the consistent aim has been to design a new national stadium that can stage the premier events of football, rugby and athletics. Sport England has provided £120 million of national lottery funds to secure that aim.
The design proposals for the new stadium were launched by Wembley National Stadium Ltd. on 29 July this year. The design was for the construction of a stadium laid out for football and rugby, which was, we were assured, capable of conversion into athletics mode for staging both the world athletics championships and a future Olympic games. The designers had come up with a novel solution for meeting the conflicting demands of athletics on the one hand, and football and rugby on the other, by proposing the construction of a concrete deck on which the athletics track could be laid for the holding of an athletics event.
I have to tell the House that, at the time, I was concerned about the viability of the proposed solution, not least because of the length of time—six months or more—that would be involved in the construction and subsequent removal of the deck on any occasion on which it was required. Following the 29 July launch, I therefore asked Wembley National Stadium Ltd. to work up its proposals in more detail and to present them to the British Olympic Association for comment. Following that presentation, which took place on 6 October, the BOA voiced a number of continuing concerns.
As a result of that, my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport called a meeting of all interested parties on 19 October to discuss the project. Those discussions did not satisfactorily resolve the outstanding issues, so my hon. Friend asked UK Sport to commission an independent report on the technical merits of the Wembley National Stadium Ltd. proposals. That report has been prepared by sports architecture expert consultants DLA Ellerbe Becket, and we received it on Monday of this week. I am placing a copy in the Library of the House this afternoon.
I have to tell the House that the report raises serious doubts about the viability of the stadium design for international athletics events. In any likely configuration, the sightlines for large numbers of spectators would be poor, and in some cases could fail Olympic requirements; the seating space for individual spectators would be far
306
from ideal; the roof would cover some lanes of the track and not others; there would be no portal for people and equipment to gain access to the deck; the east-west alignment of the track would be detrimental to athletes; and, for any Olympic games, the deck would have to be constructed and in place for at least a year in advance, which could render the stadium unusable for international standard football for more than two years.
My reluctant conclusion from the Ellerbe Becket report is that the stadium as designed—or in any similar configuration—cannot readily provide the central venue for an Olympic games bid for London. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that it could provide an appropriate venue for the world athletics championships, for which we hope to bid in 2005. It will, however, be able to provide the best venue in the world for the 2006 football world cup.
I am, of course, anxious to give Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and Sport England the opportunity to address the concerns raised by Ellerbe Becket. We should bear in mind that it was a policy requirement of the lottery grant from Sport England that the national stadium should be capable of hosting—or of being adapted to host—both the world athletics championships and the Olympic games, as well as football and rugby league events. Therefore, I have asked both Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and Sport England to report to me by 15 December with any solutions they are able to propose in response to the report. I have also, separately, asked my officials to undertake a thorough analysis of the process of decision making by all parties up to this point.
I am keen not to lose valuable time. Therefore, my hon Friend the Minister and I will begin immediately to discuss with Sport England, UK Sport, UK Athletics and the BOA, other non-Wembley alternatives for staging international athletics events. It may well be that such a cost-effective solution can be found. My officials will also take forward parallel discussions with Sport England, Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and the Football Association on whether and how the current lottery funding agreement might need to be modified if the new Wembley stadium concentrates simply on its primary role as a venue for football and rugby.
I should like to make it absolutely clear to the House and, indeed, to the world in general, that the concerns raised by Ellerbe Becket relate solely to the suitability of the current design for athletics. There is no question of the new Wembley stadium not being at the heart of England's staging of the 2006 FIFA world cup. I continue to believe that the world cup bid is strong, and we will do everything we can to help it to succeed.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy in giving me notice of its sad and disappointing content. The House is united in its support for the development of a world-class national stadium at Wembley, which is recognised around the world as a symbol of sporting excellence and the home of football.
The redevelopment of Wembley has the capacity to act as a focal point for efforts to host major international events. It can also benefit the local environment and regeneration in that part of the capital. However, there is widespread and understandable dismay at the way in which that important national project has been mishandled. Nothing that the Secretary of State has said today will dispel that dismay.

307
The process has dragged on for five years. The original hope—endorsed by the Government as recently as April this year—for the 2003 world athletics championships to be the first major event at the stadium has proved wildly optimistic. Most recently, concern has focused on whether the design of the stadium would be up to the job of hosting an Olympic games. These are not new concerns. The Select Committee raised serious doubts in its report in May this year. It also criticised the
"apparent lack of strategic thinking in the approach to this project by the English Sports Council and the Government."
Why has it taken the Secretary of State so long to respond? Can he confirm that the British Olympic Association wrote to the chief executive of Sport England as long ago as January 1998, seeking to ascertain what thought had been given to the suitability of the venue for hosting the Olympics, and pointing out that no one had sought its views? Can he also confirm that the BOA contacted officials in his Department in March 1998 to set out its concerns, which were repeated in May, July and November 1998 and May, June, July and October this year? Can he explain why his own statements and departmental press releases have repeatedly referred to the ability to host the Olympics when he must have known that the BOA' s view was that the stadium was not up to scratch?
The Secretary of State has told that House that he became concerned on 29 July this year, at the launch of the project—yet at that time he issued a press release describing the design as "stunning". What is stunning is today's announcement of further delay. Will he confirm that, although the International Olympic Committee has no specific requirements as to a minimum capacity for opening and closing ceremonies, it has stated that capacity should be about
"75,000 to 80,000 to be considered adequate"?
Is it surprising that, with all the delay and uncertainty, City investors have begun to feel nervous about supporting the project? He will know that its cost has risen in recent months from £320 million to £475 million, making it the most expensive project of its kind ever contemplated.
Why did the Minister for Sport—who sits there demurely and slightly sheepishly, next to the Secretary of State—wait until the day that the planning application was lodged before letting it be known that she was unhappy with it? She was reported at the time as saying that it was the "wrong kind of stadium". Was not that grossly irresponsible? Does not the Secretary of State face an invidious position that is entirely of his Government's making? Further delay will cost money and confidence and run the risk of undermining our bid to host the 2006 world cup. On the other hand, to proceed to develop a national stadium that is incapable of hosting an Olympic games would be a tragic missed opportunity. How many chances will this country get to build a truly national stadium?
Conservative Members wish the project well and we hope that it will succeed, but can we be assured that there will be no more ministerial incompetence, bickering, interference and failed communications? The sum of today's announcement reflects dither, delay and
308
incompetence, and those have become the Secretary of State's defining characteristics. I offer him three words of advice: get a grip.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that Conservative Members wish the project well, but it was difficult to discern that in his questions. He asked a number of specific questions to which I shall respond. He said that the BOA had written at the start of January and on a number of subsequent occasions to Sport England and to my Department about its concerns. That is the case, and my Department responded similarly on a number of occasions. On 28 May, 2 July and 21 July 1998, and 12 January 1999, my Department had meetings or correspondence with the Sports Council and others, specifically identifying the concerns that the BOA had raised. What the BOA was questioning was the suitability of the stadium for the hosting of a potential Olympic bid.
Everyone involved in the project at that stage consistently assured us—the BOA and Government—that there would be no difficulty in ensuring that such an athletics event could indeed be hosted in an adapted stadium. That assurance was brought into question only when we saw the detailed designs for the first time, in the middle of July this year. As soon as I had seen them I called a meeting for 21 July, at which I made it clear that I was concerned about the particular proposals that were being adopted for the transforming of the stadium into athletics mode. Subsequently, we have asked for further detail, and analysed it together with the BOA. Because the answers were not fully satisfactory, we did what I believe was absolutely the right thing and appointed a distinguished group of outside non-partisan experts to have a look at the detailed design and advise us. That advice came to us on Monday of this week, and we have placed it in the House today, Wednesday.
I can tell the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that yes, we want to avoid further delay; yes, we want to ensure that Wembley can be the centrepiece of our bid for the FIFA world cup in 2006; but yes, we also want to get it right for athletics. Getting it right for athletics does not necessarily mean the current design, nor does it necessarily mean insisting that football and athletics share the same national stadium. That is an issue that we will now examine urgently.
Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government are not putting a single pound into the project, apart from the £120 million of lottery money that has just paid for the site? All the rest must be raised from the City, or from the football authorities.
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that stadiums in Cardiff, Paris and Berlin, and, for instance, Hampden Park, have cost about £100 million, while a figure of £400-odd million is already being mentioned in connection with the new Wembley stadium? Surely it would be better to keep the existing Wembley stadium, renovate it for the purpose of either athletics or football, and then put a separate stadium for either football or athletics beside the Dome, where there is ample room. That is still a brownfield site.
Yesterday, an all-party group met the International Olympic Committee, and last night we met officials from Wembley. It seemed to us that there was very little chance of both sides agreeing, and that we would end up with a

309
camel designed by a committee that had been trying to design a horse. As has been the case for 70 years, the fans inside the stadium will not have a proper view; they will have to stand up to see across to the far side. It will be a disaster, and we and the public auditor will probably have to become involved because of the involvement of, for instance, Brent council.
It is too late to start again, but it is not too late to keep the existing Wembley stadium for either football or athletics and to build a new one beside the Dome.
Mr. Smith: I fear that the existing Wembley stadium is beginning to show its age. If we are serious about wanting to make a substantial bid to host the world cup in 2006, I do not believe that basing it on the existing stadium would necessarily be the best proposition. My hon. Friend is, however, correct in saying that the £120 million that Sport England intends to put into the new Wembley stadium is money from the national lottery, not from the Exchequer.
We must ensure that when Sport England is making difficult decisions about the deployment of lottery money, it weighs up the interests of the different sports of which they must take account. One consideration that we must bear in mind, in the light of the current proposal to insert a deck in the stadium to host athletics, is the sheer cost involved. That money might be better deployed in another way to secure a proper athletics venue.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that it could be argued that the performance to date in this particular game has not been wonderful, but that it is far more useful to concentrate on winning than wondering why we might have failed so far? Given that, I want to ask him a couple of specific questions.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, whatever happens, we will have a replacement for the Wembley stadium? I disagree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—the existing stadium is clearly not up to a bid for world cup football in 2006. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that will be the first objective and that we achieve it?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that if it is possible to come up with a stadium that both fulfils the time constraints for the 2006 football bid and could be enlarged to include athletics and other sports, then, and only then, will such a stadium be considered? Does he feel that the experience in Spain with the Barcelona stadium, in Cardiff with the stadium for the rugby world cup, and with many other stadiums, has led the world of professional sport to conclude that it is better for stadiums that can be used for football and other ball games to be separate from stadiums that can be used for all other sports?
If it is better to have a football stadium at Wembley and a stadium for international athletics, Commonwealth and Olympic games somewhere else, let us do both and not waste money delaying the first and achieving neither.
Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he has approached the issue. His forward-looking remarks contrast sharply with the backward-looking remarks of the official Opposition spokesman.
310
My aim is to ensure that, whatever happens, we have a world-class replacement for the existing Wembley stadium that can act as the centrepiece of our 2006 football world cup bid. That is an absolute aim that must be met.
Is it possible to have a stadium that does both? The answer is yes, in theory, but a perfect athletics stadium is far from perfect for football and rugby, and vice versa. What can be achieved, as the Stade de France in Paris showed, is a compromise between the two—a stadium that allows the space that is needed for athletics events, but at the same time can be used extremely happily for football. However, spectators are much more distant from the pitch than they would be in an ideal football configuration. We are talking about two different animals: one that is good for football, the other that is good for athletics. The two do not necessarily match.
The DLA Ellerbe Becket report identifies that the current solution that Wembley National Stadium Ltd. has come up with does not work particularly well. What we need to do now—I have put the work urgently in hand—is to analyse whether a Stade de France-type solution will work at Wembley; whether the timing of any such solution would endanger our 2006 bid, which we do not want; and whether we need to look at something completely different, which keeps Wembley for football and rugby league and provides a stadium somewhere else for athletics.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend recall the response by the former Minister of Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), to my question:
"what discussions have taken place between representatives of the Sports Council and the British Athletics Federation about the need for an athletics track as part of the new English National Stadium at Wembley"?
He replied
"The British Athletics Federation were fully involved in the selection process for the National Stadium and in defining the requirements for the project. Further discussions with the athletics governing body will take place as the design brief is prepared to discuss proposals for athletics facilities."—[Official Report, 10 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 661–62W.]
In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend pursue with Sport England, which was responsible at that stage for the integration of the facilities, the reason why such involvement and discussions clearly did not take place about the design brief? I understand the Government's dilemma. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said, they have the project at arm's length and have no financial involvement, so it is difficult for them to have the influence at all stages that they might wish.
I tabled a further written question—
Madam Speaker: Order. Other hon. Members want to ask questions. This is an inordinately long question. We are almost having a debate. Please put the question directly.
Mr. Gardiner: The former Minister for Sport said:
"In the event of a breach of the conditions of the Lottery award, the ESC has to right to seek repayment".—[Official Report, 3 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 235W.]

311
Will my right hon. Friend be looking into that to ensure that athletics receives a share of the £120 million, as was planned, and that the Football Association uses that money to contribute to the restructuring of the area under section 146 agreements?
Mr. Smith: I touched on both my hon. Friend's central points in my statement. I have asked my officials to undertake a thorough analysis of the process of decision making that has brought us to this position. The national lottery funding agreement might well need to be modified if what we end up with is not that which was specified in the original agreement. To be fair to Sport England, none of the bodies concerned was able to address the specific difficulties of putting an athletics mode into the stadium until we saw the detailed stadium designs in July this year. Since then, we have put the necessary work in hand to ensure that we get the right answers.
My aim is to ensure that we get a grip on the project, make decisions in the next two to three weeks on how we will take it forward, and then get on and do it.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Secretary of State will recall that I raised concerns about Wembley at Culture, Media and Sport questions on Monday of last week. My fellow officers of the all-party sports group and I are among the many who have been concerned about the subject for some time. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the catalogue of concerns in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth).
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the press is accurate to describe the current position as a fiasco? It is not acceptable for him to say that the BOA was repeatedly writing to his officials, who were repeatedly passing on those concerns. We are left with the impression of his Department as a rudderless ship with nobody at the helm. Is it not inevitable that the buck must stop with him? When he was told by his officials that the BOA was raising concerns, month after month, he should have taken some action.
The previous Minister for Sport, who is very concerned about football and is the Government's representative in the 2006 bid, surprisingly is not in the Chamber this afternoon. He should have insisted on going to the meetings and checking that athletics was being incorporated in the designs. Why did he not do so? Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to apologise for the huge delay and the huge waste? He and the new Minister for Sport—who, to her credit, has at least taken the issue seriously since she was appointed—should play a far more active role in future.
Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's characterisation. However, I recognise all too well the lack of any constructive approach in his comments. The first concrete detailed analysis from an independent source that has been available to enable us to take firm decisions is the Ellerbe Becket report, which we received on Monday of this week.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: In view of the Manchester Commonwealth games configuration of our major stadium—which, of course, is
312
laid out for athletics—is it now too late to bid for the 2003 world athletics championships for Manchester? Is it too late, in the reordering of that bid, to give it to Manchester city and so stop our athletics track being taken out? It would provide a solution for the games.
Whereas very few world cup games would be held at Wembley—they are held throughout the whole of England—the world athletics championships are committed only to Wembley. However, there is no space for a proper warm-up track. In Atlanta, that track was three miles from the main ground—people warmed up, warmed down and got cold on a bus, which then got lost going to the ground. There is not the infrastructure at Wembley to support the world athletics championships, so surely it is timely to look at this matter again
Mr. Smith: Through Sport England, we are putting £90 million into the construction of the new stadium for the Commonwealth games at Manchester, which will be an excellent stadium for those games. It is up to UK Athletics to decide whether it wishes to bid to host the world athletics championships, and where. Its favoured proposition, in everything that it has revealed to us, is that London is the city with the best chance of getting agreement from the International Amateur Athletic Federation. However, that decision is up to that organisation.
My hon. Friend is right about the warm-up track. In order to have either an Olympic stadium or a stadium capable of hosting the world athletics championships, there must be a warm-up track—if possible, immediately adjacent to the stadium or not far from it—of exactly the same size as the main track. That is possible at Wembley, although it would require the acquisition of land which is not in Wembley National Stadium Ltd.'s ownership. However, that is possible to achieve, given the right circumstances.
Mr. John Greenway: What does the Secretary of State think will be achieved by 15 December—which, if I heard him correctly, is the date on which he wants a report back from the further inquiries? What does he expect to happen between now and then—just two weeks time? Is not the reality of what he has told the House today, both in his statement and in the answers that he has given, that he has conceded that the Wembley stadium proposal will not work as both a football stadium and an athletics track?
In that case, the sooner a decision is made, the better, because clearly part of the reason for the huge £475 million cost of developing Wembley—which, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, will be just a football and rugby stadium—is the attempt to incorporate an athletics track. How much time is there left to Wembley and those trying to redevelop it to decide to have only a football and rugby stadium at a lower cost, while not affecting the world cup 2006 bid?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that the sooner a decision is made, the better. I entirely agree. That is why I have given a strict time scale of 15 days for Wembley National Stadium Ltd., in particular, to come back with any answers it might have to the concerns raised in the Ellerbe Becket report. It may be that it has a magic solution in its back pocket that answers Ellerbe Becket's criticisms—but as I said in my statement, I doubt it. If it

313
does—and it must be given that opportunity, as that is only fair and proper—we may be back on track for Wembley to do both. If not, at that point we need to make a firm decision on whether Wembley goes ahead just for football and rugby and we look for somewhere else for athletics.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I very much welcome the fact that we are coming to the point of decision. I believe firmly that Wembley is the right place for football. I do not share others' qualms about investing £120 million of lottery money in sport at Wembley—we have just invested £250 million in the Royal Opera house. I do not object to that, either, but sport is entitled to its share of the lottery provision.
As someone who has had the privilege of playing at Wembley, I know that the conditions there for players, spectators and visitors are appalling. The sooner we get it upgraded, the sooner we will rightly win the bid for 2006.
Mr. Smith: The one thing on which I would disagree is that although the total global cost of the Royal Opera house is £240 million, the investment from the lottery is about £80 million. However, my hon. Friend's point about the importance of upgrading the existing facilities at Wembley and ensuring that we have a truly world-class modern stadium is extremely important.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CHILD SUPPORT, PENSIONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY
  Mr. Secretary Darling, supported by Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Mandelson, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Angela Eagle and Jane Kennedy, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to child support; to amend the law relating to occupational and personal pensions and war pensions; to amend the law relating to social security benefits and social security administration; to amend the law relating to national insurance contributions; to amend Part III of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 and Part III of the Family Law Act 1986; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 9].
  TRANSPORT
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Keith Hill and Mr. Chris Mullin, presented a Bill to make provision about transport: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 8].

European Union
[Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 30th November 1999 (HC 68-i); First Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, on EU Policy and the Environment: an Agenda for the Helsinki Summit (HC 44); and the White Paper (Cm. 4531), Developments in the European Union, January-June 1999.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
4.6 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): This debate gives the House its customary opportunity to discuss the issues before the forthcoming European Council in Helsinki. This is the second European summit under the Finnish presidency. The successful first summit at Tampere stepped up co-operation between member states on access to justice and the fight against crime. Britain left Tampere having secured all our major objectives.
We secured agreement to give British citizens easier access to courts on the continent. The measures that we set in hand at Tampere will be of practical benefit to the millions of British citizens who travel to the continent and the tens of thousands of British business men who do business there.
We agreed on joint action to reduce the flow of illegal immigration and bogus asylum seekers, including programmes to reduce the pressures for migration in the countries of origin, and we secured agreement to proposals by Britain for enhanced co-operation in the fight against organised crime and the prevention of juvenile crime.
In short, the first Finnish summit took some sensible measures that will provide practical solutions to real problems in the lives of our citizens. At Helsinki, we will also consider issues of immediate relevance to European citizens. For example, we will start the preparatory work for the special summit next spring on economic reform, in which Britain is making a leading contribution by arguing for a more open, flexible European economy, better able to compete in the globalised economy.
We expect Helsinki to update the employment guidelines and to adopt a paper on the information society in Europe, both of which measures serve Britain's priority in developing a skilled, flexible labour force and a knowledge-driven industry.
Helsinki will also consider a presidency report on some long-standing negotiations on tax. Britain has chaired the working group on a code of conduct on harmful taxation and we broadly welcome its proposals, which will enable British industry to compete without being disadvantaged by unfair tax breaks to its competitors.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Cook: I will happily give way, but if the hon. Gentleman had waited for the next paragraph, he would have got his answer.
Mr. Leigh: Is it the Foreign Secretary's personal opinion that the euro needs a withholding tax to prosper?
Mr. Cook: No. Britain famously has differences with our partners over the draft directive on the taxation of savings. The directive was conceived long before the euro came into being.
Sir Michael Spicer: In that case, would the Foreign Secretary veto the introduction of such a tax?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the House that we have no intention of agreeing to a tax on savings that does not protect the eurobond market in London. We believe that it is in the interests not only of Britain but of Europe that the market remains in a European location. It is not only Britain but our partners and other financial markets throughout Europe that would lose if the eurobond market in the City of London became uncompetitive around the globe. Therefore, we will resist taxation of the international bond market to protect not just our interests but those of Europe.
We have put forward proposals to meet the objectives of the directive without applying a tax to the bond market. We believe that there are reasonable and sensible ways of meeting both the German concern over the evasion of tax on savings and the British concern to protect the City of London as an international market. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will continue to maintain that position at a special meeting of ECOFIN that will be held in the margins of the Helsinki summit.
Sir Teddy Taylor: On the subject of the code of conduct committee, does it not worry the Government that the report of the Primarolo group for the meeting on Wednesday will not be made public, although copies can be obtained if one telephones Brussels? Why do the Government say that the United Kingdom has undertaken to make the code of conduct principles apply in places such as the Channel Islands when, under the protocol, tax measures cannot be made to apply in the Channel Islands by the British Government? Do the Government believe that they have the power to implement those proposals or not?
Mr. Cook: We are clear with the European Union about the limits of our constitutional responsibilities and, therefore, any commitment that we give with regard to the Crown dependencies or the overseas territories, for which I am personally responsible, is clearly limited by our constitutional capacity to oversee the relevant areas of competence. I stress to the House that the code of conduct is a British initiative, and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) admits, the committee has a British chair. Together with British business, we are keen to ensure the acceptance of the principle that there should not be unfair competition in the form of special tax breaks for our competitors. It is in the interests of British industry that we see that through to success.
I turn now to the main items on the agenda of the summit for leaders. Britain goes to Helsinki with three strategic objectives for the discussions—first, to obtain agreement to the next major wave of enlargement; secondly, to obtain terms for the next intergovernmental
316
conference which will keep it focused on enlargement and enable it to be completed in a reasonable time frame; and thirdly, to obtain a commitment to a stronger security system in Europe and a more effective capacity for Europe to handle crisis management.
Let me take enlargement first. There are already six countries in negotiations for accession to the European Union. That is a major undertaking, but progress has been good. By the end of the Finnish presidency, we will have opened negotiations on two thirds of the chapters of community law. In about half of those chapters, negotiations are now completed. Those negotiations have been co-operative, not confrontational. Both sides to the negotiations have a common interest in securing the success of enlargement.
At Helsinki, Britain will argue that we should now expand negotiations to include the remaining six countries in the accession process.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my compliments to my right hon. Friend on his work in ensuring that the enlargement programme proceeds as smoothly as possible. However, is it not the case that the Commission's target date of 2002 is now, to put it bluntly, unrealistic until certain institutions of the European Union have been reformed?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we have to reform the institutions of the European Union to prepare it for enlargement. I shall deal with that point more fully when I reach the subject of the intergovernmental conference. I disagree that 2002 is an unrealistic objective. It is possible for us to complete the intergovernmental conference in the next year, but only if we keep its terms tightly focused on the issues necessary for enlargement. In the meantime, we are keen to get agreement that the other six countries should start negotiation.
Latvia and Lithuania have made good progress, and Slovakia would have been included in the first wave had its previous Government observed the standards of democracy and pluralism achieved by its current Government. Malta is well placed to join negotiations following the election of a Government committed to reviving that country's application.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited both Bulgaria and Romania during the Kosovo conflict and gave them our pledge that at Helsinki we would support the opening of negotiations for their countries. We do not underestimate the work that both countries have to do before they are ready for membership, but both Governments are realistic and recognise that the steps that they must take to prepare their countries for the EU are the same as those that they need to take to improve their citizens' prosperity and quality of life.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If Bulgaria and Romania are to improve the life of their citizens, has not something to be done about unblocking the Danube? There was a debate in Westminster Hall this morning about the whole Balkan problem, but is not unblocking the Danube of great importance for those two countries?
Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely, and the only country blocking the unblocking of the Danube is Serbia.

317
We continue to make proposals that would allow the unblocking of the Danube to take place. We are willing to help and to provide the technical and financial help to remove the objects that block the river. The only obstacle to that at the moment is Serbia. However, both Bulgaria and Romania loyally supported the NATO and EU position throughout the Kosovo conflict. We owe it to them to open negotiations for membership at Helsinki.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I take the point that my right hon. Friend makes about the support that Bulgaria and Romania provided during the war. However, is he aware that, at a recent meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly in Amsterdam, a Member of the Romanian Parliament said, in a very regretful tone of voice, that 2,500 jobs had been lost in his constituency because the Danube was blocked? Given that NATO bombed those bridges, is there no way that assistance can be provided towards rebuilding them?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both Romania and Bulgaria face real financial and economic costs as a result of the support that they gave us throughout the Kosovo conflict. Those costs arise because traffic is disrupted and because both countries have barges stranded on the wrong side of the bridges in Serbia. Those two countries have made real sacrifices to support the objectives that we pursued in Kosovo.
I can assure the House that we are ready to assist in unblocking the Danube. We want the river to be restored as a free international waterway. We are not prepared to help President Milosevic to claim credit that he does not deserve for the reconstruction of his country.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Ah.
Mr. Cook: I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be surprised at that. If the Opposition want to give credit to President Milosevic, it would be helpful if they would come out into the open and say so.
Mr. Wells: My amazement at what the Foreign Secretary said stemmed from the fact that it seems that the condition for unblocking the Danube—of which I am very much in favour—is that Milosevic should be removed from power.
Mr. Cook: No.
Mr. Wells: That is what I was seeking assurance about.
Mr. Cook: The only person putting a condition on unblocking the Danube is President Milosevic, who is saying that he will not permit it unless we rebuild all the bridges. The Government cannot accept that bargain. I should be very surprised if any Opposition Member recommended that we accept it.
Britain will also be working at Helsinki for a declaration that recognises the status of Turkey as a candidate for EU membership. Negotiations on membership with Turkey will not be possible until it has made progress towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria on human rights. We welcome the improvements in human rights that are being made by the new Government, such as the removal of military judges from the security
318
court, the amnesty for journalists convicted under the media laws, and the proposed removal of immunity for police and prison officers against prosecution.
Much more needs to be done, but we should recognise that the political forces in Turkey working for greater freedom and stronger human rights are also the political forces that look to Europe for their inspiration, and to which Europe should be holding out encouragement.
On Friday, talks begin at the United Nations to resolve the long-standing division of Cyprus. Progress in those talks will help create a climate in which it would be easier to gain support for the recognition of Turkey as a candidate country. Britain believes that Cyprus's accession to the European Union would be easier with a settlement that enabled it to join as a single, united island, but we do not believe that a solution to the division of the island should be a precondition for membership for the Republic of Cyprus. No third country has a veto on the accession of any candidate.
Mr. Mike Gapes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for sending a clear message to the Turkish Government that they cannot block Cyprus's membership by not making progress. Can he also make it clear to the Turkish Government that the treatment of the Kurdish population is important? Although some changes have taken place on language in recent years, Kurdish political activists are regularly imprisoned and Kurdish political parties, including those that do not espouse violence, are persecuted in Turkey.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the formulation that we have followed in relation to Cyprus. I know of his close interest in the matter. On the Kurdish population in Turkey, it is important for both sides in Europe and in Turkey to recognise that respect for minority rights is one of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Copenhagen criteria. We have made good progress on that with several countries already in the accession process and we would expect the same standards to be met by Turkey before negotiations could be started.
The House should beware of regarding enlargement as a one-off process that will suddenly happen on accession day. Much is already happening for the better in central and eastern Europe. Across the region, the rights of ethnic minorities are improving because of the Copenhagen criteria. In country after country, painful decisions on economic reform and trade liberalisation are being taken under the stimulus of access to the single market. The Governments of three separate countries have taken steps to close nuclear power plants because of EU requirements on the safety of the environment.
Each of those candidate countries is making heroic efforts to get ready for membership. We would not be playing fair by them if we did not show the same commitment to getting the EU ready for enlargement. That is why our second objective for Helsinki is to secure a commitment to an intergovernmental conference that prepares the way for enlargement and is kept sufficiently focused to be completed in time for enlargement.
There are three changes to institutions of the European Union that are made more pressing by enlargement. The one in which Britain has the clearest self-interest is the reweighting of votes within the Council. It is a principle

319
of the European Union that the weighting of votes diminishes the difference in size between the member states. Thus Belgium gets five votes, while Britain gets 10, although it is six times bigger than Belgium.
As each successive wave of enlargement brings in more small countries, the disadvantage to the larger countries becomes worse. Britain, France and Germany contain between them a clear majority of the population of the European Union, but they have barely a third of the votes in the Council of Ministers. That disadvantage will get even more marked after enlargement. Unless changes are made, Britain, France and Germany together will not only be a minority but will not even be a blocking minority under qualified majority voting. That is why any further enlargement needs to be accompanied by a reweighting of votes in the Council that more fairly reflects the difference in population between member states.
Of course, we must also get the balance right between procedures that give weight to larger populations while recognising that Europe is a union of equal member states. That is why Britain recognises the importance that each member state, however small, attaches to retaining a seat on the European Commission. There is a practical limit to how big the Commission can become and still remain efficient. That is why all the larger member states are willing to concede their right to a second seat on the Commission. That would enable the probable first wave of enlargement to take place with little increase in the size of the Commission. It is a fair package deal between the large and small nations. The large states would get a fairer share of the votes in the Council and the small states would retain their right to a seat on the Commission. I stress that it is a package. Britain will not concede its second seat on the Commission if there is no agreement to increase Britain's voting strength in the Council.
A fairer weighting of votes in the Council is also relevant to the third issue before the IGC—whether there should be an increase in qualified majority voting. The Government believe that some key matters of national interest are always best resolved by unanimity. That includes issues such as border controls, defence, taxation, social security, own resources and treaty amendments. Neither we, nor many of our partners, intend to accept qualified majority voting in these areas.
For much of the rest of decision making within the European Union, QMV is already the rule. Some four fifths of decision making within the Council of Ministers is based on QMV. As a result, there is limited scope for expansion, but outside the key matters of national interest we are willing to consider the introduction of QMV on a case-by-case basis.
Sometimes Opposition Members appear to be afraid of majority voting because they assume that Britain will always be in the minority. That may well have been their experience in government, but it has not been ours. Our experience has been that if we argue a good case with good will and good presentation, we can mobilise a majority vote. Last year, votes took place in the Council of Ministers on 213 occasions. Britain was overruled only twice, whereas by contrast Germany was overruled 18 times, the Netherlands 15 times and Italy 13 times. Those who insist on the national veto should recognise that the balance of advantage in bringing back unanimity
320
in those votes would have been heavily in favour of Germany and the others, not in favour of the arguments that Britain put forward for its national interest.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Foreign Secretary has just disclosed quite a lot of information about voting in the Council of Ministers, which I understand was previously kept confidential. Is he prepared henceforth to provide all information on voting in the Council of Ministers to the House of Commons Library so that we can have some genuine democratic scrutiny of what is going on?
Mr. Cook: I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman was complaining that I was releasing new information. I hoped that it might inform the House and remove some of the prejudices of his honourable colleagues. It has long been Britain's position—in fairness, under both Labour and Conservative Governments—that there should be more transparency in the Council of Ministers. I personally would have no objection to revealing the votes, but it would be wrong for us to do so unilaterally without the agreement of our partners. We shall continue to argue that case. In the meantime, I hope that the information that I have provided will help to dispel some of the prejudices against qualified majority voting among Opposition Members.
There may even be some cases that are resolved by unanimity at present in which majority voting might be in Britain's interests. Transport is an example in which QMV would help the UK to advance a more liberalising agenda. Similarly, reform of the European Court of Justice would be made easier if its rules of procedure could be agreed by QMV, not unanimity. If we want to make sure that the rules of the single market are policed vigorously and effectively then we need a European Court of Justice that does not take years to reach a verdict.
However, I can assure the House and especially the Opposition that, whatever may be agreed on QMV this time around, it will be as nothing compared with the positive deluge of majority voting that occurred while the Conservatives were in power. They agreed to majority voting on 42 new articles, and they were right to do so. If they had not done so, we would never have been able to forge the single market because we would never have been able to overrule those who wanted to put obstacles in its path.
I congratulate Opposition Members on having been the architects of the biggest expansion of QMV in the history of the European Union. I would congratulate them even more if, given that record, they were now to give up the pretence of being the champions of the veto. It is a fair offer—I hope that they will accept it.
Mr. William Cash (Stone): Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that there is a vast difference between QMV on trade matters compared to, for example, European government matters? Will he assure the House that we will retain the veto for those matters on which other member states want an extension to QMV—defence and foreign policy, for example?
Mr. Cook: I began this section of my speech by saying that we would retain unanimity on defence. There is already a provision—
Mr. Cash: What about foreign policy?
Mr. Cook: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to answer his question. There is already a provision in

321
the foreign policy section for majority voting where there is implementation of an agreed strategy; unanimity is required for that. We see no case for making a change and do not intend to support one. [Interruption.] I am being perfectly frank in my response to the hon. Gentleman's question. However, he seems to care neither to defend the record of the previous Conservative Government in expanding majority voting, nor to accept that the Conservatives cannot now pretend to be champions of the veto.
Our agenda for the IGC is to keep it focused on enlargement. Some other minor items might be included in the agenda, but the Government's view is that any such additions should not be so extensive as to defeat the central objective of preparing the EU for enlargement, and of doing so as quickly as possible.
The Opposition's view, as stated to their conference, is that the IGC should be taken hostage. Last week, their Foreign Affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), accused me of getting their policy wrong. I am anxious to get it right, because it is so wrong-headed that it does not need to be misrepresented in order to be discredited. I have therefore checked what the Leader of the Opposition said to the Conservative conference. He said:
"The new EU Treaty must contain a flexibility clause or else I tell you there will be no new Treaty".
Those words at least have the merit of being clear, if not blunt. They are capable of only one construction, which is, I suspect, shared by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East: unless the rest of Europe agrees to the Conservative vision of a pick-and-mix Europe, there will be no new treaty from the IGC.
The institutional protocol to the Amsterdam treaty is equally blunt. I remember it well because I drafted it at 4 o'clock in the morning in order to end the impasse in negotiations. It provides that, before the date of entry into force of the first enlargement, there shall be reform of the seats on the Commission and the weighting of votes in the Council. The political reality is that if there is no new treaty, there will be no enlargement.
Enlargement is in Britain's own interest. It makes no economic sense for us to oppose the increase of the single market that will come from enlargement.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely enlargement is not in our interest alone. However, will my right hon. Friend assess the damage to our interest resulting from our unpopularity with the candidate countries—indeed, from their hostility—if we were to block their aspirations towards the new Europe?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the second big problem in the Conservative strategy. Someday, those dozen countries will be full members of the European Union. It is in Britain's interests that they should remember us as an ally and as an advocate of their membership. The Conservative strategy would leave the next generation of new members resenting Britain as a country that tried to block the treaty that paved their way to membership. When the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon speaks, he must defend that policy or, better still, tell the House he is going to drop it.
Agreement to the next round of enlargement and to the launch of the new treaty are Britain's two strategic objectives for Helsinki. However, there is a third: to take
322
forward the work on the European security initiative. This is a British initiative. It was initially proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Portschach European summit and was endorsed at the subsequent UK-French summit at St. Malo. Over the year since then, we have built up strong support for it among all member states, culminating last month in the first ever joint meeting of the Foreign and Defence Ministers of the European Union. This is not a case of Europe imposing a burden on Britain; it is an example of Britain shaping the agenda of Europe.
Britain took that initiative because it is right. Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo have all shown that crisis management requires a joined-up approach that brings together the economic, financial and humanitarian assets of the European Union and the military assets of the European countries in NATO; but if we are to achieve that, we must address three priorities, and we shall address all of them at Helsinki.
First, the European Union must develop a more coherent and more urgent capacity for crisis management. I shall not readily forget the crisis of the first tidal wave of refugees to reach Macedonia, when Europe's response was handicapped because it was Easter weekend. That is why we now propose a standing political and security committee of senior officials, which will provide a permanent mechanism for implementing the common foreign and security policy and responding swiftly to emerging crisis.
Secondly, we need better transmission between the European Union, which is where we agree our common foreign policy, and NATO, which is the organisation to which we commit our military assets. That is why we are proposing a military committee, which would enable the European Union, in a crisis, to draw on expert and realistic advice on the feasible military options. It would be Britain's intention, and that of many of our partners, to double-hat our military representative to NATO as a member of that committee.
Thirdly, all the improvements in decision making will make no difference in practice if we do not have the capability to carry them out. Britain has already, through the strategic defence review, reshaped our military forces to enhance their capability for rapid, flexible deployment in a crisis; but Kosovo did expose for Europe as a whole a real problem in projecting effective military assets from immobile standing armies. That is why we are advocating that the European nations, co-operating together, should set themselves the target of being able to deploy, within 60 days, a corps level of military force and to sustain it in the field for at least a year.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Has it occurred to the Foreign Secretary that, with five member states of the European Union being neutrals, with some of them not being members of NATO, and with the United States of America of course not being a member of the European Union, there are many complications in what he proposes, and that the solution that he is talking about will create additional problems instead of resolving the problems that he instanced initially?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that this is a complex matter. We have had extensive discussions with the five members of the

323
European Union that are not members of NATO. Today I met the Foreign Minister of Sweden, who confirmed that she had no concerns about the way in which we have reshaped our proposals for Helsinki. We expect support from Finland, which will hold the presidency in Helsinki. We have also had extensive discussions with those members of NATO that are not members of the European Union.
This process is not suddenly being proposed; it has been continuing for a year, and now has unanimous support in the European Union and unanimous support in NATO. I doubt that any rational Member of the House could genuinely object to a prudent investment in stronger security for Europe. The Government's initiative has the full support of the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] Those wonderful, rational Members. A joint paper arguing the case for it is one of the products of our joint consultative committee.
Even the Conservative party has not dared criticise the initiative for what it is. The criticisms that there have been are criticisms of a grotesque caricature of it—a fantasy that exists only in the Conservatives' imagination. Let us therefore be clear in our minds about what is being proposed. This initiative is about crisis management, humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping—the missions that the Opposition themselves agreed to in office as the Petersberg tasks. It is not about collective territorial defence. That is and will remain a job only for NATO. Nor does it prevent NATO from carrying out those tasks of crisis management if it wishes to do so. Only last week, the Anglo-French summit adopted a joint text that explicitly states that Europe will act only where NATO as a whole is not engaged.
None of that has stopped Conservative Members roaming the globe claiming that we are plotting the end of NATO. Their defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), went to Washington and told members of Congress:
"European nations have embarked on a course which we consider will damage critically and even potentially destroy NATO".
Just to show that he was not prejudiced against the British Government alone, he also threw in some gratuitous insults against our German allies.
There used to be a convention that Opposition Members, while abroad, refrained from criticism of the Government. In this case, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green not only ignored the convention but deliberately went abroad to lobby against the British Government and their allies. If we had ever done that in opposition, Conservative Members would have loudly denounced us as disloyal, irresponsible and unpatriotic.
Mr. Cash rose —
Mr. Cook: I have already given way to hon. Gentleman once. Will he forgive if I do not give way to him again, because once was quite enough for me?
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Foreign Secretary's comments are a bit rich from someone who supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament during the cold war. On the more serious point, the right hon. Gentleman said that the process would produce a deployable corps of
324
European forces for a year. I begin to doubt that it will. Does he appreciate how big a corps is? I wonder where those troops will come from. However, if such a corps is produced, the problem is that the United States will look constantly to Europeans to deploy that force. Its commitment to NATO and to the joint political and military commitment that has sustained the west and the transatlantic alliance will begin to disappear.
Mr. Cook: Before coming to the House, I read the telegrams that have come from Washington. The telegram about the discussions held with the State Department yesterday on the Anglo-French communiqué contains the report that the State Department had been over the document with a fine-toothed comb and could find nothing in it of concern to it.
The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Neither I nor any of my colleagues at any time when we were in opposition went before a Congressional Committee to argue against the stated foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. I would have no problem if the defence spokesman for the Opposition came to the House to argue his case and to criticise the Government. However, we object to the fact—Conservative Members would have objected to this when they were in office—that such criticisms were made before a foreign power and before the Committee of a another Parliament.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I wish to continue my speech.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was not only wrong in his conduct, but he was wrong in his facts. Far from weakening NATO, the improved military response that we demand will provide resources not just for the European Union but for NATO. The Government are firmly committed to NATO as the cornerstone of our defence. It is because of our commitment to NATO that we were able to play a key role in maintaining the cohesion and resolve of the alliance through the Kosovo conflict. It is because of that commitment to NATO that we were able to secure the appointment of one of our colleagues, Lord Robertson, as the head of NATO. What is damaging to the alliance is any attempt to play party politics in Washington and to sow unjustified doubt about Britain's commitment to NATO.
The agenda for the Helsinki summit throws into sharp relief the different European strategies of the Government and the Opposition. We go to Helsinki to make a success of the summit and to get agreement to a new treaty, progress on enlargement and stronger European security. If they had the chance, Conservative Members would go to the summit to veto the new treaty and thereby block enlargement and stop the European security initiative. They would do so not because of any calculation of Britain's national interests, but because of a prejudice against Europe.
This Government understand the enormous benefits that our membership of the European Union has brought Britain. We know that we shall best secure the future of Britain by making the most of that membership.
The free movement of goods has removed barriers to our exports. The free movement of capital has strengthened the City of London. Recognition of our

325
professional qualifications has helped 100,000 British citizens to take up work in the European Union. Our strength in the world is greater, not weaker, as a result of our membership of the European Union. In the current trade talks, Britain is able to promote British interests more effectively as part of a European bloc than we would ever be able to do on our own.
It is in Britain's interest that Europe should be a success. We shall therefore work to make a success of the Helsinki summit. Its agenda offers the prospect of a European Union that is wider, European institutions that are more effective and a European security that is stronger. We ask for the support of the House in working for those objectives that serve both the future of Europe and the interest of Britain.
4.45 pm
Mr. John Maples: This is the first occasion on which we have had a debate on Europe with the new Minister responsible for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), in his place. We are delighted to welcome him to his new job. The average life expectancy of people in his office is falling; it is currently about 10 months. The previous occupant was in the post for a few weeks, although at least he got promoted.
The hon. Gentleman comes to the post at a vital time, with the intergovernmental conference, in which he will no doubt have to play a significant role, about to start. In that respect, I hope that he turns out to be a better negotiator than his boss, whose tenure in office has not been characterised by diplomatic finesse and subtlety. It has in fact been characterised, particularly in the European Union, by a succession of surrenders, rather than negotiation.
We signed the social chapter and got absolutely nothing in return. At Amsterdam—[HON. MEMBERS: "Last week's speech."] There is much more in it than there was last week. I just want to remind the Foreign Secretary of his shortcomings. At Amsterdam, he gave up our veto in 16 areas and got nothing in return. The European security and defence identity, about which I shall have more to say later, is a complete U-turn on what he was saying after the Amsterdam treaty. It is a bit much for him to accuse us of being wrong because we do not share his objectives when he himself did not share them until about a year ago. Apparently, all that was done to get good will, and all I can say is that it was a very high price to pay for good will that, so far, seems to have achieved nothing.
I do not know whether you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, in the 1980s, there was a Danish politician who suggested that the Danes should scrap their defence budget and buy a tape recorder with a tape that said endlessly, "We surrender", in Russian. That is a policy of which the Foreign Secretary would no doubt have approved in his CND days, and old habits obviously die hard. We should like to see him, from time to time, standing up for Britain's interests rather than simply surrendering to other people's interests.
What has the Foreign Secretary done over the past two and a half years to get the single market completed? What has he done to stop a raft of damaging, costly regulation under the social chapter? What has he done in the European Union to stop the scandal of the Gibraltar border, which is a clear breach of the treaties? He first
326
mishandled that matter at Amsterdam, and subsequently on Spain's entry to NATO's military command. Since then, there has been masterly inactivity while the border remains blocked. Why does he not get the Commission to take Spain to the European Court over that matter?
I sometimes wonder why the Government bother to go to summits at all, since, when they get there, they just go along with what others propose. They could save themselves a lot of money and trouble by just sending a power of attorney. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
"Britain's seat is never so empty as when the Prime Minister is sitting in it."
The Foreign Secretary's incompetence has been added to by farce. We now have a bus called EUnice going around the country. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want to intervene, I will be happy to take interventions, but there should be no barracking.
Mr. Giles Radice: Where is the lorry that we were promised?
Mr. Maples: That will be a much more sophisticated operation than EUnice, which is a pretty corny name even for a bus. It must have been Alastair Campbell's day off when they dreamed that one up. I thought that a classicist in the Foreign Office might have come up with Eurydice, but perhaps that is a little too complex for Foreign Office Ministers. The Minister with responsibility for Europe will have to put himself through the awful business of making a terrible fool of himself touring the country with Eddie Izzard. That shows what the Prime Minister thinks of the Foreign Office: he allows his tennis partner, Lord Levy of blind trust, to do the middle east and Eddie Izzard and EUnice to do Europe.
The name EUnice is perhaps more appropriate than the Government think, for the characteristics attributed to one who bears the name are a "tendency to make promises" that she cannot keep and
"to be lavish … and spend money freely".
Nothing could more accurately reflect the Government's attitude to Europe, or Europe's freedom with its own budget. There is a surprisingly large choice of words beginning with "EU", the two most appropriate to the Government being euphemism and eunuch—hype coupled with impotence—as they have so often characterised their diplomacy. All that would be a farce, were it not costing £60,000 of taxpayers' money, with what the parliamentary answer calls "travel and accommodation" on top—since the bus has recently been in Paris, I imagine that that did not come cheap.
All that is being done to
"set out the benefits of Britain's membership of the EU".
I wholly support that objective, and concur with many of the Foreign Secretary's assessments of those benefits— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] My saying that is nothing new. However, if that is the right hon. Gentleman's objective, he has been extraordinarily unsuccessful. The British social attitudes survey published in yesterday's Financial Times reveals that opposition to EU membership is now at an all-time high, with more than 50 per cent. of the British population wanting either to leave the EU, or to reduce its powers. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would do better to stay at home.

327
The truth is that EUnice, like the national changeover plan, is part of the Government's plan to take us into the single currency by stealth. The Government dare not come out and say so, but that is their purpose.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he wants to keep Britain permanently out of the single currency?
Mr. Maples: Never is an extremely long time in politics. My view of the single currency is that of my party: that we should stay out of it until it has passed through at least one economic cycle, including a recession. In addition, there are significant economic and constitutional obstacles to joining. The hon. Gentleman knows that our policy for the next general election is to campaign on not joining the single currency for the duration of the next Parliament. That contrasts with the Government, who are trying to take us in by stealth.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I thank the hon. Gentleman for the wide publicity he has given to the Government's Euro-roadshow. In the six cities that I have visited over the past two days, the bus has been warmly welcomed, and those who have welcomed the Government's action include several Conservative councillors in Newcastle.
Mr. Maples: I am delighted to hear that the pantomime is a success.
One of the serious issues facing the European Union, which is not on the agenda for Helsinki although I am sure that it will be discussed, is the millennium round of trade negotiations in Seattle. The Conservatives are committed to trying to achieve global free trade within the next 20 years, and transatlantic free trade far sooner than that. The EU will have a vital role to play in Seattle and in the meetings that follow. There have been some encouraging noises, but we must bear in mind how Leon Brittan's initiative to create a North Atlantic marketplace was effectively vetoed by France. I hope that that does not happen again. Almost all members of the EU share the view, held by the Foreign Secretary and me, that free trade is a good thing.
Tariffs are a tax on consumers. Why should EU consumers pay 9 per cent. on imported chocolate, 10 per cent. on imported biscuits and 13 per cent. on imported clothes? Why are there apparently special taxes on parking meters and life jackets? The EU has 15,600 separate import duties and 10 per cent. of the revenue gained from them is spent on collection. A recent study by a French economist estimates that the cost to the EU of that protectionism is between 6 and 7 per cent. of its gross domestic product: that is £300 billion a year, or the equivalent of nearly £1,000 per consumer and about £150,000 per job saved as a result of that protectionism. That is a bad deal for European consumers and businesses. The EU should now show that it is serious about free trade by stating its willingness during the millennium round to make a bonfire of most of its tariffs.
I know that the common agricultural policy will be a difficult hurdle. Commissioner Lamy was saying as much yesterday and today. However, reform of the CAP must

328
come about if we are to succeed in this trade round, and I hope that we are all committed to that. Tariffs and quotas are the discredited apparatus of mercantilism and they have no place in the 21st century. We would like to see the EU take a lead in the global drive towards free trade.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Eighteen years.
Mr. Maples: A huge amount has been achieved in the past 18 years. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman noticed the Uruguay round. He probably did not. He was probably too busy interjecting in other people's speeches from where he sits. The Uruguay round gave a huge boost to world gross domestic product.
Last week, I spent a long time on the subject of the European security and defence identity and, today, the Foreign Secretary spent a long time on it. It is scheduled for discussion in Helsinki. We should not forget that, a year ago, the Government thought that the EU had no role in this area. After the Amsterdam negotiations, the Prime Minister prided himself on how he had succeeded in vetoing the French-German initiative to give the EU capability or some role in military matters. The Foreign Secretary said the same thing after Amsterdam. However, the Government have done a 180 deg U-turn.
It is no good, as they did last week, the Foreign and Defence Secretaries pretending that there is no United States concern about the matter. The US is wholly behind the idea, as are we, of Europe beefing up its defence capabilities within NATO, but neither the US nor we like the idea of this development moving outside NATO, as it appears to be doing. We believe that this will end up as a threat to NATO, and I shall explain why.
After last week's debate, we had the Anglo-French summit, when these matters were considered more closely. As the communiqué states, military co-operation was approved in developing
"rapid capability goals in the fields of command and control, intelligence and strategic lift".
Those things are currently supplied by the United States. The communiqué said that that would involve costly duplication of intelligence and command-and-control mechanisms. It added that there should be a military committee and military structures set up with a military staff under the EU, and that is outside NATO.
As recently as June, the Foreign Secretary was saying that there was no question of a European army. However, two or three weeks ago, we were talking about a Euro Corps of 40,000 people. At the summit with the French, we were talking about 50,000 to 60,000 people. The Italian Defence Minister is now quoted in L'Unità as calling for a European army of 120,000 people. It is no good the Foreign Secretary pretending that there is no such agenda. He is playing with fire. He is playing along with an agenda that he does not control and that I believe that he does not understand. It is dangerous, and it will undermine NATO.
Anglo-French military co-operation is not new and the Government did not invent it. However, it is a very good thing and we wholly approve of it. We are the two most serious military powers in Europe with the ability to project force. We have had a combined air group for a long time. There have been many combined naval exercises and our armies often find themselves doing things together.

329
Any additional momentum that can be given to interoperability—for example, the ability to land on each other's carriers or use each other's heavy lift capabilities—is to be welcomed. However, I believe that command and control of any European operation must be within NATO. That is now in danger of developing outside NATO and, if that move takes place, it is bound to become a competitor to NATO. The EU nations will meet first to discuss their views and then they will go to NATO. That is what frightens the United States.
The United States made its views clear at the Washington summit. It set out three tests. First, it said that there should be no duplication, but setting up new command-and-control systems, military committees and intelligence-gathering apparatus involves expensive duplication at a time when the American Secretary of Defence is criticising the Germans for how little they spend on defence. However, they want to involve themselves in expensive duplication.
Countries outside the EU but within NATO, such as Turkey, Norway, Poland and Hungary, are discriminated against. Turkey and Norway have been valuable NATO allies for a long time. For the reasons that I have set out, the present moves will lead to the decoupling of the United States. All this might be worth while if we were prepared to spend the money to build a real European capability and then say, "We want to control this without the United States." However, that is a fantasy. Governments are cutting their defence budgets. This Government have cut the defence budget by £1.2 billion a year over the course of this Parliament. The defence budget in Germany is being cut by 10 per cent. We are in danger of getting the worst of both worlds: a weak European Union and a weakened NATO.
It is no good pretending that the United States is not worried about this; it is. United States Secretary of Defence Cohen is paying a surprise visit to Europe this week, I suspect as a result of what has gone on in the various Franco-Italian, Franco-German and Franco-British summits that have taken matters forward. He wants to make sure that the US view is known before we all go to Helsinki.
Ms Rachel Squire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Although I disagree with much of what he says, I welcome the fact that the points are being made in the Chamber. Will the shadow Foreign Secretary give an assurance that he will not follow the example of the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and cross the Atlantic to give evidence to a Congressional Committee that attacks the policies of this Government?
Mr. Maples: The committee was not attacking what the Foreign Secretary says the Government's policy is. He says that it is no threat to NATO. I will give no such undertaking. The matter is so serious and the Government are making such a serious mistake, with the fundamental security interests of the country at stake, that we are right to do everything that we can to stop them.
The Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary may be able to kid their Back Benchers, the public and us, but I hope that they are not kidding themselves. What they are doing is extremely serious. If I am right and the Foreign
330
Secretary is wrong, the country will pay a high price for that mistake. If he studies what some of his European counterparts are saying, he will find that their view of where matters are going is different from his.
It was reported in The New York Times that, after the summit, the French Foreign Minister acknowledged that
"France was out in front of some of its allies in arguing that a European reaction force should be able to operate with complete autonomy even if it was put together from units that formally belonged to the alliance."
That is new.
In the same article, the French Defence Minister is reported as speaking to his European colleagues in Brussels about the need for stronger European defences. The article continues:
"Richard said not a word about the relationship that a European military staff would have to NATO."
As the Frankfurter Allgemeine pointed out, the real question is whether the European countries are ready to spend the billions of dollars that it would take for them to catch up with the United States. Clearly, they are not prepared to do so.
There has been no explanation from the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister why, a year ago, they did a 180 deg flip-flop on the subject. If they had gone into the election setting out their present view of the role of the European Union, that would have made sense, but they have done a 180 deg U-turn, with no explanation at all.
Why did the position change so radically between Amsterdam and St. Malo? We have never had an explanation for that. We suspect that it is all because the Prime Minister was worried about Britain not being in the first round of the euro, and the kind of reception that he would get at the summit. Indeed, we know that that is the reason because, if there were a better reason, we would have heard about it from the Foreign Secretary today, or after the St. Malo summit. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) for giving evidence to Congress, but we find it appalling that the Government are prepared to sell out Britain's long-term security interests for a weekend's headlines—for a weekend's public relations. The country's interests ought to be more important than that. We shall fight the Government's policy all the way.
The Foreign Secretary was radically wrong in the cold war. He was a supporter of unilateral nuclear disarmament and he has been proved to be wrong. His judgment is no better now. He has allowed himself to be the tool of an anti-American lobby, to which many in France and many in his party have long belonged. If the policies that he is pursuing damage NATO and our security, this country, whose interests and security he seems so little to understand, will have paid an extremely high price.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the riposte to the evidence of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) to the Congressional Committee was given by Elmer Brock, who was the leading member of the Christian Democrat Union in Germany—a party that one would assume to be related to the same political family as his own? Does not

331
the fact that that riposte was given by a Conservative from Germany reflect the almost total isolation of the hon. Gentleman's party in this field, as in all European fields?
Mr. Maples: I shall never feel isolated while the United States is on my side. My hon. Friends and I know Elmer Brock well; we share some of his views, but not the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I want to consider other matters that will be raised in Helsinki, if only at the margins. It is time to kill off the withholding tax; the Government should have done that a long time ago. It would have done better for the City and our relations with European Union partners if the Government had said from the start that they would not tolerate the tax and that they would veto it. Instead, a great deal of damage has been done. The Treasury's paper on the withholding tax, which was published in September, states:
"The proposed directive is already having an impact on the market … Swiss bankers have been reporting unprecedented capital inflows since the Spring of last year."
The uncertainty is causing enormous damage. We handled the matter by saying that we would not tolerate it and that we would not even discuss it. However, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary have given supporters of the tax a little hope and, consequently, a messy compromise will be proposed. [Interruption.] Why do the Government continue to negotiate about it? It has been said that we will have a withholding tax if the eurobond market can be accommodated. It should have been made clear that the European Union has no role in setting individual countries' tax policies and that we would use our veto. If there is an opportunity to kill off the withholding tax at Helsinki, we should take it because that would be better not only for the bond market but for our relations with our European partners.
It is ridiculous for the German Finance Minister to blame the weakness of the euro on the lack of a joint approach to the withholding tax. Its weakness is due to all sorts of other reasons, which may prove to be temporary. The euro may bounce back.
Mr. MacShane: Ah!
Mr. Maples: Currency values go up and down. It is not surprising that a new currency is initially weak.
The drive for harmonisation will not stop with the withholding tax. We will be told that our corporation tax rate is unfairly low, and we will be asked to increase that to meet standards in Europe. The Foreign Secretary shakes his head complacently. However, time and again, Conservative Members have witnessed initiatives, which began by being small and specific, becoming wider and general. For example, the social chapter began as a social charter—a series of aspirations that were not intended to have legislative effect—but where are we now? The working time directive costs £2 billion.
I want to consider droit de suite, which is the effective tax on art sales that the European Union wants to impose on everyone. It may succeed in doing that, because the proposal is subject to qualified majority voting. It is a classic example of a European Union directive that will simply increase business costs and drive business abroad.
332
One or two countries have that ball and chain round their ankles, and they are trying to use the European Union to shackle everyone else.
To give it its due, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has fought hard. Ministers have pointed out in parliamentary answers that £750 million of sales a year could be lost and that many jobs could be put at risk. No one gains from this beggar-my-neighbour policy. I hope that the Government's attempts to prevent its adoption are successful. However, if the new relationship with the European Union and the good will that has been bought at the heavy price of true British interests is not good enough to stop the directive, which uniquely damages Britain, or to allow the Foreign Secretary to tell our partners that it is important to stop it because many jobs in London are at stake and businesses will be driven to Zurich or New York, the relationship has not been worth it.
The single market will also be considered in Helsinki. An enormous amount of work remains to be done. The Commission's primary task for the next two or three years should be to concentrate on opening the markets in telecoms, utilities, airlines and financial services. There are too many blocks in the single market's way.
The Foreign Secretary said that the agenda for the intergovernmental conference was one of the most important items for discussion at Helsinki. I agree, and if the agenda is restricted to the items that the Foreign Secretary specified, we shall not have much trouble with it. The European Union has taken far too long to start serious negotiations about including the countries of eastern and central Europe. Their inclusion requires institutional, but only minimal, change—the unfinished business from Amsterdam needs to be dealt with.
There needs to be redistribution in respect of the number of Members of the European Parliament, and votes in the Council of Ministers need to be reweighted. I would like there to be a dual majority and a population threshold should be introduced as a second tier of qualified majority voting. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the relative influence of the larger states should be increased, although the smaller states must have influence as well, and perhaps a two-tier voting system on qualified majority voting is the way to solve that problem. I agree that that needs to be achieved and should be happy for it to be done on those lines.
The Government appear to be ready to concede our second Commissioner. That would be a big sacrifice for us to make, but I agree with the Foreign Secretary that a Commission of 30 or 35 people is unthinkable. Such a concession would be acceptable only if there are significant changes in the balance of power in the Council of Ministers. We have to sort that problem out and must have that in the bag before we give up our second Commissioner.
I have the greatest fears about the extension of qualified majority voting. The Government have laid out a serious of categories in which they say that they will not give up our veto, and I hope that we can rely on that, but I have to say to the Foreign Secretary that Ministers from other Governments, and certainly the Commission, want to go a great deal further. The Government appear to be ready to concede in some areas, and I hope that they will stop at the two or three that he named but, if he has read Chancellor Schröder's speech to the Assemblée Nationale

333
yesterday, he will have seen that the German Chancellor, who wants much more qualified majority voting, does not share his view.
Mr. Leigh: We are constantly told that we need qualified majority voting to be extended if an enlarged EU of up to 25 nation states is to make any progress at all, but what great queue of directives that are in Britain's national interest will come about only because of such an extension? Will my hon. Friend confirm that our policy remains what it was at the European elections—no extension of qualified majority voting?
Mr. Maples: I agree with my hon. Friend; that remains our policy. I believe that the objectives of enlargement and institutional reform can be achieved without the extension of qualified majority voting.
Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Maples: May I make a little progress?
I am concerned about the call for new powers for the President in the nomination and selection of Commissioners. Mr. Prodi has made it clear that there is no doubt in his mind, or anybody else's, that he wants the Commission to be the Government of Europe and himself to be its President. I do not believe that we should cede those powers to the President of the Commission; they should remain with the Council of Ministers, which is properly and democratically accountable.
What really worries me about the IGC is that the agenda outlined by the Foreign Secretary is not the one that the President of the Commission has. When he was appointed President, he formed a committee—the so-called wise men's committee—of Simon, Dehaene and von Weizsäcker to look at degrees of institutional reform that would be necessary to make a much larger Community work. Its report is just what he wanted because it gives him the agenda that he wants, which is very dangerous and one that many others share.
The report calls for a massive extension of qualified majority voting to almost everything else: justice, home affairs, common foreign and security policy and some taxation issues. It calls for the EU to be given legal capacity—effectively, to be made a state—for the purposes of international negotiations and making treaties and for the division of treaties into two texts, one of which could be amended by qualified majority voting. We are now talking about surrendering the veto not only over tax, home affairs and justice, but over future treaty amendments. The Prodi agenda talks about integrating into treaties a charter of fundamental citizens rights, although the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East, has said that the provision is not intended to be enforceable. I hope that he is right, but his intention is not shared by Mr. Prodi and others—they want it to be enforceable.
As we have seen before, such things start small—as a good intention and good words—and I have referred to the example of the social charter. It was never intended to be a basis for legislation but, within five years, it had become the social chapter. Ministers should be careful because things that start as sentiments and expressions of
334
good intention wind up in the law of the European Union. Mr. Prodi makes no bones about his agenda; that is what he wants and many other European politicians share that aim. However it is wrapped up, it is an agenda for a European super-state and the Commission would become the Government of Europe, which is totally unacceptable to us and, I believe, to most British people. That is the ultimate dividing line and, if the Government allow it to be crossed, we shall inevitably be on a one-way street to a single European state.
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, instead of simply saying that he intends to keep the veto in relation to defence, border controls and tax, it is time that the Foreign Secretary declared categorically that he will vote to stop in its tracks any treaty that removes or diminishes our national veto in any of those three areas?
Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend has made a good point. I raised that very question with the Foreign Secretary three and a half weeks ago, during Foreign Office questions. One of the reasons for my doubts about whether the Foreign Secretary really means what he says about going to the intergovernmental conference at Helsinki and maintaining our veto is the fact that, on that occasion, he refused to give the commitment that I sought—the commitment that my hon. Friend seeks now.
Mr. Robin Cook rose—
Mr. Maples: Before I give way to the Foreign Secretary, let me make clear what the question is. [Interruption.] It is not possible to answer a question without knowing what that question is.
If the treaty contains provisions that erode the veto in regard to any of the issues that we are discussing, will the Government refuse to sign it?
Mr. Cook: If the Government go to Helsinki, as we are committed to doing, and oppose qualified majority voting on those issues, there will be no treaty making such a proposal for us to sign. The hon. Gentleman seems not to understand what actually happens during negotiations of this kind. Let me explain our position, for the avoidance of doubt. Our position is that unanimity will remain on all those issues and, if we do not agree to what is proposed during the negotiations, there will be no such treaty.
I am delighted to discover that the hon. Gentleman apparently shares my view of what the agenda for the intergovernmental conference should be. Will he now explain what his leader meant when he said, "The next treaty will contain a flexibility clause, or there will be no treaty."? Does the exchange that took place at the Dispatch Box mean that the Conservatives have dropped their commitment to a flexibility clause, or have they recognised that they cannot in all conscience ask for enlargement in such circumstances?
Mr. Maples: I dealt with this matter at length in last week's foreign affairs debate. [Interruption.] I did. I spoke at length about what we wanted in terms of a flexibility clause, and our policy remains the same. If the treaty has been negotiated but not ratified at the time of the next general election and if we form the next Government, we shall negotiate the inclusion of a

335
flexibility clause along the lines that we have described, and we shall not accept a treaty that does not contain such a clause.
Mr. Cook rose—
Mr. Maples: I have already given way to the Foreign Secretary. [Interruption.] I have already given way to him.
What I said to the Foreign Secretary was exactly the same as his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The Foreign Secretary said that he would not sign a treaty in those circumstances; indeed, he said that there would be no such treaty. Effectively, the right hon. Gentleman has said that there is no way that the British Government, represented by him, would put their name to such a treaty. We are saying exactly the same: that is what we would do if we could not get what we wanted.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman and I are not saying the same thing at all. I can stop any qualified majority voting on those issues, because unanimity would be required for a change to be made. The hon. Gentleman's problem is that inserting a flexibility clause would require unanimity, and no one else in Europe supports him. I repeat my question. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that a Conservative Government would block the treaty, and block enlargement of the European Union?
Mr. Maples: I have made it clear that the answer to the question, "Would we refuse to sign the treaty in such circumstances?" is yes. Enlargement is proceeding separately—[Interruption.] It is. The enlargement negotiations are taking place with each—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I cannot allow hon. Members—or right hon. Members, for that matter—to shout at each other across the Floor.
Mr. Maples: The enlargement negotiations are proceeding separately, and the timetable relating to them will come into effect considerably later than the Helsinki treaty, or the Lisbon treaty, or whatever it will be called. I think that the earliest new accession will be in 2004. There is plenty of time in which to sort this out. I must say that I have rather more faith in my party's negotiating abilities in those circumstances than I have in the right hon. Gentleman's.
Flexibility is one of the issues on the Helsinki agenda, and it is one of the issues that a fair number of other people want to discuss. They want to talk about flexibility—about some countries proceeding with further integration at a faster rate than others. What we want is flexibility in both directions, as I explained in some detail last week. We must not just allow deeper integration on the part of some countries; we must allow others to integrate at a slower pace.
The final item on the agenda that I want to mention is the millennium declaration, which is supposed to be a statement of vision of the European Union into the next millennium. Given the Foreign Secretary's speech, there is not much chance that the Government will
336
contribute much, as they have to wait to be told by others what their vision is. I suspect that they will just carry on as usual.
What really worries me is that the Prodi vision will be the vision that is outlined as the "aspiration" in that declaration: massive extension of qualified majority voting, more power for the Commission—in short, an integrated Europe. The vision is of a European super-state, in which business will become increasingly uncompetitive, in which calls for protectionism will be heard, in which NATO will be fatally undermined, and in which the voice of the nation state will inevitably be subsumed.
That is one vision of Europe. It is widely held. It is the vision that the Government dare not challenge, but we have a different vision. It is of an outward-looking, free market, free trade, competitive Europe, whose security is founded on the Atlantic alliance. Above all, it is of a Europe of independent nation states.
5.20 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: Members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs are grateful that the business managers arranged the debate for the day after the Committee met the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I hope that all who attended the meeting thought that it was highly productive. Consistent with our aim of providing a service to the House, we are pleased that the transcript of yesterday's proceedings is now available in the Vote Office.
I say in passing that I hope that all colleagues who serve either on Select Committees, or on outside bodies—whether the NATO parliamentary assembly, the Council of Europe or Western European Union—will be ready to feed their expertise into the House. Too often, there is a gulf between the expertise that is built up by colleagues in Select Committees, or outside and that in the Chamber, where the real debate should still take place.
The Helsinki summit, by all accounts, is capable of being one of the key summits in the history of the European Union. As always, there is some overlap from past summits and a looking forward to the future, but it is likely that key decisions will be made on enlargement, the intergovernmental conference and the European security and defence identity at the summit; at least, preparations will be made for key decisions in that area.
As the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) have said, there is a danger that the conflict with our partners on the withholding tax could seriously affect the spirit at the summit and, indeed, the time available. Ministers at ECOFIN—the Economic and Finance Council—are unlikely to reach an agreement. The battle lines have been drawn. If a compromise were easily available, it would have been found by now. If ECOFIN Ministers do not find that ready compromise, the matter will be referred to the Heads of Government.
We have made it clear that the eurobond market is a key interest. We shall not yield. I am delighted that the Government have shown that, where key UK interests are concerned, we shall stand firm, but we stand firm in the spirit of being partners. From my experience of dealing with European colleagues since the election, a sea change has come over the relationship with Europe. Until that time, there was clear isolation. Our friends in the United

337
States did not value our isolation from Europe under the Conservatives. That was made crystal clear, but now we are accepted as members of the club, fighting our interests on the withholding tax, but essentially seeking to find a way through in a European spirit. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the way in which he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have set that new tone in relations with our European partners, not European enemies.
That is why I find it so unfortunate and unhelpful when Conservative Members say that we are surrendering. Clearly, we have criticisms about the European Union and we are ready to make them, but, in the real world, there are a number of positive things that we value. We find that we can enhance our interests.
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). He will know, for example, that Scotch whisky manufacturers were unable to make any serious headway in Japan on their own through the UK Government. It was only when we were able to negotiate with Japan on an EU basis that we had sufficient clout to ensure that the British interest was protected. That is how partnership works. It enhances our reach and the projection of our interests overseas rather than hampering and confining them, as the Opposition would.
We have criticisms of the European Union, but it would be helpful if from time to time there was a scintilla of positive remarks about it from the Conservative Front Bench. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon would trawl through all the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition since the election and try to find a single example of him saying anything positive about the European Union. The Leader of the Opposition is not living in the real world, but indulging in the worst sort of populism, pandering to the old ladies at Conservative party conferences and trying to treat us as though we were a conference. He is trying to put the frighteners on people.
Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Anderson: I shall give way, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us whether anything positive has escaped from his lips on the European Union.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that every previous Prime Minister, including Conservatives, has started with a positive and co-operative approach to European policy? Does he remember our previous leader, who said that he wanted to be at the heart of Europe? Their minds are changed when they find that, sadly, the European Union is not in a position to solve problems and simply creates more nightmares for its people and those who suffer from its policies. If he doubts that, will he tell me the point of spending so much money on destroying a million tonnes of food every year?
Mr. Anderson: I find no evidence of any such change in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman cannot find it in himself to say anything positive. Could we just have a little word about
338
something that the European Union is doing right? Is it a totally bleak, negative and black world? That shows the sort of world that the Conservatives live and thrive in.
Sir Michael Spicer rose—
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Mr. Anderson: Let me move on.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Anderson: I shall talk mainly about enlargement. The intergovernmental conference is an essential prerequisite for enlargement. My right hon. Friend said yesterday that the British Government see the IGC as dealing essentially with the leftovers from Amsterdam. That is probably sensible because of the time constraint.
One of the frighteners that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon put to us related to the Simon, Dehaene, von Weizsäcker report. It was commissioned by Mr. Prodi and the Helsinki council will pave the way for an intergovernmental conference, where the Commission has a subsidiary role. The report of the three wise men—we can call them what we will—is visionary and contains some useful matters for debate, but it will not be a key part of the IGC, which will have a more limited and sensible agenda.
Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend is talking about essential prerequisites for enlargement. Does he agree that radical and comprehensive reform of the common agricultural policy is essential for the development of an enlarged community? Where does Poland stand in the scheme of things? Are we to end up with a two-class system of membership because of a failure to reform the CAP?
Mr. Anderson: Taking a positive approach, my hon. Friend has put his finger on a key matter. For some, the CAP is the ark of the covenant or the high water mark of European advance. Many vested interests are involved. Sadly, we were not in Europe when it was devised to help to shape it to our advantage, but the lines along which CAP reform will proceed were, if not set in stone, at least set down at the March summit in Berlin. That package is largely to our advantage. There is no serious prospect of radical revision before the expiry of the seven-year term of the budget agreed at the Berlin summit in March. Poland will have formidable problems of adaptation but that will be after 2006, and we will need essential derogations or major transition periods prior to that to ease Poland into the EU.
On the European security and defence identity, I was at Chatham house when Strobe Talbott made that important speech. Of course there are fears within parts of the US Administration—and properly so—as to where this process might lead. Our vision is clear and is shared by some of key players within the EU, including the Dutch and others. Clearly, we will seek so to mould the new European defence identity that it will be relevant to Europe, and not so visionary as to be unreal.

339
One of the major constraints is that European countries will not be prepared to pay the sort of money on their defence budgets which will make some of the visionary schemes practicable. However, one of the lessons of Kosovo is that there are real dangers that bush fires may start in areas such as the Balkans which neighbour Europe and which vitally affect European interests in terms, for example, of refugees, but on which we can do nothing or on which we are not prepared to help because the US, for various reasons, is not prepared to commit its own resources.
What is envisaged is not less US, but more Europe. There will be a preliminary stage at which the US decides whether it wishes to be engaged or not. Thereafter, clearly the sharing of assets will enable Europe—in a limited field, and on the tasks set down at Petersberg—to carry out tasks which are very much in the interests of the EU, but which we are not now capable of doing on our own.
Mr. Peter Viggers: France is outside the integrated military structure, and has confirmed that it will remain so since 1966. We have now agreed to set up a joint military committee and military staff with France which, as night follows day, means that that will be outside the integrated military structure. Does that give the right hon. Gentleman cause for concern?
Mr. Anderson: It does not give the United States cause for concern because of the nature of the agenda that we are seeking. The United States has said that it would have reservations if the scheme went further along a particular road. It is our task, with the partners who share our views within Europe, to deal with this complex matter in such a way that it serves our interests and those of the Alliance as a whole. That is what the Government have set out to do.
Enlargements in the past have been, in part, for political reasons. The enlargements to encompass Spain, Portugal and Greece came after periods of dictatorship and sought to provide stability and democracy in those countries. I believe that the same motive is now relevant for the current six, and for the six who are likely to be endorsed at the Helsinki summit.
I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday about Cyprus. He said that we had hoped that the dynamic of Europe would provide a stimulus for a solution to the tragic division of that island. If it does not, we have made crystal clear that Turkey will not have a veto, and that the Republic of Cyprus—with all the complexities which will follow—will be eligible to join the European Union.
Slovenia was dealt with badly in its exclusion from NATO, and has been a victim of wider considerations. Slovenia—the most prosperous part of the old Yugoslavia, at the southern part of the Austrian Alps—is very much a democracy and should be able to glide into the European Union with no great difficulty.
Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary have always had a European vocation. I lived in Hungary en poste in our embassy for a couple of years, and I saw then—even under the darkest days of communism—the European vocation of Hungary, the historical spear point of Europe against the east.
340
Poland has made enormous strides and Estonia, as a result of its application and the pressures on it, has made crucial changes in respect of its Russian minority and its economy. I am glad that they will be joined in the second wave by Latvia and Lithuania, so that we can consider the Baltic countries as a whole. Latvia and Lithuania are relatively small. They are absorbable and have made serious democratic strides. As it is difficult, because of Russian sensitivities, to bring them into NATO, there is all the more reason to bring them into a European Union security structure so that, together with their Scandinavian sponsors, they can help to provide an acceptable buttress.
Sir Michael Spicer: That all presupposes greater centralisation and, as the Foreign Secretary said, dissipation of Britain's power at the centre of Europe. What evidence is there that the British public want that? This morning, I heard the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), saying on the radio that his battle bus campaign was a great success. Every time the battle bus gets outside the garage, public interest in the Government's proposals seems to plummet. What legitimacy does the proposed extension have?
Mr. Anderson: Expansion does not presuppose further centralisation. It will surely lead to greater diversification and more difficulty in finding the centralisation of which Conservative Front Benchers are so afraid. I have been involved in the European debate as a diplomat and in various other guises for many years and I am convinced that the British people are persuaded by facts. It is a fact that all other countries neighbouring Europe are desperately keen to clamber on board. They do not get frightened and run to nanny as Conservative Front Benchers do. They see the future for our continent in a positive way. It would be sad if the Conservative party were to run scared from Europe at a time when so many others want to join in a positive spirit.
Slovakia, after Meciar, is making enormous strides, and the Czech Republic is a ready sponsor. Malta has no serious problems and I hope that the Maltese Labour party will go through the same transformation as my own party. Stabilisation and democracy have been established in Romania and Bulgaria.
Clearly, differentiation is important. We cannot have the countries, either in the first six or in the following six, joining one by one, in part because of the ratification process. In national parliaments political constraints will arise, but we are talking about an historic and welcome task, which the British people will support, to widen and make more powerful the new Europe.
My right hon. Friend spelled out how, in the summit, we would respond to the withholding tax when it affects our interests but also spoke of how we would work positively with our European partners, because that too is in our interest.
5.38 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is clear that the principal issues that will be discussed in Helsinki will be enlargement, the related issue of the remit and terms of reference of the intergovernmental conference in 2000, and the European security and defence identity.
It would be a great pity if the withholding tax were allowed to overshadow the Helsinki summit, at which such important issues are to be discussed. There are more

341
important things to focus on, such as enlargement and the ESDI. The truth is that the withholding tax would not achieve the objective of stamping out tax evasion among European savers and could, as we have heard already, do substantial damage to London's international bond market. The solution for individual countries that have a problem with tax evasion is to reform their own domestic systems of assessment and collection. The bond market in London is worth £1.86 billion and it must not be allowed to be disturbed, as the New York market was some years ago when a similar proposal was made and carried through.
There is no reason, however, why we should not explore the possibility of a voluntary code on unfair tax competition, which is against the interests of a properly functioning single market. If it is also against the interests of UK exporters and manufacturers, we should do all that we can to ensure that unfair competition is removed. One can legitimately say of the withholding tax that it should simply be withheld.
It is right on such an occasion to ask what the purpose of enlargement is. It is easy to offer the answer that it is to provide for suitable candidates the economic opportunities of trading in a single market, but it is more than that. It is worth reminding ourselves of the purpose of the European Coal and Steel Community—the primary forerunner of the European Union—which grew out of the terrible maelstrom of Europe during the second world war. When we offer suitable candidates the opportunity to join the European Union—and NATO, too, for that matter—we offer them the chance to entrench the values of freedom and democracy that have emerged in those countries, rather as the countries have emerged blinking into the daylight like the prisoners in "Fidelio", sometimes from a period of impenetrable totalitarian darkness.
Those countries have fledgling democratic institutions, some just a few years old. Those institutions would be underpinned by membership of the European Union, and experience tells us that. It is inconceivable, for example, that Spain might revert to a Franco, Portugal to a Salazar, or Greece to a handful of colonels. Those countries' membership of the European Union inhibits any such regression.
We should be clear that negotiations to join the European Union must proceed on the basis of merit, not of compassion. The Copenhagen criteria, to which reference has already been made, must not be weakened or undermined for any one country, no matter how deserving it might appear to be in other respects. There is little doubt, as the Foreign Secretary rightly recognised, that Turkey poses an especial challenge. Some say that there should be no dialogue about the entry of Turkey until it obviously and clearly meets the Copenhagen criteria. Indeed, some Liberal Democrats say that any such dialogue without the criteria having been met would simply encourage the view that entry could be achieved at a lower standard, thus providing no incentive to change.
My own view is rather different in emphasis. We must recognise that the European Union's treatment of Turkey in the recent past has caused great resentment in that country. I am sympathetic to the view that dialogue on human rights and enhanced political exchanges—always with the prospect of membership—are more likely to be successful. They should be accompanied by the clear understanding that no matter what progress may have been made on some of those issues, and no matter how
342
deserving in all other respects Turkey may be, the Copenhagen criteria will not be reduced or diluted. Turkey would also be well advised to consider the consequences for its legitimate aspiration to join the European Union if it were to proceed with the execution of Mr. Ocalan.
The issue of enlargement leads naturally to some consideration of the IGC of 2000. We must recognise that the conspicuous failure to prepare for European Union enlargement has created an enormous pressure for success at the IGC. As has already emerged in at least one exchange this afternoon, reform of the common agricultural policy is one of the matters that must be resolved.
Even if enlargement were not on the table, there would be compelling reasons for reform of the CAP, but those reasons are doubly compelling under the pressure of enlargement. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that, without reform of the CAP, there can be no enlargement.
However, every step taken by the IGC must be measured against the principle of subsidiarity. The EU should exercise powers and competencies only if the policy outcome is demonstrated to be more effective and efficient than could be achieved by member states acting individually. To put that in less complicated language: decisions should always be taken at the level where they are most likely to be effective.
I give way to the hon. Gentleman for the Scottish constituency.
Dr. Godman: My constituency is Greenock and Inverclyde. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there could be no EU enlargement without CAP reform. How optimistic is he that such reform will take place in the next two or three years?
Sir Teddy Taylor: No chance.
Dr. Godman: That embittered critic of the EU, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), shouts that there is no chance of that, but I directed my question to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Is he optimistic that CAP reform can take place in the next two or three years?
Mr. Campbell: I apologise for describing the hon. Gentleman as the "hon. Gentleman for the Scottish constituency". I suppose that I run the risk of equating him with "Macbeth", the Scottish play whose title is never mentioned: if I call him "the Scottish constituency", his name may never be mentioned again.
I have some anxiety about whether the CAP can be reformed, but enlargement cannot take place if it is not. The common agricultural policy cannot be sustained if the agricultural industries of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are admitted. Pressure will be applied from all directions to try and achieve CAP reform, but we must be realistic: if it is not achieved, enlargement will not take place. Europe sometimes does best when it is presented with a precipice and is able to respond to very considerable pressures. Without movement or change, what is on the table becomes impossible to attain.
Sir Michael Spicer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: No, I want to make progress.

343
I was dealing with the question of subsidiarity. The Liberal Democrat party argues for a constitution for Europe, to define and limit the powers of European Union institutions, to clarify and simplify treaties, to enhance transparency—a matter about which I shall say more in due course—and to prevent the unnecessary accumulation of powers at the centre. A constitution would also set out the rights of individual citizens.
It is perhaps too much to expect the IGC to achieve all that in the year 2000, but it most certainly should begin that process. A constitution for Europe would provide a stable, legitimate and accepted framework for future development, but we must make Europe's institutions more democratic and accountable. It has already been hinted in the debate that we should start with a powerful freedom of information regime—as powerful as the regime that may be established in Scotland, and possibly rather more powerful than what appears to be proposed for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The European Parliament should have equal status in law making with the Council of Europe. It should also have the power to vet and veto the appointment of every Commissioner, and to dismiss individual Commissioners. The size and working methods of the Commission must be streamlined, and there needs to be the reweighting of votes to which the Foreign Secretary referred.
The procedures of the European Court of Justice must also be streamlined. Justice delayed is justice denied, in Europe as elsewhere. It would be ludicrous if the beef problem were to take two years to resolve because of the sclerotic nature of the procedures of the European Court of Justice. As a lawyer, I can argue with some justification that those procedures must be streamlined.
The Council should vote in public. There should be a presumption that its proceedings be public unless good cause is shown.
Mr. Bercow: The risible protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam obliges member states to respect and uphold the existing institutional balance and acquis communautaire. Do the Liberal Democrats favour any change to those?
Mr. Campbell: I thought that I had made that clear. I set out the principles by which I thought that the intergovernmental conference should work, the strategic objectives that it should adopt and the elements of reform necessary to make the Community's institutions much more transparent and accountable. The strategy must be to decide how best we can entrench subsidiarity and define the limits of the European Union.
That takes me to the European security and defence identity. When we last discussed that only a week or 10 days ago, much of the debate centred around a rather fine textual exegesis of the speech that Mr. Strobe Talbott delivered in September in London. Many said that the speech was against the ESDI. Those who read it know that it clearly sets out that the United States Government support a European security and defence identity subject to a number of entirely reasonable and sensible conditions.
344
It sometimes appears to me that the visceral anti-Europeanism of some of our Conservatives prevents rational discussion of the future of European defence. Their contributions are confined to predictions of damage and detriment that are wholly unjustified by the facts or political reality. Let us suppose that the shadow Foreign Secretary is right that the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for the ESDI is related to his unwillingness to make the sort of commitment that we urge upon him in relation to the single European currency. If trading in Europe is to be condemned, there is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that the previous Government acquiesced in the recognition of Slovenia in return for the right to opt out of the single currency.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Croatia
Mr. Campbell: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, it was Croatia. I do not know whether the second proposition is as inaccurate as the first.
Mr. Cash: It is true.
Mr. Campbell: An hon. Member who may be better informed than I am says that it is true. To accuse this Government of trading in Europe comes a little ill if there has been previous such trading.
We should not allow that to prevent us from considering the merits of the proposal. We criticised the Government's strategic defence review because it dealt dismissively with Europe in 11 or 12 lines. The position changed almost as we were debating it in the House. The Prime Minister was speaking elsewhere, or at least giving an interview to a journalist that appeared the day after the debate. He said that there had been a change in Government opinion. We welcome that change, because it was considerably in the direction of the policy position that we had often argued for.
I regard the joint paper agreed between the Government and the Liberal Democrats to which the Foreign Secretary referred as a sensible contribution to the debate. There was some amusement about that among Conservative Members but when the Maastricht treaty went through the House, the Whipping was, to say the least, robust. The famous book kept in the Conservative Whips Office was well thumbed. I do not remember the Conservative Government objecting to the fact that in almost every vote of significance, they enjoyed Liberal Democrat support.
NATO remains, and must remain, the bedrock of United Kingdom and European security. It is our collective defence. Europe's security would not be enhanced in any way by allowing the transatlantic relationship to be dismantled. The ESDI will succeed if it increases the operational effectiveness of European forces within NATO. It should allow European forces to act alone when the United States is unable or unwilling to contribute forces to joint actions.
The taxpayers of Europe will get better value from their defence budgets if their Governments work more closely together. In some cases, possibly under the influence of the defence capability initiative launched at the Washington summit earlier this year, Governments may have to seek to increase those budgets.
An effective ESDI can strengthen NATO and redistribute the burden of European security. It can answer the paradox whereby the United States calls on the

345
Europeans to do more for themselves but when the Europeans show signs of doing so, the Americans feel that they are excluded. If the ESDI is to work, it requires a comprehensive European defence review.
We have some idea of where Europe is deficient: heavy lift, intelligence gathering, deployable forces, advanced technology weapons and joint command and control structures. We need a coherent strategy to address those shortcomings. We can take that agenda forward through the European defence review. subject to the following qualifications: all parties with an interest are consulted; all nations are involved and understand their responsibilities; there is no infringement of the national interests of member states; and we ensure that NATO is not undermined.
Conservative opposition to the ESDI is increasingly well documented. The Foreign Secretary, in what was then the absence of the Conservative defence spokesman, drew attention to the fact that he had gone abroad and given evidence that, on the face of it, was contrary to a Government policy. When he wondered what the consequences might have been if that had happened under the previous Government, I could not but think of the indignation that the then right hon. Member for Finchley, Baroness Thatcher, would have shown. Those of us who sat through those occasions when she was, shall we say, dismissive of Neil Kinnock, can only wonder how dismissive she would have been if it had come to light that a member of the Labour party had gone to Washington and given evidence before a congressional committee contrary to the policy of the then Government. That puts the matter into perspective.
What is absent from the debate is a genuine effort by the Conservatives to provide us with an alternative. I made this point 10 days ago. I am not still not clear from what the shadow Foreign Secretary said how he thinks that the relationship within NATO should be rebalanced or what assessment he has made of the likelihood of the United States playing as prominent a part in any future action as it did in Kosovo. How does he think that Europe should equip itself to cope with obligations that arise if and when the United States declines to become involved?
I see nothing suspicious in the joint declaration after the Anglo-French summit. It makes it clear that NATO is to remain the foundation of collective defence and that we are seeking autonomous capacity for the EU to launch and conduct EU-led military operations where the alliance as a whole is not engaged.
Some argue, particularly in the United States, that NATO should be given the right of first refusal. That proposition is worth exploring for two reasons. First, it emphasises the primacy of NATO. Secondly, if NATO is given the right of first refusal, it will compel the United States to make its mind up quicker and earlier than it was willing to in Bosnia or Kosovo, where American reluctance and reticence was very damaging to the joint effort, at least in the first instance.
So long as what we achieve contains no unnecessary duplication, does not discriminate against non-European Union members of NATO such as Norway and Turkey or against neutral members of the EU who are not members of NATO and there is no decoupling of the United States, the ESDI makes sense. It may not be a revolution, but it certainly makes common sense.
346
We have had a demonstration again this evening of the increasingly sceptical position that the Conservative party takes in relation to the European Union. The Foreign Secretary has already pointed up that rather unambiguous passage in the speech of the leader of the Conservative party at his conference, when he said that the new treaty must contain a flexibility clause, or there would be no new treaty. As the Foreign Secretary rightly said, if there is no new treaty, there will be no enlargement. The words of the leader of the Conservative party did not so much draw a line in the sand as build a pretty impenetrable fortress. One cannot resist the observation that the loudest cheers at the Conservative party conference were for those who argued for complete withdrawal from Europe. That is rather close, some might think, to the policy of the UK Independence party.
It is now possible to ask the question which, as I said last week, was previously unthinkable. Are there circumstances in which, under a Conservative Government, Britain would seek to withdraw from the European Union? That tells us a great deal, but in particular it tells us why it would certainly not be in the interests of the United Kingdom for the Conservative party to represent us at Helsinki or any other EU summit for the foreseeable future.
6.1 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to have been called so early in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and to have heard the other speakers in the debate, all of whom were positive, with the exception of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). It is disappointing for Britain that there is a great divide within the Conservative party on Europe. In France, Italy, Germany and other European partner countries, there is not that divide. At Helsinki and other summits, their Governments have had the backing of their Parliaments in their negotiating stance, whereas the British Government go there with the Opposition unwilling to take part in developing that national consensus.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Williams: Not this early in my comments.
My position on Europe has been one of slow persuasion. Back in 1975, I voted no in the referendum. I supported our policy in 1983, but accepted that there had been a change for the 1987 election, when I entered Parliament. I will never forget the statement that Baroness Thatcher made on her return from the Rome summit in 1990. I was sitting where the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) is sitting now. Baroness Thatcher's manic anti-Europeanism in her statement that afternoon made the penny drop for me for the first time. Her Euro-scepticism was nothing more than pure undiluted English nationalism. As the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) knows, I have spent the past 20 years fighting Welsh nationalism in my constituency. That afternoon, I felt that I had not fought Welsh nationalism at home to come here and adopt English nationalism from Baroness Thatcher or whomever.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I voted yes in the referendum in 1975.

347
He may not agree with the politics of Plaid Cymru in detail, but does he accept that we do not have xenophobic politics that close our minds and make us turn our back on the European dimension, which is so important to us all?
Mr. Williams: That is also true of the Scottish National party. I am pleased that there is a wide pro-European consensus in Wales and Scotland. We do not have any Conservative Members representing Wales and Scotland in Parliament. Unfortunately, the membership of the Conservative party drives it more and more into English nationalism. The Conservative party does a disservice to the country and ultimately to itself. For at the next election, the electorate will have nothing to do with this rampant anti-Europeanism.
Dr. Godman: In trying to be fair minded, I point out that many Scottish Conservatives, even though there are none in this place, are much more positive in their approach to the European Union than that lot on the Opposition Benches, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) will agree.
Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.
My dramatic change of view happened on hearing the comments by Baroness Thatcher in 1990 after the Rome summit. Unknown to me, that very afternoon no less than the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Howe of Aberavon, was equally hurt and he resigned within two weeks—and within weeks, Baroness Thatcher was out of office. From 1992 to 1997, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was Prime Minister and his big problem throughout his premiership was holding his party together on the European issue. Since 1997, the pro-Europeans within the party have given up the ghost; they have allowed the sceptics to take over. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the recently elected right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) and all the influences within the Conservative party are leading the Tories like lemmings to the precipice.
Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on my second attempt. According to the hon. Gentleman, one minute the Conservative party is deeply divided, and the next, it has given way to one side. Is it not a fact that the Conservative party is in line with 64 per cent. of the British people, who have made it clear that they do not want Britain to abandon the pound and replace it with the euro? We are united to the point that 84 per cent. of our members support the leadership's policy.
Mr. Williams: I shall come shortly to some comments on the single currency, but the Conservative party is moving towards a position of wanting to renegotiate—that is the word that it uses—which is just a euphemism for withdrawal. It is moving rapidly towards withdrawal.
I have read comments made at the Conservative conference by the shadow Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is also a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman. They said that the alternative was to pull out of the EU. That is seriously being considered in certain Conservative quarters.
348
I return to the Government's line on the EU. Since May 1997, there has been much more constructive and positive engagement with our European partners. It is clearly our intent, over one or two Governments, to move to being at the heart of Europe in all its deliberations.
In his speech to the Lord Mayor's banquet a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister described Britain as a pivotal power in world affairs. In the past 12 months, we were influential in big decisions taken on the war in Kosovo. We helped not only to move British opinion, but to lead European opinion on what had to be done to bring Serbian atrocities to an end. We have influence not only in NATO, but in the United Nations and Europe—but before we can become that pivotal power, we have to join the single currency at some stage. When the economic pointers are in the right direction, it is the Government's intention—subject to the five economic tests—to join the single currency. I am a strong supporter, notwithstanding my realisation that, at present, the general public are wary and sceptical; possibly even 2:1 against joining.
I notice that the Confederation of British Industry is not against joining the single currency. Many leading businesses realise that, at some time in the future, we have to cross the rubicon. Next month, we look forward to a statement on our progress towards convergence. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is running the economy extremely well; I understand that his public support rating is now ahead of that of the Prime Minister. The general public realise that the Chancellor has cleared up the problems that were left to us, and ensured that the accounts are in surplus. We have economic growth and stability and the prospects for the economy are extremely good.
My one criticism of our economic policy is the problem of the strong pound. As international confidence in Britain is so high, we attract speculators' money, which has driven up the value of the pound to unrealistic rates. That gives three spin-offs. The first is that there are great difficulties for manufacturers and for agriculture. In a sense, that has created a north-south divide. The service sector has not been particularly badly hit, but, during the past year, manufacturing has been affected by the strong pound.
The second relates to the balance of payments, where there are substantial problems that will become more apparent next year and in the following year. There will be difficulties in financing our trade because of those in-flows and out-flows. Thirdly, and most seriously, there will be problems for our membership of the euro. If there was a referendum on membership tomorrow, our membership would be unsustainable with the pound at its present level. We need the pound to fall by at least 10 to 15 per cent. against the deutschmark—to about DM2.60 or DM2.70. In a sense, I am critical of the Government's policy, although some matters are not directly under the control of the Chancellor or of the Monetary Policy Committee. However, problems are presented by the high value of the pound.
In autumn 2001, if we win the next election—as we are confident of doing—we shall review our position on membership of the single currency. During the two years until then, much could change, and that will help to change public opinion. The European economy is recovering. The European Commission's projections for next year anticipate that the European economy will grow by 3 per cent. That will help the value of the euro.

349
The EC's projections for the UK are even better than those of the Chancellor—it estimates 3.4 per cent. growth next year and 3.6 per cent. for the following year.
Mr. Bercow: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, will he confirm that further cession of sovereignty on fiscal policy would not, for him, represent a constitutional objection to British entry to the euro?
Mr. Williams: I see no political problem with membership of the single currency, but I am not going into any philosophical ideas beyond that. I can see no constitutional obstacle. Of the 15 members of the EU, 11 are currently members of the euro and have encountered no problems. All the indications are that Denmark, Sweden and Greece are moving towards joining the single currency. If we could join the currency at about the same time as those three countries, it would be in the interests of the people of Britain and, indeed, of the people of Europe.
The one problem—these comments are addressed more to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench than to the Opposition—is that we have promised to hold a referendum on joining the single currency. In the European elections, turnout in this country was only about 20 or 25 per cent., although the turnout of 41 per cent. in my constituency was the highest in Britain. I fear that those absurdly low turnout figures would be repeated in a referendum on the single currency. In that case, what interpretation could we put on such a referendum?
There is a parallel with the referendum on devolution held in Wales two years ago. Sadly, the turnout was only 50 per cent., and the vote in favour was barely 50 per cent. That is not a powerful mandate—I would have preferred an 80 per cent. turnout, and an 80 per cent. yes vote, but it was only 50 per cent. of 50 per cent. When we hold the referendum on the single currency, there will not be a 50 per cent. turnout, even though there may be a 50 per cent. vote in favour of joining. I wonder whether the result of such a referendum should be binding—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—I put that as a constitutional question.
In 1976, there was no problem with the referendum on the renegotiations of our terms of membership of the EU; there was a good turnout and a yes vote. However, I leave my colleagues on the Treasury Bench with the question of whether we need to reconsider our policy on the referendum.
The Conservative party lets itself down and lets the country down by so crazily taking an anti-European direction. If the Conservatives want to win back any of the people of Wales and Scotland, they should drop their appalling English nationalism. The Government are doing extremely well in Europe—working with our partners and making progress. However, I should like us to make faster progress towards the single currency, so that, in 10 years time, we will be pivotal not only in the Commonwealth and NATO, but in the European Union.
6.18 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry that my English nationalism offended the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams). However, to reply in all sincerity to his extremely fair speech, I hope that he will realise how much his comments will have offended those who believe in democracy.
350
The hon. Gentleman said that Labour is committed to a referendum on the single currency; the signs are that there may not be a full turnout; and the result will probably go the wrong way, so perhaps we should disregard it. I have heard speeches from many strange people, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is a sincere person and I hope that, on reflection, he will realise that it is appalling to state that something should be disregarded because the result might go the wrong way, especially as this is the end of the road. I hope he realises that if we were to join the single currency, there would no longer be much point in the good people of Wales voting at all, whether they were to vote for the splendid Welsh nationalists, the Labour party or even the Conservatives.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also reconsider his view that one can join the single currency with no effect whatever on one's tax affairs. Hon. Members should listen not only to English nationalists such as myself but to the president of the Bundesbank, Mr. Tietmeyer. The other day he said:
"A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policies as well as in monetary affairs."
But here is the key part of his statement:
"It is an illusion to think that states can hold onto their autonomy over taxation policies."
Indeed, it is an illusion. There is no way that a single currency could work for Europe unless there was co-ordination of taxation policies and regional aid policies.
If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, he should ask himself whether there has ever been a successful single currency anywhere in the world. The answer is no; no such currency has ever worked. It has been tried time and again, and it simply cannot work unless—as in the case of the United States—it covers an area with one Government, one Treasury, one policy of handing out money and a feeling of nationhood.
Currency unions have been tried twice in Europe—the Scandinavian currency union and the Latin currency union. Both failed. It has been tried elsewhere.
Mr. Nigel Beard: The most notable example of a single currency that has worked, which seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention, is the dollar, which prevails throughout the 50 states of the United States.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I was making that very argument. A currency union can work in an area such as the United States, where there is one Government, one Treasury, a system of aid and a feeling of nationhood. Does the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr realise how different things are in Europe?
Let us consider the issue of taxation and wages. I obtained some figures that I thought might be of interest to the average person. If a person on a salary of £12,000 lives in the USA, he keeps 83 per cent. of his salary. If he lives in Britain, where we have a splendid new Government, he keeps 80 per cent. If he lives in France, where they also have a splendid Labour Government, he keeps 73 per cent. If he lives in Germany, he keeps 66 per cent. That is a huge difference.
If we move to a higher level of £25,000—I believe that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr may know more people like that—a person would keep

351
78 per cent. of his salary in America, 73 per cent. in Britain, 67 per cent. in France and only 55 per cent. in Germany. It is simply not possible to have a kind of harmony between nations with such a huge variation in taxation.
Let us take overall taxation. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a wide variation between the 44 per cent. of GDP that goes to tax in Europe and the 36 per cent. in Britain. Although single currencies have never worked when they cover an area with different countries and different Governments, the chances of such a currency working in Europe are even smaller.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me as someone who has respected the fact that, on this issue, he has been singing the same song for much more than 20 years. Is he aware that the chief economist of the European central bank, a gentleman by the name of Dr. Otmar Issing, has said in support of his thesis that there is
"no example in history of a lasting monetary union that was not linked to political union"?
Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I just hope that people who support the single currency in Europe will realise that. We are not trying to be difficult and to be English nationalists. We are saying that people will be in terrible trouble because when single currencies are established, we always end up with a great deal of unemployment and misery. Often there is disruption too, because, sadly, part of the area experiences strong economic growth while another part suffers deep recession, resulting in terrible trouble.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: It strikes me that the hon. Gentleman's argument is not so much about whether Britain should join the single currency, but that the single currency is destined to fall apart anyway. I accept that the euro has had a difficult first year, but what if, in three or five years' time, that single currency turns out to be a resounding success? Is he saying that Britain should still not join it?
Sir Teddy Taylor: I would have to feel very like Jonah. The book of Jonah is one of my most popular readings in the Bible. It is a good lesson in humility for any Member of Parliament, or for anyone who thinks that he knows anything, to read about Jonah. Poor old Jonah went around telling all the people that Nineveh was going to be destroyed; and then God changed his mind, and poor old Jonah, having given up a great deal—I have given 25 years to fighting against the European Community—learned a lesson in humility. It would be terrible but a very good lesson in humility, and I would be happy for the people of Europe and the people of Britain.
I repeat in all sincerity: I have been screaming and shouting and making a nuisance of myself for a long time, with others, saying certain things; and the trouble is that, to date, we have been right. To date, an awful lot of deplorable things have happened, and an awful lot of people have suffered a great deal as a consequence.
I give the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr one silly example. I remember when we were about to join the exchange rate mechanism. I am not
352
saying that I am clever; I am saying that we must start to look at things as they are, instead of being carried away by nonsensical slogans. At ERM time, everyone thought that the ERM was great. The Government at the time, who probably were not Labour—I cannot really remember—said that the ERM would bring us growth and stability. All the top organisations of the world, including the Confederation of British Industry—which I am sure gets a Euro-grant for saying such things—said that if we joined the ERM it would bring growth and stability, and that things would be great. A few silly twits like myself—the English nationalists—were saying, "This will inevitably bring artificial happiness or artificial misery." That was obvious. It was not that we were clever; it was obvious that that would happen.
What did happen? Five hundred thousand good people—many of whom were in Wales, I am sure—had to be put out of work because of that nonsense. We had to spend piles and piles of money supporting our currency at an illogical, nonsensical level, and ultimately it was a crisis—a disaster. We even had to have a poor old Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer making himself look silly and apparently disagreeing with the Prime Minister, which was very, very sad indeed.
Mr. Bercow: Would my hon. Friend care to recall the sage observation of the Eritrean ambassador to the United States—whose country, after a long and bloody conflict with Ethiopia, came to mint its own coinage—that:
"An independent nation with its own policies needs its own currency to implement its decisions"?
Sir Teddy Taylor: How right he was.
I am genuinely not trying to cause political disruption or to attack the Government. I simply ask them please to consider that whenever we have said things like this, we have been proved right.
I remember hearing optimistic statements, such as those made by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr, when we held a referendum on our membership of the European Economic Community. I think of the farmers who are constantly on to Members of Parliament. There are many farmers in my present constituency, which is not very nice for them. I have them all coming at me. I keep reminding them that, many years ago, they were told that they would have a wonderful time if the United Kingdom joined the EEC, and that it would be great. They were all for it then—just like the fishermen in Scotland. They have indeed had a wonderful time, but inevitably such a situation creates oversupply.
There is now a massive oversupply of food, and no one knows what to do about it. It is not that Governments or organisations are being nasty. The EU spends massive amounts—larger than ever—on agriculture, as do the UK Government and others. We are simply spending lots of money on dumping and destroying food, and in the meantime the farmers are getting deeper and deeper into trouble.
What can we do? The answer is nothing. We have massive oversupply, and if we were ever to extend the European Union and bring in delightful countries such as Poland and Romania, which would love to join and take advantage of the common agricultural policy, it would simply make things worse.

353
I know that the farmers are delightful—they tell me so all the time—nice, decent, respectable people, but what can we say when we meet them? We can try to con them, but we are wasting our time if we do. It is the same with the fishermen. I remember that I originally came from a place called Scotland, although I am an English nationalist. During discussions on the referendum, I could not find one Scottish fishermen to support the no campaign; but when I go to Scotland now, I find that all the fishermen hate the EEC. They did have a great time, but it has caught up with us, and now the poor old fishermen are being ground into the dust and cannot find any income or prospects. It is a horrible situation. I just wish that people would face up to it.
I have heard all the arguments. We were told time and again that membership of the EEC would be great. We know that it has been a disaster for our trade, with a total deficit of more than £150 million. We have heard, too, about how the CAP would be reformed, but it is not being reformed and cannot be reformed. We have heard that Europe will be tough on fraud, but we know that Europe is hopeless at dealing with fraud, and that there is no chance of that.
I may have mentioned to one or two colleagues that the thing that really offended me was hearing about the gentleman from Liverpool, a convicted criminal, who received a grant of £140,000 from the European Union to try to improve the social situation of prostitutes in Hungary, who were very much neglected. What upsets me is that he never did anything for the prostitutes—they are still as neglected as ever—but bought two new cars and a new house. I find that type of thing appalling.
Those who believe that they can find easy answers are kidding themselves. I believe that the worst are the National Farmers Union. I even heard that the NFU approached a very respectable supermarket in Britain, whose name I cannot remember, and said, "Because we have so much meat on sale, we must get you to tear up your contracts with that wonderful country called New Zealand"—which has always helped us if we are in trouble—"and stop selling New Zealand lamb." The supermarket did what it was told, which was horrifying—one of these days I will remember its name. However, when one thinks of what New Zealand has done for us when we have been in trouble, it is shameful and shocking that that supermarket stopped selling New Zealand lamb simply because there is a glut of meat in Europe. I wish people would realise their obligations.
If we accept that those who have complained about the EU in the past and English nationalists have regrettably been proven right to a small degree, can we not at least ask the Government of whichever party—I am not sure who will be in power next year—to think carefully about the fact that for the first time Europe has gone too far and is about to suffer major problems? The first problem is the single currency. I know that Ministers are cautious and say, "We know that the euro has gone down some way, but don't worry, it will come up again." However, it will not, because international people do not and cannot have confidence it.
If the Liberal Democrats doubt what I say, they should consider the figures for 30-year bonds that I obtained yesterday. Let us take the example of someone like a Chief Whip who is rich and has access to funds. If he puts money in a 30-year bond in Britain, he will receive only 4.78 per cent. in interest from the bank, which is not very
354
much. In Germany, he would get 6.06 per cent. and in France he would get even more—6.14 per cent. What does that tell us? It tells us that, for 30-year bonds, international money markets say that we should avoid the euro like the plague, but that Britain is quite good even with its splendid Labour Government and the possibility of an English nationalist Conservative Government taking office after that. International money markets do not have confidence in the currency and it will continue to decline. Even though we shall receive help from our friends from Japan who have kindly said that they will try to prop up the euro—I know that they will do everything possible to help us—that will not be enough. We cannot buck the market; we are heading for a major problem.
If such a problem arises, what on earth will Europe and the British Government do? We are interested in the success of Europe and we want it to be successful. Therefore, it is desperately important that the Government and Europeans should consider what they will do if the euro continues to go wrong. If it does, that will affect not only people with money but those with jobs. The question, I am afraid, is serious.
The second problem is the expansion of the European Union. I honestly do not think that people realise the extent to which that will create a dramatic crisis if it goes ahead without a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, which is not possible. Those who think that they can reform the CAP are simply kidding themselves. Instead of being carried away as they probably will be with the idea of expanding the EU, they should realise that that is not possible.
My final point is about the Commission. Critics of the EU have constantly pointed out that its whole structure is so undemocratic that it leads to a great deal of unfairness, fraud, mismanagement and misdirection of public money. We have said that over and again, but not because the Commission is made up of bad or nasty people. The structure of the Commission is such that if we kick them all out, as we did this year, and bring in a new crowd of 30 saints, the same problems will arise. Mr. Prodi is now in charge of the Commission. He is a rather unusual person and perhaps not a saint—I am sure that none of us here are. However, the Commission's structure is such that we will face a crisis.
I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what he did in the discussions on tax and savings, but I hope that he will not cave in at the Helsinki summit. I also hope that he will listen to those whose arguments have been borne out by events and that he will accept that Europe may be heading for a great crisis. We should be concerned just as much about Europe as we are for ourselves. I hope that people will think about the points I have made, because I genuinely think that they are true.
6.34 pm
Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. The most important issue on the agenda at Helsinki will be enlargement. We have a moral and a practical responsibility to push forward enlargement as quickly as possible. We have a moral responsibility because, for decades, we lectured the former eastern bloc countries about the need to move to democracy. When they have done that, it would be wrong and irresponsible for us not to acknowledge that and to bring those countries into membership.

355
We have a practical responsibility involving our own self-interest and security interests. The real danger following the cold war is that of a continued division in Europe between those nations that are permanently rich and, those that are permanently poor. The permanent exclusion of some countries will create the threats of illegal migration, a growing drugs trade and a degree of political instability that is not in this country's interests. That is why enlargement is crucial and should not be just a pious aspiration.
We must will the means as well as the ends. That is why the agenda for the intergovernmental conference must be set firmly in place at the Helsinki summit. We must pick up on what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary described as the leftovers from the Amsterdam summit, but they are large leftovers and we must get to grips with the problems quickly. We must bring the decision-making structures and the institutional structures of the European Union, which were originally designed for six countries, up to a standard that can cope with an EU of 20, 25 or more countries.
That will involve considering the size of the Commission, the reweighting of votes and a further extension of qualified majority voting. There is a strong argument for reforming the voting system. The point has already been made—it is worth repeating—that if enlargement takes place without reform of the voting system, we will be in the indefensible position in which the countries that represent the majority of the population of the EU would not be able to muster a blocking minority under qualified majority voting. We cannot support that. Clearly national sensitivities are involved and votes cannot accurately reflect the size of populations. However, there must be movement towards the larger nations. To put it crudely, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Spain must have proportionately more votes.
In any organisation—the EU is no different in this respect—achieving such change would mean us offering something in return. Therefore, along with the other larger countries, we should consider giving up one of our Commissioners, so that each country has, at this stage, one Commissioner. I would however like to go further than that, and I would welcome the comments of Ministers on this subject. It has not been fleshed out in the past.
If the EU is ultimately made up of 25 or 30 nation states, it will be preposterous to have 25 or 30 Commissioners. There are only portfolios for 12 or 15 Commissioners. The devil makes work for idle hands, so if we accept the proposal to have 25 or 30 Commissioners, we will create the impression—and often the reality—of excessive bureaucracy. Too many people will be trying to do the same jobs, and that is an impediment to decent decision making in the European Commission.
If we stick to the notion that every country must have a Commissioner, we shall support the false notion that the Commission is a quasi-Government. Although I am strongly pro-European—it is in Britain's interests to be in the EU—I am not in favour of a federal Europe. Dealing with that issue sooner rather than later is in all our interests. For the next wave of entrants, we could accept the proposition that every country has one Commissioner, but at a later date—possibly in 2009 or 2010—we should limit the number of Commissioners to, for example, 20. That would be a sensible move.
356
Clearly, we would have to consider what to do when there are more than 20 member states. It would be perfectly proper, in those circumstances, to consider a system of rotating Commissioners from the different nation states, and the focus of decision making would then be on the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. That would be a far more effective way of dealing with the democratic deficit and of beginning to explain to people what influence they have over decisions in the European Union.
At the intergovernmental conference and in the discussions at Helsinki, we need to address the issue of extending qualified majority voting. In the right circumstances and on the right issues, that is a perfectly sensible arrangement and could be in our national interest. The Conservatives extended qualified majority voting 42 times while they were in office. Either they were going through an 18-year temporary loss of their senses—which is always a possible explanation—or they realised that it was in Britain's interest to extend that procedure on certain issues. I therefore support the Government's position that there are certain areas in which it is in our interest to be prepared to consider such an extension.
I strongly make the point that an extension is not against the national interest. When the Foreign Secretary opened the debate, he gave some figures that I shall expand on. He said that last year under QMV, we lost a vote on only two out of 213 occasions, and so far this year, we have not lost a vote on any of 181 occasions. The idea, therefore, that QMV is not in this country's interest is simply not borne out by the facts, and we should use it to stop other countries unreasonably blocking reforms that are in our interest.
We need to focus on the reform of the Commission, where Neil Kinnock is doing sterling work, but we need also to consider what we should do when there is clear evidence that individual Commissioners have been involved in misconduct and have committed an act that brings them and their political office into disrepute. There should be a clear and readily understood mechanism for dealing with that.
In securing the nomination of the existing Commission, President Prodi secured an informal right to dismiss Commissioners on the basis of the personal undertakings of the commissioners who were the nominees in 1999. There is a strong, or at least arguable, case that we should go further and enshrine that right in the treaty so that it is clear that if misconduct occurs, there is a mechanism to deal with it. I heard the shadow Foreign Secretary say that the matter should be left to the Council of Ministers. Considering what happened last year, however, I do not think that that is an effective mechanism, and we should consider including a provision in the treaty.
Offstage at the council, there will also be bilateral discussions with the French Government about the continuing beef crisis and their refusal to lift their ban. I hope, however, that the matter will be resolved shortly. Let me make it clear that there is no dispute between hon. Members on either side of the House—the French Government are clearly in the wrong. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, and the changes that have taken place mean that British beef is among the safest in the world. The key dispute is not about interpreting the French Government's position but about how we resolve the problem, get the beef ban lifted and stop the French Government blocking our exports.

357
I argue, as do the Government, that our only leverage over the French is our membership of the European Union, because a set of legal rights and responsibilities gives us influence. It is worth repeating that outside the European Union, 60 countries are imposing a ban on British beef and there is nothing whatsoever that we can do about that. Australia, Canada and the United States of America all oppose lifting the ban on British beef, and we can do nothing.
Mr. John Cryer: Is my hon. Friend arguing that an elected sovereign Government do not have the right to introduce selective import controls?
Mr. Rammell: We have the right to adopt selective import controls, but that is a dangerous course because we regularly export £10 billion of goods to the European Union, and only British exports and jobs would be the losers.
I am glad that my hon. Friend asked that question because it leads me on to my next point. Conservative Members have argued that we should ignore the rules and the legal situation, and simply begin a trade war by imposing an illegal ban on French imports. As I said, our exports and jobs would be at risk. There is a history to the Tory tactics on that issue. At the beginning of the beef dispute, when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was Prime Minister, there was a time when he said "We shall not accept this. We shall not agree to any European Union decision until the issue is resolved." He said just that on 21 May 1996, and then humiliatingly climbed down on 21 June 1996.
That underlines that such tactics do not help us to make progress, or protect and pursue the British national interest. We should continue to do as we are doing and use the rules that apply by dint of our EU membership, while pursuing the French diplomatically so that we can get the ban lifted sooner rather than later.
At Helsinki, there will also be a substantial debate about the withholding tax. Some people, including many Conservative Members, will say that it is the thin end of the tax harmonisation wedge and that if we join the single currency, we will be on a slippery slope and eventually all tax rates will be set in Brussels. There is no evidence to substantiate that allegation. Certainly, nothing in the Maastricht treaty implies that there must be centrally set and co-ordinated tax rates. There is a 3 per cent. limit on Government deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product, but individual nation states still retain the right to comply with that limit by using either high tax, high spend policies or low tax, low spend policies.
Earlier, we discussed countries that share a single currency but do not have harmonised tax rates. The United States is the most obvious example. Contrary to popular Euro-sceptic myth, there is no great desire among other European Union nations to push for further tax harmonisation. A Conservative Member referred to corporation tax earlier in the debate. The Italian Finance Minister is on the record as saying, last December, that harmonisation of corporation tax would be untimely, questionable and, above all, hardly feasible. The Spanish Prime Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that he is opposed to a single tax rate because it would be a recipe for inefficiency. The Conservative party's argument that there is a great momentum towards having unified tax rates throughout the European Union does not stand up to detailed scrutiny.
358
In principle, the withholding tax is logical because its purpose is to tackle tax evasion—a notion that I should have thought we would all support. However, the current proposal is seriously flawed. Like some hon. Members who spoke earlier, I believe that there is a danger that we will drive capital out of Europe. There are many issues that should be dealt with in the nation state and many that should be dealt with at a European Union level, but tax evasion should be tackled at an international level, across the board. I welcome the fact that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is currently considering the issue.
If the withholding tax proposal makes further progress, however, the best way to proceed is to have banking transparency, which I know that the Government are proposing as an alternative. I hope that we can convince our European partners on that issue.
Let us be absolutely clear: the withholding tax is a specific proposal, not the thin end of the wedge of broader tax harmonisation. That disagreement has arisen is not a huge problem. I believe in Britain's membership of the EU, but I am not in favour of a federal Europe. It is inevitable that, from time to time, substantive disagreements will erupt between different EU countries. When legitimate disagreement arises, it is important that it is not used as a stick to beat the very principle of the EU, as some Conservative Members would like. In addition, we should be careful that disagreement does not occur too often, because that might damage and undermine our negotiating position on other issues.
Mr. Wells: The withholding tax would affect not only the London bond market, but Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and many Caribbean territories, including British overseas territories. They are not involved in tax evasion or other acts currently deemed illegal, but their markets would go out of business if the withholding tax were to be imposed.
Mr. Rammell: That is why I do not support the withholding tax as currently formulated. However, I sincerely believe that we have to tackle the issue of people investing income and profits overseas and not properly paying tax due within their own country. The issue cannot be tackled solely within the EU, because of the danger of flight of capital. It should be dealt with internationally, so I welcome the OECD's consideration of the issue.
We as a nation should make clear at Helsinki our fundamental commitment to Britain's membership of the European Union because membership is manifestly in our interests. More than 50 per cent. of our trade in goods and services is with other EU countries; eight of Britain's top 10 trade countries are EU countries; 3.5 million British jobs and one seventh of all UK income and production depend on sales to European countries.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Why does he believe that, were we to be outside the EU or to have a more remote relationship with it, Europe would erect some sort of trade barrier around us in revenge? Is it not fanciful to suppose that, if we were to negotiate with Europe, not stridently, and succeed in establishing a relationship with which we all feel comfortable, all trade would be cut off at a stroke?
Mr. Rammell: I do not think it fanciful. If we were to withdraw, significant impediments and barriers to British

359
goods would be erected by those who are currently our partners. It is fascinating to note that the hon. Gentleman's question clearly implies that there is now a substantial body of opinion on the Conservative Benches that is not merely Euro-sceptic, but fundamentally hostile to Europe and in favour of Britain's complete withdrawal from the EU.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rammell: I shall happily give way to one of those hon. Members who hold those views.
Mr. Bercow: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman's orations, but he strikes me as a rather slippery specimen on this issue. He says that he opposes a federal Europe, but does he agree with the President of the European Commission, who is on the record as having stated recently:
"The euro will inevitably lead to closer and closer integration of countries' economic policies … This demands that member states give up more sovereignty."?
Is the President right or wrong to say that?
Mr. Rammell: I do not agree with that proposition. In reply to the accusation that I am slippery, I can only say that people in glass houses should not throw stones. I take the accusation on the chin.
The degree to which our fortunes are tied to those of the EU was highlighted by the great non-appearance of the Leader of the Opposition's flat-bed truck. The House will remember that, when the Britain in Europe campaign was launched, the right hon. Gentleman said that he intended to tour Britain in a flat-bed truck, denouncing the single currency, all its evils and all its ills. He said that the details of the lorry would be available within a week, but six weeks have passed and we have heard nothing. Apparently, the reason for the delay is that the right hon. Gentleman has discovered that the only such trucks available are made by companies in receipt of foreign investment and he wants to avoid the embarrassment of travelling in such a truck.
That is all good knockabout fun—it is good to have a laugh at the expense of the Conservatives and their leader. However, the importance of that story is that it underlines certain facts. Yes, there are in this country four firms that produce trucks, all of which are derived from foreign investment. However, 2,200 British people derive their livelihood and income from those firms, and their jobs would be put at risk if we followed the Conservative policy of withdrawing from the EU.
Sir Teddy Taylor: We are having a serious discussion and want to avoid party games. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what happened to the two European countries that voted in referendums not to join the EU? Were they ruined? Someone is spreading a rumour that they have great prosperity and the lowest rates of unemployment in Europe.
Mr. Rammell: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously comparing Britain with a country such as Norway in terms of dependency on trade with EU countries, he needs to
360
look at the facts. It is possible for a small nation to survive on the edge of Europe, but it would not be possible for a country such as Britain, 50 per cent. of whose exports go to the EU, to survive after withdrawal, because we would face enormous retribution from our current EU partners.
Let me conclude—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Had I taken fewer interventions, I might have finished sooner. However, let me end with the single currency, which is not on the agenda for Helsinki, but is an issue that is likely to be discussed at the summit. I support the Government's policy on the single currency, because it will be in Britain's interests to join a strong single currency. We should strive to meet the five criteria we have set and, having met them, we should put the issue to the people in a referendum.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams). Were we to pursue the policy he suggests, it would be manna from heaven for Conservative Members, who would accuse us of all sorts of duplicity. Regardless of turnout, if we cannot convince the British people in a referendum, we should not join the single currency. Therefore, I hope that we stick to our commitment to a referendum on a single currency.
Before that referendum is held, we have our work cut out to inform the British people and persuade them of the merits of Britain joining the single currency. In that context, I welcome the work done by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in making the case for Britain joining a strong single currency in the right circumstances. The longer we stay out of the single currency, the higher the price we pay. Last week, The Daily Telegraph—not the most Europhile of newspapers—reported major inward investors in car manufacturing in this country saying that, if Britain adopted the Conservative policy and stayed out of the single currency indefinitely, they would withdraw their investment from this country, putting millions of jobs at risk. That is the real issue that we should be addressing in this debate.
The debate should focus on our identity; what future vision we have for our country within Europe and how that identity matches the real world. The world has changed fundamentally over the past 20 years, and I want a Government and a policy that will deal with the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be and not as it was 20 or 30 years ago. I am confident that this Government will begin to build upon that at the Helsinki summit.
7.1 pm
Sir Raymond Whitney: I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) that difficult decisions will need to be taken on enlargement, the weighting of voting and on the number of Commissioners. I part company with him rather sharply on his view of the capability of Mr. Neil Kinnock and the abilities that he may bring to the difficult task of reforming the Commission, which is much needed. I know of nothing in Mr. Kinnock's career that suggests that his experience and talents are those that are required to make sense of the Commission.
Next week's European summit at Helsinki will take place at a time when we must all accept that the people's view of the European Union is that it is tarnished and tired. Those of us who want it to work must say that

361
something needs to be done about it. To say that a relaunch is needed is not too strong a phrase. It is important to recognise, however, that a great deal has been achieved over the 50 years of its existence. That is something that is almost never heard in these debates. We should also recognise that there is much more to do.
In no member country is there more to do to increase acceptance and understanding of the EU than in this country. We all understand the reasons for that, which are our history, geography, perhaps our temperament, and our culture. Those factors make it quite difficult for us to accept some of the things that continental Europeans accept, given all the wars that they have endured. Their experience gives them a very different perspective of the EU. However, it is difficult to believe that, nearly 27 years after our accession, as we were told yesterday, the results of a British social attitudes survey would show that 50.3 per cent. of people want to leave the EU or reduce its powers. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) cheers. I do not share his enthusiasm for that. I lament that that is the position 27 years on, but we must recognise it. Those who are on my side in the debate would want to do something about it.
Part of the reason for 50.3 per cent. of the British people taking such a view is the media. All politicians blame the media, but many of them have much to blame the media about. In my political experience, there has been an unprecedented campaign among so much of the media, a good deal of which is owned by foreigners, who seem intent on souring Britain's relations with our European partners. We all have our own examples, and there are hundreds of them every month.
I shall not detain the House too long, but I shall give two examples. The Sunday Telegraph told us that the wicked European Union was going to do away with St. John Ambulance vehicles. It stated that EU regulations would force it to buy a new fleet. When tackled about it, the executive of St. John Ambulance said that it was nothing to do with any EU directive—it was just the responsible thing to do.
I shall give one more example and then move on. The News of the World stated that there was a "totally bonkers" proposal that the EU intended to ban the sticks used by our lollipop ladies. That had nothing to do with the EU. The Government had decided to introduce a new and coherent design, one already used in Wales and based on one agreed by a United Nations-backed convention dating from 1966.
Such examples are very funny, but they are extremely serious because they have poisoned the view of our electorate about our relationship with, and our interests in, the EU. It is us, the political classes, who must bear the main responsibility. We can have our side swipe at the media, but is we who have failed. Indeed, both parties have failed. We know that the issue transcends parties. We remember the see-sawing and zig-zagging of the Labour party. We are all too well aware of the problems and differences that we have in the Conservative party. The Foreign Secretary has quite a long record of being anti-Europe. My memory tells me that, when the Prime Minister fought a by-election in Beaconsfield, the neighbouring constituency to mine, he did so on an anti-European ticket. We all have responsibilities and
362
difficulties. We know that there are Labour Members who share the predominant view of those of my hon. Friends who are currently in the Chamber.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In support of what my hon. Friend has said about politicians being responsible, would he accept that some politicians in the EU are themselves responsible? I have in mind that Neil Kinnock and others felt it necessary to resign as being part of a collective responsibility for corruption, and then felt able to return to office. Surely that creates a cynical view among the British electorate about what is going on.
Sir Raymond Whitney: As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I would be the first person to agree that many mistakes have been made, of which my hon. Friend has drawn attention to one. With respect, there is nothing gained in scoring points on that matter. We must move forward and get things right in future, whatever mistakes have been made in the past.
On those issues, there are fundamentally two groups. As I have said, views on them go across party. There are those who think that the EU will never work, or at least will never work for the United Kingdom. They want us to get out of it. A larger group, of which I am one, believe that we must stay in, make the EU work as best we can and get the best deal for the United Kingdom.
I believe that the first group is completely wrong and would harm the United Kingdom if its ambition of removing us from the EU were achieved. I do not wish to sound patronising, but the members of this group have a complete right to their view. I could mount a defence of their view even though I do not believe in it. I speak rather like a barrister.
I have only one request for those people who take the view that we should get out of the EU, and that is honesty. If they want us out, they should say so. Damage is being done by those who want us out but who are not prepared to say so. They criticise continuously, using the silly sort of newspaper reports to which I have referred. They demand new initiatives in the EU, which they know our partners would find completely unacceptable, because they are against the spirit of the union. They look for defeat and, having been defeated, their enthusiasm for getting out is rekindled.
Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend's appeal for honesty in this context is justifiable. Will he tell me honestly whether he has read the treaty of Rome? Secondly, if he has read it, will he honestly deny that it is patently a document in which a common market with a single currency are not ends in themselves but part of a project for a federal Europe? Has my hon. Friend read the treaty and will he deny that that is its content?
Sir Raymond Whitney: I have not read every word of the treaty of Rome. However, when we were debating other treaties, I referred to the treaty of Rome and worked my way through it. I have ploughed my way through most of it.
The treaty envisages an ever-closer union of peoples. It is up to us as more or less intelligent political leaders and individuals to make sense of the treaty of Rome, and not to be bamboozled by legal terminology. My hon. Friend should not denigrate what has been achieved and what

363
more can be achieved. Those who want us out of Europe should be honest. We need an end to the subterfuge of those who will not declare that they want us out, but seek to make such a withdrawal inevitable.
For the second group, in which I include myself, the first task is to make sure that we state our case more clearly. The declared policy of my party is to be "In Europe, not run by Europe". I endorse that slogan. There are two elements to that proposition, and both are important.
For me, and surely for any reasonable person, to be in Europe means to approach Europe in a positive spirit—a spirit that will ensure as far as possible that the union will work—and to recognise that, in a union of 15 countries now, and more in future, working with so many partners entails compromise and sometimes pragmatism. Pragmatism is a great principle of the Conservative party.
We must make sure that people understand that there are benefits from being in Europe, and what those benefits are. If there are no benefits, let us get out and stop saying that we want to be in Europe. When more than 50 per cent. say that they want to get out, that demonstrates our failures so far and the need for us to work harder.
On the other part of the formula—"not run by Europe"—I can think of no hon. Member who would claim to want to be ruled by Europe, but too many in our party refuse to recognise and welcome the fact that, since Maastricht, things in Europe have been moving in a direction that ensures that there need be no question of being ruled by Europe.
Maastricht was a watershed, followed by Amsterdam. After that, the European Union switched from being a nascent European federation in the days of Mr. Delors, to become a treaty-based system of managing relations between sovereign states. If any of my hon. Friends are in doubt about that, I refer them to a useful article that appeared in The Economist on 23 October, which sets that out in interesting detail.
If we understood that, we would put away the fear and the myth of the European super-state that seems to keep some of my hon. Friends awake at night, tossing and turning in their beds. The Heads of Government have taken back from the Commission the powers that were drifting to it. We should understand the degree to which the situation has changed.
I am dismayed when I have discussions with colleagues who fail to recognise that change. They also fail to recognise that European politicians, for various understandable reasons, use different rhetoric from us. The word "federal", for example, means different things in different states—we are all familiar with that old chestnut. I know of no leading politician in Europe, whether in government or in opposition, who is aching to hand over the power to govern his country to some supranational body or other group of foreigners.
Take the euro. Let us understand that the member states of the EU are not led by idiots. They have extremely successful economies, and their Governments will not jeopardise what they have achieved over the past 50 years. They decided that, for both economic and political reasons, the single market and the single currency made sense. However, they did not hand over control to the
364
European Commission. They handed it over to an independent central bank, because their experience, which on the whole had been successful, showed that independent central banks work.
Such a climate is relatively new—it is certainly new to some of my hon. Friends. It gives Britain a chance to achieve our objectives in Europe, and to implement the initiatives for which we are well qualified—to liberalise trade, to open up markets, and to do what our former right hon. Friend, Sir Leon Brittan, did in the Uruguay round. We have our chance in Seattle to do that again.
If Britain operates with good will, it can bring to the European Union the sort of initiatives that most of my hon. Friends would welcome. We have many more friends in Europe and potential allies in such objectives than we sometimes seem to think.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does it perturb him that entry to the euro would entail monetary policy being run by a governing council of the central bank that comprises three Germans, two Dutchman, two Finns, two Frenchmen, two Italians, two Spaniards, a Belgian, an Irishman, a Luxemburger and a Portuguese, whom we are legally prohibited from seeking in any way to influence in their conduct of policy?
Sir Raymond Whitney: As we have not allowed ourselves to be in at the creation of the central bank, we cannot complain. My hon. Friend is a classic example of being hostile to Europe, calling for initiatives which go wrong, and exulting when they go wrong. He is smiling, and he knows that I am right.
We have heard much in the debate about defence. It has been known for a generation that western Europe has failed to keep pace with the Americans in its defence effort. I was involved a quarter of a century ago in a project called the two-way street. I tried in my modest way to help in that, but we failed for various reasons. We go on failing, and the gap between the American capability and the western Europeans' gets worse. That was highlighted in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we all know now about the differences in weapons, strategic lift and all the other aspects that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) listed.
In Europe, we have 50 per cent. more population than the Americans, but they spend 60 per cent. more than we do on defence. According to last year's figures, the average per capita defence expenditure in the United States was $1,038; in the European Union, it was $389. The gaps in expenditure and capability must be closed. We Europeans must do more and do it better, whether through the Anglo-French initiative, the Franco-German initiative, the rapid reaction force, EDSI—the European defence and security identity—or by changing the Western European Union. We must have a capability of our own.
All of us who are dedicated Atlanticists know that we must be extremely careful about NATO, which is the most successful alliance that there has ever been, and the commitment to the Americans. They know that, we know that, the Germans know that, and I have every confidence that we have enough nous to create a relatively modest but effective European military force without upsetting NATO and the European Union. We have had that debate in the Conservative party for many years; I hope that it

365
will not last much longer. I hope that we will face reality and tell those who want us out of Europe to be clear, open and honest. The rest of us can then make sure that we are truly "In Europe, not run by Europe".
I end with a quotation from a former distinguished Prime Minister, who said:
"Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is Europe, as part of that Community."
Those were the words of Baroness Thatcher 11 years ago.
7.21 pm
Mr. John Cryer: Like the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I opposed joining the Common Market in 1975. The difference between us—apart from the fact that he was Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Cathcart and I was 11 at the time—is that he opposes the single currency on the ground of English nationalism, which is a principled position, while I oppose it for good, solid, democratic, Labour reasons, to which the Labour party clung for a long time. It has not entirely abandoned them, but it has moved away from them in the past few years. Clearly, my view brings me into conflict with many of my hon. Friends, who perceive the European Union to be a liberal and enlightened force for good in the world. I do not impugn their motives; they genuinely believe that the European Union is a force for good. However, reality does not bear that out.
The starkest example is not from within the European Union, but is provided by its record in the third world, towards which it has behaved in a way that is reminiscent of the colonial ambitions of last century. It has ridden roughshod over the third world, and treated some of the poorest countries in the world contemptuously. The Select Committee on International Development has done good work in exposing the way in which the European Union, under the Lomé convention, manoeuvres third world countries into taking on disadvantageous trading arrangements, and tries to remove barriers that have been put up by democratically elected Governments—not only in countries but between Governments—so that those countries can be more easily exploited by the big banks of Europe and multinational companies based in Europe.
European Union aid has been mismanaged and is mired in corruption. The Commission has direct control over approximately a third of Britain's aid budget to the third world—that is a third of £2 billion. For example, two or three years ago, the Commission dreamt up a scheme to help the Guarani indians in Paraguay. That was a laudable aim, but the Commission was told not to plough any of the money—which was £12 million—into Paraguay to help the indigenous indians until their land claims had been sorted out, in case the money was used for corrupt deals, bribes and seedy activities.
Last year, the Commission decided to start handing over the money as part of phase 2 of the operation. Two independent reports pointed out that hardly any land deals had been settled. One report was prepared by St. Andrew's university and the other was by Dr. John Palmer, a British anthropologist, who pointed out that only one out of the 47 land claims had been settled. Later, Jonathan Mazower of Survival International prepared a report, which found that indigenous indians continued to sleep on the streets and to live in extremely poor and
366
deprived conditions. Nevertheless, the Commission did not care and, against the opposition of the United Kingdom Government, it ploughed the money into Paraguay. That money is now helping to finance bribery and corruption. That is only one example. Corruption is rife in the European Union's dealings with the third world.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not condemn all the European Union's actions in the name of development. The Lomé convention has protected the banana growers of the Caribbean from having to resort to other crops, such as types of drug, to make a living. It has done much good, and it may disappear soon. Many good aid projects come from the European Union. I accept that some are inefficient and misplaced, but not all of them are in that category.
Mr. Cryer: There are probably examples of good aid projects, but the European Union and the Commission are structurally mired in corruption and mismanagement. While we are on the subject of bananas and the third world, let us consider the European Union delegation to the World Trade Organisation in Seattle. A resuscitated multilateral agreement on investment is hidden among the delegates' position papers. The WTO had originally intended to agree the MAI some time ago. It was dropped because of enormous opposition, not least popular opposition, which continues. However, the Commission has revived it, stuck it in the proposals to the WTO and taken it to Seattle. Despite the fact that it is a slightly watered down version of the original MAI, if it is adopted, multinational companies will be able to sue elected Governments for implementing the policies that they were mandated to carry out.
Against that background, economic and monetary union can be seen for what it is—a plan by a small, rich, white club of countries to institutionalise monetarism while exploiting the third world. Yet those of us who point out the deficiencies in the system are condemned as illiberal luddites, who live in the past. I have heard no real justification for the Maastricht treaty, which is a clear institutionalisation of monetarism. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who signed the treaty in 1992 is now shadow Chancellor and is hardly a dyed-in-the-wool socialist. He believed at the time that the treaty made a strong case for monetarism.
I have read the Maastricht treaty. As I turned the pages, my heart sank to my boots. It is a monetarist's poisonous dream. I have never heard a sound justification for handing over enormous power to bankers who sit in Frankfurt and are removed from the people about whom they make decisions and whose lives they affect. They are unelected and unaccountable.
Monetary policy is currently more important than it has been for a long time. In the 1940s, Britain had interest rates of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. Fiscal policy was used to keep the lid on inflation and to control the economy. That system has largely been abandoned by many western European Governments. Monetary policy has become increasingly important, and powers have been handed over to bankers headed by Mr. Wim Duisenberg.
The next stage will involve establishing a central tax-gathering mechanism. A single currency has never been established without some central tax-gathering

367
mechanism. That is a step on the path to political union. If hon. Members do not believe me, let us consider the views of some of the key supporters of the single currency. Hans Eichel, the German Finance Minister, argued:
"We will now strive towards political unification … EMU will not be enough."
Wim Duisenberg—that loveable mop top and President of the European central bank—said:
"The process of monetary union goes hand-in-hand with political integration and ultimately political union."
In 1994, the President of the Bundesbank, Hans Tietmeyer said:
"In my opinion there is good reason to believe that, to ensure lasting success, a monetary union requires—over and above the joint central banking system—a more far-reaching political association than that defined in the Maastricht Treaty."
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) mentioned the current Prime Minister of Spain and to answer him I refer to Felipe González, the previous Prime Minister of Spain, who I would have expected to have more in common with my hon. Friend and I politically. He said recently that
"the single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community … we need this United Europe … we must never forget that the euro is an instrument for this project".
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Cryer: It is a bit embarrassing to hear all the cheers from the Opposition Benches. As I have said, I am not a little Englander. I oppose the single currency for good, sound, democratic Labour reasons. That is what we did in the early 1970s and we should still do so today.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I endorse the thrust of what he has said. Does he agree that it is important also, in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) has said, to recall the remarks made by the former Irish Prime Minister, John Bruton, who said:
"We must recognise that political unity of purpose will be vital if the euro is to work. Countries will not be able to dine à la carte at the European table any more … Europe needs to develop political institutions which have sufficient democratic legitimacy to demand sacrifices of Europe's peoples and to mobilise them in a common cause."
Could it be any clearer?
Mr. Cryer: The key phrase is "democratic legitimacy". The EU as it stands will never have any democratic legitimacy and the same is true of reform of the common agricultural policy—I do not see how it can be done, and the ability to carry out such reform is simply not in the current system.
Sir Raymond Whitney: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to a former Taoiseach talking about freedom of political action and monetary union. Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that, for decades, the punt and the pound were linked? That seemed to have no impact in restraining the foreign policy of the Irish Republic.
Mr. Cryer: We could have come out of such an arrangement at any time, but the single currency and EMU
368
represent the point of no return. We could not return from EMU unless the currency collapsed; if it did, we would pay the price with massive levels of unemployment and poverty beside which the unemployment and poverty of the 1930s would begin to pale by comparison.
I respect the views of my hon. Friends and know that they are genuinely held, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, but the reality of the record of the EU and, in particular, the Commission is completely at odds with the perception held by some of them.
I would like to put a couple of points to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, this decision is clearly the most momentous that this country will face in the next 50 years or has faced in the previous 50 and, rather than looking at the propaganda that is flying back and forth, the Government should launch a White Paper or a Green Paper—as was done in the early 1970s, when we started talking about the Common Market—that sets out the arguments objectively. Secondly, a lot of taxpayers' money is being spent on promoting the EU and the single currency. The European Commission uses a lot of money to propagate its belief in the single currency, particularly in schools across Europe. That is certainly happening in schools in this country. Are we to see taxpayers' money used to put the opposite point of view?
One of the lessons of 1975, which created great bitterness about the referendum, was that the "Yes" campaign was absolutely loaded to the gills with cash that flowed in from multinational companies and the big institutions. The "No" campaign was almost skint and was hardly able to launch itself because of lack of finances. There should be some way of making finance available—in this case, to the "No" campaign—to achieve balance. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to reply to those two points.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Has the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) given way or concluded his speech?
Mr. Cryer: I have concluded my speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I call Mr. Cash.
7.35 pm
Mr. William Cash (Stone): We are indeed heading towards a serious and deep watershed in respect of the next intergovernmental conference and the future of the European Union. We have heard much today and on previous occasions about the euro and the implications of the single currency. As far as I am concerned, we should have vetoed the Maastricht treaty in the first place, but, having said that, European government has indeed been created. It has also been endorsed by the Government under the Amsterdam treaty, which has taken us further and deeper into European integration and more European government.
We are heading for another intergovernmental conference and on its agenda are extensions of qualified majority voting in the arena of European government. I intervened on the Foreign Secretary on that very point

369
because one simply cannot talk about qualified majority voting without having regard to the functions to which it is being applied. I made a similar point to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), when he appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee a couple of weeks ago. He gave me no satisfactory answer because there is not one.
We are being taken further and deeper into that process, so I have to disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney). He seems to believe that, somehow or other, the idea that we are being taken into European government—or, to use another expression, a European super-state or one country divided into provinces—is an illusion. I strongly urge him to read all the quotations that have been mentioned throughout the debate and many others besides. He should perhaps even read the Official Journal of the European Community, where he will find many quotations that he could read to his satisfaction.
Sir Raymond Whitney: Rather than reading quotations, taken in or out of context, why does not my hon. Friend look at what is happening on the ground? Does he not see that the Heads of Government have taken back from the Commission the sort of powers that cause him understandable concern?
Mr. Cash: The short answer is that if my hon. Friend looks at the treaties, he will see that functions have been continuously moving in the direction of more centralisation and more European government. That is what the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties were all about and that is why I took such a vigorous part in tabling 240 amendments in respect of the Maastricht treaty.
Dr. Julian Lewis: At the risk of adding another quotation to those already deployed, what does my hon. Friend make of the remarks of Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, who was quoted in The Times of 27 October? He referred to the European Commission as the "European government". Asked to justify that term, he said:
"But what is the Commission? We are here to take binding decisions as an executive power. If you don't like the term government for this, what other term do you suggest? … I speak of a European government because we take government decisions."
Mr. Cash: Absolutely. I am delighted to be reminded of that quotation by my hon. Friend because that is exactly what such people say. Only in this country is there the ridiculous charade that these developments are not all about political union. Are we to be regarded as crazy because we know that what is going on in the rest of the continent is being recorded—day in, day out—in every newspaper? Only in this country is there a ridiculous attempt to try to cover it all up with camouflage or smoke and mirrors.
On the question whether we should co-operate with the nations of Europe, of course we should; it is absolutely crazy to imagine that we would not want to co-operate with other countries. However, the issue is not co-operation, but the legal framework and the co-ordination resulting from the creation of European government. The European Court of Justice enforces the legal decisions that are being taken. On the question of
370
the recent Financial Times survey, is it not interesting that this, of all newspapers, refers to 50.3 per cent. of people saying that they want to get out of or reduce the powers of the EU?
The crucial point is the second one. Three times this year, we—I—have been accused by the Prime Minister of never having wanted Britain to join the European Union in the first place, and of wanting to leave it. When I tried to challenge him on the day in question, he refused to accept my intervention. I subsequently received a letter from his private secretary, which said nothing at all.
The fact is that an attempt is being made—and the Government have been building it up—to smear the Conservative party by attributing to it a policy of withdrawal. I should be delighted to engage in a full-blown debate with the Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary, not to mention the Prime Minister, about the veracity of their allegations. It is a monstrous slur; it is not justified. Some of us argue for renegotiation of both the Maastricht and the Amsterdam treaties. I certainly do, because I think that otherwise it will be all words—all smoke and mirrors. I do not believe that we can solve the problems that face the European Union unless we have renegotiation on those terms.
The Government, however, are getting away with the allegation that renegotiation means withdrawal. It is up to us to repudiate that, and I state emphatically—certainly on my behalf and, I believe, on behalf of many colleagues—that those of us who want to sort out the problems of the European Union do not accompany our desire with a demand for withdrawal. I want to put that firmly and clearly on the record.
I think that it may help some of my colleagues to reconsider the question of their refusal to renegotiate the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, because the two issues are complementary. I am not thinking only about the questions of the euro and tax harmonisation, which we heard today—and I entirely agree—would lead to increasing harmonisation through corporate taxes and, eventually, income tax. There is a simple reason for my view. All those functions have been created, and a good many more will be created in a few months time, but the question will then arise of how to fill the gap between the creation of some functions and that of others—we are talking of rights, duties and responsibilities—with a federal budget of only 2.5 per cent.
The answer is that it will be done, but that it will be necessary to impose a tax to pay for defence, foreign policy and all the other matters that will be involved in the next treaty, but which have their origin in the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman talks of renegotiation, taxation and the Maastricht treaty. Would he renegotiate the single market?
Mr. Cash: I personally would not, although I see good reasons for altering the basis on which some of the provisions of the single market operate, and I think that mistakes were made in the creation of the regime. I voted for the Single European Act because I believed, as I believe now, that if we could get it right we could secure tremendous gain for all European countries, in terms of prosperity and so forth, by reducing the logjam of

371
restrictions on trade and making Europe competitive. I have never had a problem with the Single European Act in principle, but the same does not apply to the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties.
I believe that, especially as we move from Amsterdam to the next treaty, foreign policy and defence policy are on a par with the question of the single currency. We need to get that into the open. The idea that the whole issue is just about the single currency is a massive delusion. I am totally against the single currency: I would say "never", I have said "never", and I will continue to say "never". I say that, however, because the adoption of a single currency would subvert the House of Commons and our democracy.
I shall not argue the case in depth because there is no time for me to do so, but the adoption of a single currency will completely undermine the democratic decision making of the House of Commons, which depends on the ability of voters to go to polling booths and exercise free choice. It depends on the subsequent general election and the convening of Members here as a free Parliament. The decisions of those voters in those polling booths will effectively be taken away if we have a single currency and a central bank: in that event, decisions will be made by people who are both unaccountable and independent. I am against the single currency for that reason.
On the question of foreign policy, we are moving into dangerous territory. I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary refuse to rule out the idea of qualified majority voting on that. I strongly recommend those who read this speech in Hansard to refer to an excellent pamphlet produced by Sir John Coles, entitled "British Influence and the Euro". Until 1997, Sir John was head of the British diplomatic service and permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office. Given the authoritative weight that it carries, the pamphlet is compulsory reading. It is absolutely brilliant.
The pamphlet deals with, for example, the question of foreign policy. Referring to Maastricht and Amsterdam, Sir John says:
"That is what the CFSP"—
the common foreign and security policy —
"has come to. For the time being, it falls short of a single European foreign policy but only just."
Sir John then demonstrates the way in which the policy will develop, commenting:
"If the centralising tendencies of the EU continue unchecked"—
by renegotiation—
"in the coming years and indeed if the CFSP moves any closer to a single European foreign policy, then the independent British voice will be increasingly muffled, with consequences for our influence in the rest of the world".
Sir John proceeds to develop his argument further. He issues another warning in regard to defence policy:
"Should that ability"—
our ability to have our own highly professional and well-equipped armed forces—
"ever become limited by the creation of European armed forces, subsuming national forces and subject to central EU direction, then British influence overseas would be sharply reduced."
I was interested to note that the Foreign Secretary did not refer to the Franco-German meeting on defence and security in Paris yesterday. Contrary to all the assertions
372
we have heard today that there would somehow be adequate protection for the existing arrangements in the Western European Union and NATO, and that we were all members of an harmonious club, Sir John said:
"France and Germany are waiting from the European Council of Helsinki for substantial advances on agreement of European policy for defence and security and are in favour … of decisive progress for the development of military capabilities of the European Union and of decisions to put in place a decision making body as a military instrument at the heart of the European Union. These elements are indispensable to give the EU the autonomous capability to make decisions, and … to launch and carry out military operations",
with a nod in the direction of the alliance.
France and Germany
"propose to create strategic mobility, in stages and within the appropriate multinational frame, and a European command of aerial transport"—
European Union transport planes, and so forth. The fact is that we are now witnessing the undermining of NATO on a substantial scale. Those who argue the opposite must answer my allegations.
Sir John says:
"The more centralised the EU becomes, the less distinctive will be the policies and activities of the individual member states. There can be little doubt that the single currency is the most important act of political centralisation in the EU's history … We are on the way to a single economic government of Europe. And since government is largely about economic policy, the ultimate prospect, unless the process is checked, is one of little power being left in national capitals."
Those are the statements of a man who, until recently, was head of the diplomatic service; he retired only in 1997. By going down the route of qualified majority voting, we will increasingly be ensnared in European government.
Another issue came up when the European Scrutiny Committee went to Finland recently—the charter of fundamental rights. I should like to hear from the Minister of State that we will definitely, without any shadow of a doubt, veto any attempt to put such a charter under the aegis of the European Court of Justice. In the Select Committee, he said that it would be a showcase of rights—a political statement. Yesterday, the appointment of Lord Goldsmith as a member of the drafting committee was announced, but the language was imprecise. There are suggestions that it should not be a legal text. I want to hear from the Minister that it will not be a legal text.
Mr. Vaz: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I have told him before, and will tell him again, that the charter is to act as a presentation point of the rights and responsibilities that citizens of Europe have received under treaties. It will not be legally enforceable or binding. Lord Goldsmith will be an excellent person to serve on the drafting committee.
Mr. Cash: I hear what the Minister says, but there is much determination among other member states to take us in another direction.
On the question of the Prime Minister and my call for a constitutional White Paper, it is inconceivable that the British people should not be informed of the rights that they enjoy at present under our constitution and to have those explained in terms of the developments in the EU—not just the single currency, but matters such as justice and home affairs and the whole business of the new

373
judicial area. The Prime Minister cannot be allowed to get away with it. An early-day motion in my name has well over 100 signatures. I strongly urge other hon. Members to sign it. It is inconceivable that the British people should not be given a proper White Paper. In his evidence the other day, the Minister of State said that there would be a White Paper, but that it would not deal with the questions that I have raised with the Prime Minister. I should like the Minister to explain why not.
Mr. Bercow: If the Prime Minister is so strenuously opposed, as he claims, to the vision of single European government, why on earth did he so enthusiastically back for the presidency of the European Commission a fanatical federaste who supports that vision?
Mr. Cash: For the simple reason that it encourages, all the way down the line, further and further integration. The more those people have their place men, the more certain it is that they will take us deeper and deeper into European government. That is the clear intention.
I regret to say that I do not have much confidence in the idea of flexibility. Some years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate about the European Commission's view on flexibility, but I have considerable reservations about applying the restrictions to new areas of legislation and, indeed, to unspecified core areas.
Having said that, I believe that today's Conservative party is very much on-message. I am concerned that renegotiation should be part of the package. To renegotiate Maastricht and Amsterdam is a fundamental prerequisite to getting ourselves and Europe out of the mess that Europe is in now. The direction in which the Conservative party is going is the right direction. On some counts, 75 per cent. of the British people are against the single currency. The party has to get itself up in the opinion polls from 29 per cent. to at least 70 per cent. We will win the general election by getting our priorities right.
7.55 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: I should like to concentrate on the European security and defence identity aspect of the Helsinki conference.
As has been mentioned, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is waging a campaign on that front, starting with his infamous appearance in the United States Congress and continuing in The House Magazine. The essential theme is, "But what will the Americans think about it?" It goes along the lines that, if Europe shows that it can operate alone, the American attachment to NATO will be weakened. It is almost like saying that we should stand around in Europe looking helpless, and charitable America will come along and underwrite European defence policy. The message from my own side and many other sides is that such a policy is both a forlorn hope, in that the Americans would never tolerate it, and undesirable from the point of view of our foreign policy interest.
American foreign policy interests are not congruent with those of Europe. There is a substantial area of common ground, but it is not an exact parallel. Therefore, although NATO should and will be preserved, and is the keystone of our defence policy for common areas of
374
interest, we need a dimension that enables us independently to tackle other interests that are not in that sphere.
Even within NATO, Europe needs to ensure a contribution that is much more in line with its growing economic strength. At present, European gross domestic product totals $8,346 billion, which is almost the same as the United States GDP of $8,231 billion. There are no economic grounds why we should take an inferior place in such defence matters. At present, despite that position, the defence capability of the European nations of NATO is nowhere near a match for that of the United States.
While such an imbalance exists and Europe remains dependent on United States defence capability, our ability to conduct foreign policy will suffer—it will be circumscribed—and there will be political pressure from the United States, which will complain that Europe does not shoulder enough of its own defence burden. That alone will weaken the alliance; some of the murmurings in the United States Congress have already made that plain.
That will weaken the NATO alliance far more than any indications of a separate capability for Europe to operate on its own. After all, why should young men and women from Kansas and California be involved in Bosnia and Kosovo, on the doorstep of the European Union, if young men and women from London, Lille and Ludwigshafen are not? Today, the answer to that question is ignominious for Europe.
American troops have to be involved because, without them, European forces lack the necessary range of capability and so cannot mount a substantial operation on their own. It is not because of a manifest lack of resources. Last year, European defence budgets totalled $200 billion and the American defence budget $250 billion, according to the House of Commons Library. Europe spent 80 per cent. of the United States defence budget on defence, but its capacity is nowhere near that of the United States.
European countries were recently unable to mount an operation of 50,000 to 60,000 personnel in the Balkans without American help. What an indictment—and what complacency from the Conservatives, who are objecting to the first step now being contemplated in the European Union to remedy such a glaring inadequacy.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that what worries us is not an improvement in Europe's defence capability, but the fact that it is proposed to be outside the structure of NATO. If it were being done inside the structure of NATO, it would add to our combined strength with the Americans, but the proposals will undermine the whole structure.
Mr. Beard: The capability is required for times when Europe's foreign policy diverges from America's or is outside its realm of interest. If the capability were within NATO, it would be under the American command and control system and the other NATO controls. That is why it needs to be outside. The European Union provides an eminently suitable vehicle for such a capability.
The proposal is for a self-contained, multi-national European force of 50,000 or 60,000, drawn from within NATO earmarked forces. That would be a valid way of starting to address the problems, while respecting the argument that it should not be a lever that separates us from NATO or weakens NATO in any way. Had such a

375
force existed, it could have made a vast difference to Balkan diplomacy when Milosevic began his expansionist probes in the early 1990s. We are now addressing the defence issues that are most likely to confront European nations, as the strategic defence review pointed out.
We also need to review all areas of European defence capabilities, with a view to plugging the gaps and realising the full potential of the present force. Heavy lift transport aircraft are but one example. We do not need to waste time and political energy on grandiose concepts such as a European army. We are embarking on a pragmatic, step-by-step approach to ensure complementarity and value for money in Europe's defence forces. If each step is justified, NATO will gain and Europe will be able to exercise an independent foreign policy.
That is the more mechanistic aspect of a European defence and security policy. The other aspect is mainly diplomatic and economic and relates to Russia—a country that has seen an immense 30 per cent. drop in its standard of living in recent years. To put that in perspective, the recessions that cause us great anxiety over here account for barely a 3 per cent. drop in GDP. The dissolution of social, civic and economic institutions has followed. Russia is an area on which European and American foreign policy might diverge.
I have read the headlines on all the current European initiatives to aid Russia. They are all worthy. Hardly a sphere of human endeavour is left untouched. However, it is not clear what is happening or what effect the initiatives have had. We need a focus, to have a discernible impact on what is happening in Russia. It is time to explore with the Russian Government the scope for a major European Union initiative to transfer technological and managerial skills, improve public administration, particularly tax collection, and establish a programme for regenerating derelict infrastructure. Letting the situation deteriorate further by turning the other way is inhuman and dangerous.
As the wealth gap widens, there will be increasing pressure for migration to western Europe, which will fertilise the ground for political extremism and move the prospect of addressing strategic arms reduction further into the future. Those issues cannot be left to the International Monetary Fund, any more than Kosovo can be left to the Red Cross.
Europe is still a hotbed of big issues, as it has been for much of this century. The saving grace now compared with Europe in the middle of the century and before the second world war is that then it had no institutions to address such problems; but now, in the second half of the 20th century and at the beginning of the new millennium, it can use or develop institutions to address the problems. That is the course that the European Union has embarked on with its defence initiative. I am pleased that the Government whom I support are in the lead on those issues.
8.6 pm
Sir David Madel: Like the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), I thank the Foreign Secretary for the helpful paper that he provided to the Foreign Affairs Committee when we met yesterday afternoon to discuss the Helsinki summit.
376
We should look at what has happened throughout the current presidency, not just the final summit. In the first two months after Finland took over, the European Commission existed only in a caretaker capacity because of the great row about corruption. It introduced very few initiatives at that time, but the European Union did not fall apart as a result. I have never regarded the European Union as a bicycle that will fall over if we do not keep pedalling. The Commission does not always have to be in overdrive. It was in neutral during the first two months of the Finnish presidency and Europe did not suffer at all.
There have been three very good moves while Finland has held the presidency. I welcome the press release of 29 November on economic and social matters, which said that there should be a reduction in work taxation. Another positive statement was made on the same day at the Labour and Social Affairs Council, stressing the fact that
"social protection remains a part of each member state's own decision making."
It was encouraging to have subsidiarity confirmed in that aspect of policy.
However, the most important Finnish initiative was the Foreign Ministers conference in Helsinki on 12 November to discuss the promotion of security and sustainable development in northern Europe. I particularly welcome the fact that the Russian Federation was invited, and participated. In their post-1945 relations with the Soviet Union, which was often in a sullen mood, the Finns gave a dazzling display of how to walk on a tightrope above eggshells scattered on a minefield. It is 60 years since Mr. Churchill described Russia as
"a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
He suggested that the key to that enigma was Russian national interest. It is in the Russian national interest to have good relations with the European Union and it is certainly in the European Union's interest—that includes ours—to have good relations with Russia.
We should build on the new Finnish initiative in three ways. First, we must not disengage from Russia and pass by on the other side. Global and European stability is at stake. The nightmare scenario is that Russia might lurch backwards and think that the way out of its problems is to take lots of doses of more Marxist nonsense. Secondly, ordinary Russians must be encouraged to feel that they have a stake in the prosperity and future of their country. That comes only with a genuine free market, which must be underpinned by an intelligible tax system and a legal system which is seen to be acceptable and fair.
Thirdly, Russia needs private investment and European management skills. However, the investment needs to be tightly focused on specific projects, with every effort being made to avoid the clumsy, expensive and over-mighty bureaucracy from which Russia suffers so much and which holds back economic developments and opportunities for the Russian people.
I mentioned that the Foreign Secretary had provided a helpful paper for us yesterday, and this paper was mentioned in public. The Government say that the accession negotiations with Turkey
"could not begin until Turkey met the Copenhagen political criteria."
In other words, Turkey must improve its record on human rights.
Also, what will happen about northern Cyprus? I know talks at the UN are starting on Friday between both parts of Cyprus to try to resolve the problem. However,

377
what happens if Turkey says it has improved its human rights record and the EU accepts that? What happens if Turkey says that it nevertheless wishes to stay in northern Cyprus? What happens if there is a plebiscite in northern Cyprus—recognised by the EU as fair and reasonable—and the people of northern Cyprus say that they wish there to be a continuing Turkish military presence on the island? That has to be resolved.
The Government—as the Conservative party did in government—have not said that there cannot be accession negotiations with Cyprus because it is divided. We have said that the fact that it is divided must not be a ban to Cyprus becoming a member of the European Union. The Government need to think about what the reaction of people in northern Cyprus will be if Turkey gets into a position where it is an accredited candidate for membership of the EU.
In the paper on defence, the Government said:
"Our main aim is to set a challenging performance goal for European military capabilities: by 2003, Europeans to be able to deploy more effective forces for crisis management, either as part of a NATO operation or as an EU-led operation."
I take it from that that any EU-led operation would be within the European theatre. Presumably there would be no question of any military action or operation east of Cyprus.
As the Government build up the European military capability, they must monitor constantly the attitude of the United States. They must assure the people of this country that, by making this change, there is no weakening whatever of the commitment of the United States to the defence of Europe and of this country. The Government must reassure people, and there are many ways in which they can do that.
When we become the Government in 2001, we will have to look at this matter, but I can tell the Government that one of the cornerstones of the defence of these islands has been the Anglo-American alliance, so well forged by Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt in 1941.
We cannot get away from the fact that our current relations with our EU partners are not in an easy state. There is no need to dash around from think tanks to focus groups or interdepartmental Government working groups to find out why that is the case. The answer is that the nature of current events—particularly in finance and agriculture—means that our interests and those of our European partners do not coincide at present.
The positive advantages of our membership of the European Union remain well above the disadvantages of our being outside. There is an unanswerable case for our staying part of the EU—there are many economic and industrial benefits. There are also opportunities for British diplomacy in Europe. I ask the Government not to be over-ambitious. The problems that we have had in Europe over the years have been because the Commission and some countries have been over-ambitious. When people get over-ambitious, disappointment and setbacks follow.
Of all the politics on this planet, European politics is simply the art of the possible. It is difficult and challenging, and we must keep at it in this country in our national interest.
8.16 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I speak as someone committed to the European ideal. I see nothing wrong at all in arguing that there is a political dimension to Europe,
378
as well as an economic one. I see nothing wrong at all either in arguing the case for a federal Europe—although I realise that I would be very much at odds with most Opposition Members in that. It was for that reason that I was a yes voter in the 1975 referendum, and that is why I want to see the European institutions grow and develop democratically, and to have those powers that are appropriate to their function.
As we approach the Helsinki summit, I wish to address some relevant points. The EU has become, and is becoming, increasingly important for Wales and for other parts of these islands. It is certainly an important dimension for those of us serving in the National Assembly. Policies are increasingly determined at a European level, and changes in the structure and the nature of the EU will affect those policies.
The expansion to the east inevitably has a direct bearing on matters such as agricultural policy within these islands. Brussels, more than London, now decides on that policy. We found that out the hard way in October when our calf scheme was blocked by Brussels at the eleventh hour. That taught us a salutary lesson about getting a stronger voice for Wales in Brussels. Clearly, the current arrangements were totally inadequate as a means of ensuring that a scheme proposed perfectly legitimately by the National Assembly could make progress. Our National Assembly will be seeking ways of strengthening our links through UKrep and Wales's European centre to make sure that that sort of mistake does not happen again. The failure of the UK channels within the European Union to look after our interests in Wales on the calf scheme has become a driving force for Wales to develop direct links with the EU.
We are also aware of the massive importance of European Union structural funds to the economy in Wales. Those, too, will inevitably be affected by the expansion of the EU, and properly so. Wales will secure £1.7 billion from EU structural funds over the next seven years. Our challenge is to ensure that London gives as much priority to our objective 1 areas as Brussels gives. The key questions of additionality and match funding have yet to be resolved and need to be soon, so that we can obtain full advantage from the schemes.
At Helsinki, there will be discussions of forthcoming financial and taxation arrangements. No doubt the question of the UK Fontainebleau rebate lurks in the background of those discussions, and was recently debated in the European Parliament. The present arrangements have an unfortunate side-effect which was not fully foreseen at the time of the Fontainebleau agreement. As the current formula works, for every additional £100 million that the UK gets from the EU—for example, through objective 1 money—the Treasury loses about £70 million through the loss of the rebate. The net benefit, then, is only £30 million. Because of the additionality rules and the match funding that is required for some structural funds, the Treasury may have to find an additional £100 million. The UK then gains £30 million net but the Treasury is £70 million out of pocket.
That is a direct disincentive for the Treasury to maximise the take-up of EU funds and colours its attitude to some available sources of European money. Agriculture and regional policy have suffered from that. The Secretary of State conceded the point in the Welsh Grand Committee on 5 May 1998.

379
I hope that the UK can maximise its take-up of European Union funds to the point where they are greater than the Fontainebleau rebate, and that the Fontainebleau formula can then be phased out. Until that happens, the mechanisms are contrary to the interests not only of Wales but of any other part of the UK that may benefit directly from EU funding.
Enlargement is another issue looming above Helsinki. Plaid Cymru welcomes the extension of the European Union to take in eastern European countries, but that is bound to have implications for the way in which small nations and historic regions are represented in the European structures, as was recently flagged up by our leader in the European Parliament, Jill Evans.
The Commission told Jill Evans that paragraph 2 of article 190 of the treaty says that the composition of the European Parliament will have to be modified to
"ensure appropriate representation of the peoples of the states brought together in the Community."
It is worth dwelling on that wording. I stress the words "appropriate" and "of the peoples" and ask how the Government foresee the provisions affecting not only the level of UK representation in the European Parliament but the representation in the new structures of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as peoples of Europe.
The enlargement strategy is a main agenda item at Helsinki. The Commission recommends the opening next year of bilateral accession negotiations with all the candidate countries that comply with the political criteria as established at the Copenhagen summit in 1993. If questions arise concerning, for example, the accession of Turkey, what assurance can we have that the UK will insist that the criteria on human rights and respect for minorities must be met before Turkey's accession can be countenanced? Until it treats the Kurds properly, there is no room for Turkey in the European Union.
I urge the Government to be sensitive to the economic and social challenges that will face eastern European states that have only recently emerged from long periods of limited sovereignty. There is a real danger of free-for-all market access undermining their fledgling free economies. We need a sustainable integration policy that takes account of economic, environmental and social challenges in those countries.
We in the more affluent west must accept that a larger proportion of European structural funds post 2006 will have to go to the new member states. If we want the political benefits of a wider united Europe, there is a price that we will have to be willing to pay. We may need a greater European tier of finance, even involving direct taxation—carbon tax, for example, is relevant in this context—to help to finance the cost of helping the new member states.
Asylum and immigration policy, minority language provision and the avoidance of ethnic tensions will clearly have to be discussed at Helsinki. We need a transparency of negotiations so that the new member states and their people, as well as the existing states, fully understand the implications of those eastern European states' membership.
I am especially concerned about the effect of expansion on agriculture, both for the new member states and for the existing EU countries. We need to have more exchange projects to help to develop an understanding on the matter.
380
The safety of nuclear reactors in the candidate states is a key issue.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: That is right.
Mr. Wigley: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees.
We still live in Wales with the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster 13 years ago, with continuing limitations on the movement of sheep on our farms. If that is difficult for us, how much more difficult it must be for the people in the areas immediately proximate to the disaster: not only Ukraine but parts of eastern Europe nearby. Decisions on the closure dates of Soviet-designed reactors and on the development of alternative energy sources must be a central part of the accession negotiations.
Those issues touch on the basic question of the economic viability of constituent countries of the EU. We must put even greater emphasis on policies of full employment in both existing and potential member states. Such a strategy must include positive policies to encourage entrepreneurship and new business start-ups. The move in Wales towards establishing a development bank, which we heard more about in the National Assembly this afternoon, aided by the structural funds, shows the positive way in which the European Union can help.
I am concerned about the rigidly stratified way in which the two groups of applicants are being considered as the first wave and the second wave. There is a danger of excessive stratification. Some countries are moving more quickly than others within each group. Would not it be more sensible, as the Commission recommended on 13 October, to have a fully flexible, multi-speed accession process, based exclusively on merit?
Enlargement has direct consequences for the internal structure of the European institutions, which must adopt more rigorously the principle of subsidiarity so that decisions are taken at appropriate levels. There must be a review of the division of competencies. We must strengthen the role of the Committee of the Regions, as Eurig Wyn urged in the European Parliament recently.
Helsinki must resolve the vexed question of the re-weighting of qualified majority voting in the EU, as the Foreign Secretary said. I listened to him with care, but I am still far from clear about the Government's objectives regarding qualified majority voting. It may be that we do not want to show a full hand now in the negotiations, but I would be grateful to hear the Minister's comments when he winds up.
My final point concerns the move to a common security strategy. There are good reasons for that move—for example, what happened in the Balkans—but I have listened to both sides of the argument. Certainly we would have grave reservations if the European Union were to become a nuclear power in its own right, because we feel that that could be a destabilising factor. Side by side with a common security policy must go greater efforts to develop non-military crisis management, and policies should be underpinned by a proactive role in conflict prevention.
As this century closes, it is as well for us to recall that it was marred by two bloody world wars that broke out here in Europe. The vision of the founding fathers of the

381
European Union was to create structures that would prevent such tragedies from ever happening again. As the Governments meet in Helsinki, we can only hope that that basic vision still drives us forward to achieve greater unity in an ever widening European Union.
8.29 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I have always regarded this debate as the most important of the year, even though it does not deal with the great issues about which our constituents write to us, such as the national health service or law and order. It is not about the decisions, but about where those decisions are made. I cannot think of a more important debate than the question whether we continue to make decisions in this House or watch our ability to make those decisions pass to another place.
As I listened to the speeches tonight, I wondered what some of our European friends would make of this debate if they had heard it. They would have concluded that they were listening to a description of a European Union that does not exist. The impression given of the state of the European Union by the Government, and Labour Members who supported the Government's approach, is not held in Europe. It is a view of Europe that does not exist in reality and is now heard of only from Ministers and a small number of Conservative Members. It is as if those people think that we are still dealing with a common market with some extra twirly bits and some knobs on. I travel frequently in Europe, and I used to do so as a Minister, and it is unreal to suggest that that vision of Europe is shared by our European partners.
I give due credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) for arguing the case for the Europe that I have just described. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I describe him as a semi-grandee, but one might have hoped that the mega-grandees would have come to argue the case in favour of the European Union of their vision. If my hon. Friend had not argued the case, it would have gone by default.
I was troubled when my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said that he was not sure whether he had read the treaty of Rome. I have some sympathy with that, because I did not read the treaty of Rome until about 1988. At that time, I had to go to Europe suddenly because a ministerial colleague was taken ill, and I had to make an unexceptional speech in an unacceptable place. The experience was nicely done—the car was waiting downstairs to whisk me off to the plane, for example. When I opened my red box, it contained a copy of the treaty of Rome, so I read it. It does not take that long, because it is an easier read than the Maastricht treaty. However, it is also a horrifying read, because it makes one realise that the prospectus that was put to this country in the early 1970s was wrong.
I was a political activist at the time, and I accepted what I was told by my party. It was claimed that we were entering a common market. Yes, there were one or two strange people at the margins who wanted to go further, but we were told that that would not happen. I accepted that, but I was wrong to do so. The truth about the nature of the European Union is now obscured by the great Labour lie, but it was a great Conservative lie first. Conservatives, therefore, should discuss the subject with a fair amount of humility. It was the failure of the
382
Conservative Government of the 1970s honestly to tell the people of this country what was at stake that bedevils our relationship with Europe to this day.
I did not see the light for many years after I should have done, because it was there to see for those who were prepared to do so. I can do no better than to cite the example of a letter sent by the then Lord Chancellor on 14 December 1960 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). It said:
"My dear Ted … You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome … I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones … these objections ought to be brought out into the open".
Indeed they should have been. It continued:
"To confer a sovereign state's treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of a confederation to the fully federal state."
That was the warning from the Government's chief Law Officer 10 years before we were finally taken into what was to become the European Union.
A number of sensible, principled Europeans have been quoted today who believe in a destiny for their countries that I passionately reject for my own. Those quotations make the prospectus abundantly clear. I shall not quote again the remarks of Hans Tietmeyer in that regard, but hon. Members must not think that he was a Johnny-come-lately who perverted the great ideal that Europe should be no more than a common market. As far back as 1963, Bundesbank president Karl Blessing said:
"The final goal of the Commission is a European Monetary Union … A common currency … is feasible only if, apart from a common trade policy, there is also a common finance and budgetary policy, a common social and wage policy—a common policy all round. In brief, this would only happen if there was a federal state."
Those aspirations have not been forgotten today. Early last month, former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl spoke at the celebrations to mark the fall of the Berlin wall. According to The Daily Telegraph—and the House will appreciate that the sentiments are his and not mine—he urged
"the current German Government to continue his policy of European integration or there would be 'no peaceful future for Germany and Europe.'
Mr. Kohl told the audience at the Reichstag that 'the gift of unification obliges us … to drive forward the building of the European house with powerful steps'."
Perhaps it sounds menacing in German, but he was building on remarks he had made previously. As long ago as 1996—in Belgium, of all countries—the former Chancellor said:
"The policy of European integration is in reality a question of war and peace in the 21st century."
He added that the only alternative to closer integration would be war on the continent.
People who have been prepared to read the source documents and to listen to what European statesmen have been saying have always known that that was the agenda. It was not the agenda that the Conservative Government of the day put to this country on a false prospectus, and it is not the agenda that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), will put to the House when he winds up the debate.
The reality facing the House and the country at large is not some fantasy Europe that we think might rather suit us, but the Europe that is in fact on offer. Although I

383
commend the courage of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, it is not good enough to say that we should not get too exercised by the words that have been used. People used those words to frame their vision of the European destiny that they desperately wanted. That destiny might have been right for us as well if our history had been like theirs, but our history is different. It would have been more honest to tell the Europeans, "We wish you well, but the destiny that you see for yourselves is not a destiny for us."
I can do no better than to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—not someone who could ever be derided as a snarling Euro-sceptic. On 1 March 1995, he said:
"The often unspoken fear of many people—we should address it honestly and clearly and examine it—is that Europe might develop into a super-state, an overarching Government with no national veto, no control over our own borders, prescriptive decisions, a single currency imposed and the nation state retreating to a wholly subordinate role. That fear exists out there … and we should recognise the fact that it exists … I for one would find such a Europe wholly unacceptable for this country. I do not believe that it is remotely likely, but, if that were to be the future, it would not be a future that would be suitable for this country."—[Official Report, 1 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 1062.]
The treaty of Rome foretold the creation of a super-state. There is no other way in which it can be interpreted. I do not know where my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has been since 1998, because we are now on the verge of the creation of that state. We are almost there. That state now has its own anthem, flag, Parliament, civil service and passport. It has common citizenship and its own embassies. It has its own policies for defence and taxation—and it has its own currency as well. We do ourselves no credit, and betray our country, if we do not realise that that is what we have created. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe says that he knows no one on the continent readily prepared to surrender their powers, in that regard at least, my contacts seem to be more extensive than his.
When I was in Government, I well remember talking to a former Italian Prime Minister. I asked, "Why do you want to give away your power to a new state?" He said, "Are you serious? I would love to go into the Italian Parliament and say that I cannot possibly deal with this. It will have to be dealt with by the European Union." He may have been expressing things in his own way but his point was that from his perspective, the European state that they wanted to create was decent and right. It is right for them but it is not right for us.
What are we going to do about that? I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who mentioned the easy jibe about how we just want to withdraw from Europe. In some ways, it is sad. I get criticised by Christopher Booker for not really wanting to come out of Europe but when other people look at what I say, they say that I do.
We cannot go on this way. It is in the interests of this country and of the European Union that we should have a relationship with which we all feel comfortable. Only a fool, a self-deluding person or the Foreign Secretary could honestly look at the state of our relationship with Europe today and say that we can feel comfortable with it. That is a self-evident absurdity. People such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—it is
384
usually hon. Members on this side of the House—say, "It is no good talking about doing anything about this. It is over. You cannot possibly do anything. Our partners will never let us get away it."
When I hear such rhetoric, I think what a dismal view it is to have of our European partners. I do not believe that they want to hold us in thrall in a relationship that we do not enjoy. They are entitled to a Government and a political party that will honestly say that we came in under false pretences, that it is our fault and that we want to achieve a relationship with which we can feel comfortable. If we approached our partners with such humility and honesty, we could achieve such a relationship with Europe.
It is not a question of withdrawing from Europe because we cannot. It is there; it is our principal trading partner and our common heritage. Twice in a lifetime, a million war dead have testified to the fact that Europe is part of our destiny. If we faced up to what we did by not admitting that their destiny and future were different from ours, think of what could have been achieved.
Could we withdraw from the European Union? Of course we could. It is an illusion and wrong in law to pretend that we could not. If we do not say, "Do what we want or we'll leave", but that we want to achieve something that could be common to us both, then provided that we are prepared to admit that we have not, as a sovereign Parliament lost our ability withdraw—we have not quite yet—I believe that much could be achieved.
Mr. Beard: When the hon. Gentleman puts to members of the European Union the proposition that he wants to renegotiate the treaty of Rome, what would he do when they lack all interest in it and say that they will not renegotiate?
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I will not be drawn down that path. He has a jaundiced idea of our partners. From having done the job, I know that, at the moment, we go into Europe, berate them and say that they have changed the rules. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did.] Hear me out. The Government say that they will be at the heart of Europe and achieve everything but in the end they stand alone foolishly. The Labour Government have nothing to teach us in respect of saying that they want to do it their way and getting egg on their face. The fact of it is that we have gone into Europe and told the other countries that they have changed the rules. They have never changed the rules. We are the ones who, in wilful ignorance, went in with a different perspective. We have never tried honestly to admit that to the Europeans.
Is the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) seriously saying that the Europeans would not turn round and say, "You have been straight about this. We now understand where you are coming from. You admit that it cannot go on like this. We know that our relationship does not work. We know that it causes ill temper. We know that every British Prime Minister, whether Labour or Conservative, comes in wanting to be at the centre of Europe and years later is isolated because Britain has a different agenda"? I am saying that we could put all that behind us. The idea that it would serve European interests to say, "Right, the relationship does not work, but we will not negotiate one jot," is wrong. If that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks of our partners, I do not understand why he is so keen on the partnership.

385
What could come out of the debate tonight is a recognition on both sides of the House that it is not in our interest or that of Europe to continue in this way. If we can honestly confront that, we could achieve something that has never even been thought of.
8.46 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was right to concentrate on the different backgrounds and attitudes of the European countries and their different expectations of the European Union. Our relationship with Europe has never been totally harmonious, because our expectations are different.
France has been marched over three times in 130 years. That affects the attitude of the French. They want not just bridges but close bonds with Germany. The Germans are conscious of their record. They were shaken after the war, and looking for markets for their manufacturers. Spain, Portugal and Greece have seen lack of democracy in quite recent years. I remember talking to a Greek friend who said, with his hand on his heart, "I was born a Greek, but I will die a European." That is not something that many British people would say. One might even say that he was putting his hand in the wrong place, bearing in mind the amount of money that has gone into Greece.
Italy has been politically unstable. I have heard many Italian politicians say that they would welcome the harmony and sense of continuity that would come from a strengthened European presence. The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg really are at the heart of Europe, and they have gained enormously in stability and prosperity. Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden are distinguished by military neutrality. All those countries look to Europe in their different ways as a safeguard of their stability, democracy and freedom, whereas the United Kingdom has a different background. We stood alone during the war. We are Atlanticists, not only because of the shared language. We are traders. Our City is predominant. Our stocks, financial markets and insurance are extremely important as part of our national economy.
Yet both Harold Macmillan and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) led us towards continental Europe, inspired not just by trade and business opportunities but, above all, by the desire to forge a more united Europe in which internal wars would not recur. In that, we have been triumphantly successful, and I welcome that initiative. However, we do not look to Europe as the safeguard of our democracy and freedom. Our background is different. The people of this country look to us in Westminster as the safeguards of our democracy and freedom.
There is a second strand of difference between us and our continental European allies. The United Kingdom is much closer to the United States than other European countries. That was demonstrated graphically in the bombing of Libya and Iraq. We co-operate in military intelligence. The United States is supreme in satellite intelligence, but we make our contribution to the joint international security situation. An indication of the value of American-British support was over the Falkland Islands, where we were given considerable support in intelligence and other matters.
With the United States and others, we have been partners in NATO for 50 years. Phase 1 was during the Warsaw pact. Phase 2 was when we saw the Warsaw pact
386
collapse and the Berlin wall go down, leading inevitably to the garnering of the peace dividend, with 30 per cent. cuts in defence. The United States is now the only military superpower because of its technological drive and because the European defence effort is focused through so many different countries and command and control procedures.
We now look towards phase 3 of our co-operation with NATO and for a new NATO role. Should that role be more interventionist? Should Europe have a military capacity to cope with European problems? It is true that Europe needs what military people describe as sinews; we need intelligence, heavy-lift capacity for aircraft, command and control mechanisms and smart weapons. Not surprisingly, the United States supports European initiatives to promote a European leg for our defence; partly because the Americans have their own, other concerns—the Korean peninsula, the middle east, Taiwan and China.
It would be wrong to think that the US is obsessed with foreign intervention. The US is one of the world's most insular countries; less than 7 per cent. of its population hold a passport—indeed, some Congressmen regard it as a badge of pride not to possess a passport. However, in general, the American people—certainly the Senate and the House of Representatives—want fairer burden sharing, so there is support for the European security and defence initiative and for the defence capabilities initiative announced in April 1999.
We need to fold into the equation the common foreign and security policy—the CFSP—which, in February 1992, established a second pillar of the EU under the Maastricht treaty. The central point of the CFSP policy is included in the words
"the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
There is a problem in mingling the defence capacities of NATO and the EU. Six countries are members of NATO, but not of the EU—Iceland, Norway, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Turkey—while four countries are members of the EU, but not of NATO; Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden are neutrals. Faced with that, with whom should the UK have chosen to explore such a difficult conundrum? Inexplicably, the Government chose France, whose principal characteristic in NATO matters is its reluctance to fall in line with international co-operation, especially that which it perceives to be American-led.
The NATO website states:
"France, which remains a full member of the North Atlantic Alliance and of its political structures, withdrew from the Alliance's integrated military structure in 1966. It does not participate in NATO's Defence Planning Committee, Nuclear Planning Group or Military Committee. Regular contacts with NATO's military structure take place through a French Military Mission to the Military Committee."
Those are the people with whom we have chosen to throw in our lot.
A Foreign Office press release, dated 25 November, states:
"We therefore call on the European Council in Helsinki to take a decisive step forward for the development of those military capabilities and for the setting up of the political and military instruments necessary to use them. This is necessary to give the EU the autonomous capacity to take decisions and, where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged, to launch and then to conduct EU-led military operations."

387
On page 3, it states that
"we call on the European Union at Helsinki … to endorse the proposal which the UK and France have put forward on the role and composition of a Military Committee and a military staff and the planning and conduct of EU-led operations.
That means that the UK has joined with France—the only member of NATO not to participate in the alliance's integrated military structure—to set up and promote a military committee and a military staff. At the time of the announcement of that initiative, President Chirac made it absolutely clear that France would not change its attitude to the integrated military structure—it will remain outside that structure.
By definition, the committee that we have created is outside the integrated military structure—exactly what the Americans most feared. Several hon. Members have quoted from the speech made at the Royal Institute of International Affairs on 7 October by Strobe Talbott, the Deputy US Secretary of State. He said clearly that
"the US is for ESDI."
He wants us to set up a European leg of security. He continued:
"will it help keep the Alliance together and that means the whole Alliance, European and non-European, EU and non-EU?
We would not want to see an ESDI that comes into being first within NATO but then grows out of NATO and finally grows away from NATO, since that would lead to an ESDI that initially duplicates NATO but that could eventually compete with NATO."
That is exactly what the Government are now proposing.
How could this be? I am convinced that the truth is that the Government's hope for a narrow agenda at Helsinki and the intergovernmental conference will be outflanked by a push for a wider agenda led by Mr. Prodi, the President of the Union. We are already sidelined by our abstention from the euro. The Government fear increasing isolation from European colleagues.
The Government have previously opposed European Union involvement in defence matters. The Government's switch appears to be an attempt to win euro credentials, but I fear that the price will be high. It will involve dilution of defence effort because of the confusion over NATO membership and EU membership. Moreover, it starts from the wrong point, even within the EU, because it starts from linking us with the French, who are not involved in the integrated military structure.
Defence is too serious to treat in that way. NATO has been our safeguard, and we weaken or dilute it at our peril. In that sense, I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), who felt that we should set up an independent defence leg in Europe.
There is a tendency to think that major, nation-threatening attacks will not occur, and that we should instead concentrate on lesser, localised conflicts. That cannot be guaranteed. We might again face nation-threatening attacks, and I plead that the Government avoid actions that might be thought to weaken NATO.
8.56 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) in the early 1980s, when he was appointed by the Prime Minister
388
to co-ordinate the efforts of those groups that were working with the Conservative party to undermine the movement for unilateral nuclear disarmament by the west. No one is more qualified than he to draw attention to the dangers to the North Atlantic alliance of what is being proposed by the creation of what is effectively an independent Europe defence policy separated from the United States. I warmly endorse the timely warning that my hon. Friend gave the House in his speech.
I recall that, at the time when my hon. Friend was leading that campaign to preserve our defences, I read a book by the late Ian Greig, called "They Mean What They Say". It was an attempt to warn democrats in the west that they should not disregard the rhetoric of Soviet leaders. I say that that also applies to the rhetoric of pro-federalist leaders in Europe today. They do mean what they say. What are they saying? I shall quote a few more examples for the record.
The German Finance Minister, Hans Eichel, who was hailed as a moderate when he replaced "red Oskar" Lafontaine, has said:
"I cannot imagine that Europe can successfully compete … without the prospect of a uniformly acting political union … The euro is not European unification, but it is one important step towards this end."
The German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, has said:
"My goal is to turn the EU into an entity"—
that is, a single thing—
"under international law."
The German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, has said:
"National Sovereignty will soon be a product of the imagination."
He has also admitted that
"The introduction of the common European currency was ultimately by no means only an economic decision. It was an original political act to hand over sovereignty over one of the most important areas of national authority to a European authority … For this reason alone, monetary union requires of us Europeans decisive advances in the field of political integration."
I mentioned in an intervention that the chief economist of the European central bank, Dr. Otmar Issing, has said,
"There is no example in history of a lasting monetary union that was not linked to political union."
Wim Duisenberg, the president of the European central bank, has said:
"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and was always meant to be a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe."
I come right up to date and The Times of 4 November 1999. It reports the President of Germany, President Rau, calling for the European Union to be transformed into a "European Federal Union" complete with its own constitution. The Times states:
"He said the imminent enlargement of the EU meant that there must be 'decision-making procedures which guarantee Europe's capacity for action'".
At least, the president of the European Commission, President Prodi, is honest enough to admit that. According to The Times of 27 October, he wants the European Commission henceforth to be described as the "European government". The Times reports:
"Asked to justify the term 'government of Europe' Signor Prodi said: 'But what is the Commission? We are here to take binding decisions as an executive power. If you don't like the term

389
government for this, what other term do you suggest? Consultative commission? I speak of a European government because we take government decisions."
Funnily enough, in the middle of last month, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that the reason he objected so strongly to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) being Labour's candidate for the mayoralty of London was because of what the hon. Gentleman had done in the 1980s. The Prime Minister said:
"In the Eighties, when he was in charge of the Labour Party in London, we"—
that is to say the Labour party—
"were a byword for extremism … we were unelectable as a political party."
That was certainly true, and the Prime Minister should know all about it because he was part of that extremism. He stood for election to the House in 1983 on the following commitment. In his electoral address, he stated:
"We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs."
That is where the Prime Minister stood at that time. Yet he has the impudence to call those of us who want to be "In Europe, not run by Europe" "extremists". If we are extremists, we are extremists along with 64 per cent. of the British people.
I have commissioned ICM to ask a simple, single question at six-monthly intervals over the past year. That question is:
"Do you think that Britain should replace"—
it does not use pejorative words such as "abolish"—
"the pound with the single European currency?"
When I first asked that question in October 1998, the results were 32 per cent. "Yes" and 56 per cent. "No". By March of this year, those in favour of the euro had fallen from 32 per cent. to 30 per cent. and those in favour of keeping the pound had risen from 56 per cent. to 60 per cent. It was exactly 2:1 against the euro.
Now the gap is even greater. At the end of September this year, the results were 27 per cent. "Yes" in favour of the euro and a massive 64 per cent. "No" against it. That is almost identical to the figures that we used to get for comparable polls on the issue of unilateral nuclear disarmament in the early 1980s when the Prime Minister proudly wore his Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge and when he wanted, and called for, withdrawal from Europe in its entirety. Its policy on nuclear defence was an electoral albatross to the Labour party then, and its current policy will be an electoral albatross to it now, because two thirds of the British people disagree with it about abandoning the pound and replacing it with the single currency.
Mr. Gapes: Given the hon. Gentleman's great interest in opinion polls, has he seen those that point out that the majority of the British people think that this country will join the single European currency? Is he aware that an interesting development is taking place in Europe whereby this currency will be established over the next few years? Will he tell us—yes or no—whether he wants that currency to be a success or a failure?
Dr. Lewis: It is my view that the single currency is bound to be a failure, because it will force the states that subscribe to it to join together in a unified political entity, as all those quotations illustrate.
390
As to the point about polls showing that people who oppose the move nevertheless believe that it will happen, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the more people come to realise that they are the silent majority against joining the euro—a majority which is getting greater month by month—the more confident they will be that the battle will be won by those who want to preserve the pound and our sovereignty.
I shall make only one more point because I wish to leave time for two colleagues whom I believe want to speak. It was the great fallacy of Marxism that all politics is about economics. Marx tried to define politics in terms of economics, and I regret to say that the Government are doing precisely that in setting the criteria for whether this country should ever join the single currency. They say that the only criteria that they will apply are five economic tests.
I first raised that matter with the Prime Minister on 15 December 1997, when I asked him whether his position meant that
"no loss, however great, of political sovereignty would deter him and his Government from entering economic and monetary union, provided that what they regard as economic conditions alone were right".
His answer was very revealing. He said, "No," because of course he could not possibly agree with me, but he went on to confirm that it was precisely what his position meant. He said that
"it simply means that we should judge whether we enter monetary union according to our national interest, and"—
wait for it—
"that is defined by the economic tests that we have set."—[Official Report, 15 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 36.]
I returned to the subject on 10 November, just three weeks ago, when I asked the Prime Minister at Question Time:
"What factors other than economic ones will determine whether Britain joins the single European currency."
He replied only:
"A decision will be taken on the basis of what is in Britain's best national interests."
I knew that he would say something like that, as I had asked it as a closed question. I was then able to respond and point out that he had not answered the question and that he had known for a fortnight that the question was not about economic tests but about whether there were any political tests at all that would influence whether Britain should sign away its economic, and therefore its political, independence.
In reply to my pressing him, the Prime Minister said:
"The national interest of course includes the economic conditions that we have set out, but … we believe that the national economic interest should be the determining factor in whether Britain joins the single currency … Our policy is the sensible one—leave the option open and determine it on the British national economic interest"—[Official Report, 10 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 1120–21.]
The Prime Minister is saying that, if the single currency works as it is intended to, and does not implode—as it may do, and as the exchange rate mechanism did—and creates a politically united Europe, he will want this country to join that structure and lose its independence for ever.
I conclude by reference to the remark of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) about whether it is inevitable that Britain will join the single currency even

391
though two thirds of the British people are manifestly opposed to it. There is only one way that it could happen, and that is if the country could be brainwashed by a tidal wave of propaganda, funded by Government money, to convince the people that there is no alternative.
All the signs are that this wretched Government will try to do that. They will try to rig the referendum by coming up with a complicated formula that will ensure that millions more pounds of public money are used to brainwash people into thinking that they have got to join the euro than can possibly be used to demonstrate that the euro is, in fact, a disaster waiting to happen.
The Government think that their strategy will work; it will not work. The British people will defeat them on that and force them to change their policy, just as they defeated Labour on its mad unilateralist policies in the 1980s, when the current Prime Minister was arguing for the extremist position—which is not the position of the Conservative party—that we should come out of Europe altogether.
9.9 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: In the 1999 Reith lectures, Anthony Giddens, the director of the London school of economics, refers to globalisation—this links in with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—as being political, technological and cultural as well as economic. He had said earlier that he agreed with the radicals who say that the era of the nation state is over. I do not agree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said, there may be some at the centre of Europe, such as the Benelux countries, that can rightfully say that, but it is not true for most other countries in the European Union, including this country. I shall not be around to see what happens in 100 or 200 years' time, so I shall not make any forecasts.
I believe that, on the Conservative Benches, some things are the same as they were in 1975. There was a referendum that was lost by the anti-Common Market people—the anti-Europeans—and won by those who were, on a cross-party basis, in favour; the result confirmed our remaining within the Common Market. Three weeks later, there was a by-election in Greenwich, Woolwich, West in which I was elected as its Member of Parliament. I had the support of Neil Marten, who had been one of the leading lights among the anti-Europeans. He said that he wanted even those who had been on his side during the referendum to vote Conservative—for me—even though he and I did not hold the same views on the issue.
The Conservative party will continue to speak up for the views and the long-term interests of the people of Britain. Our position on the euro and other issues unites the spread of legitimate opinion that has been expressed in the debate. I was delighted when, yesterday evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) spoke as an officer of the Conservative group for Europe. He said that we should be in Europe, not out of it, and went on to talk about how we did not want to be ruled by Europe and about party policy at the next election. Those statements are worth repeating.
However, we on the Conservative side have a problem. Here, I am not making a national point, or a mainly European point, but a purely Conservative point.
392
There are those who credit us with having done badly in the last general election in part because of the involvement of the Referendum party, which then became the Referendum Movement and is now the Democracy Movement, as the director of the Democracy Movement recently confirmed to me.
In the past two and a half years, the Conservatives have won back control of West Sussex county council; we not only held Arun district council, but increased our majority to a significant level; and we won back Worthing borough council. In the last national election—the June elections to the European Parliament—Labour lost and the Conservatives won. That might have come as a surprise to those who were guided by the opinion polls. In the week preceding the vote, I suggested to various political journalists that they ask Labour apologists how they would react if Labour got fewer votes than the Tories, but they thought that outcome so improbable that they did not bother. How much more fun it would have been if they had asked in advance, rather than waited until after the election to hear that the reason Labour lost was that fewer people voted for it. That is the nature of politics.
Let me now turn to the next general election. There is concern that the successors to the Referendum party might cause another Conservative defeat and that there will another overwhelming Labour majority that has the support of the Liberal Democrats, who consistently have been more in favour than Labour or the Conservatives of what can loosely be described as European integration. I shall briefly detain the House and quote my response to the first person who wrote to me on behalf of the Democracy Movement.
I told my correspondent how grateful I was to receive a postcard with my photograph on it. I had been told by that person that my response to various Europe-related questions would influence the way he voted in the Worthing, West constituency at the next general election. I suggested that he and the Democracy Movement should consider three points. I wrote:
"Any prospective candidate for MP who is swayed by cash for election expenses"—
which is what Paul Sykes offered at the last general election—
"or cash for this postcard campaign is in my view a political prostitute."
I asked my correspondent to tell those who thought up the approach that they would, in relation to me, be "a frustrated punter." Having been told that my replies would influence my correspondent's vote, I assured him that:
"Every voter and every candidate knows we have secret ballots so neither you nor I know how other people vote in the election."
I pointed out:
"You would only be able to vote for me or for another candidate in Worthing, West if you become a registered elector in the constituency."
I did that because my correspondent was holding out from a point outside my constituency the promise of voting for me. I ended with these words:
"With renewed thanks for the photograph, I remain unbribed and unbullied".
I believe that that is true of most members of the Conservative party.
9.15 pm
Mr. David Lidington: Somewhat to my surprise, I found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) when he said that in his view the European Community could not continue much longer with a system of decision making which had been drafted by six member states in western Europe in the 1950s, which was now having to be applied to decision taking in a Community of 15, soon to number 20, 25 or perhaps 30 different and diverse member states.
As has been said, virtually every Member of whatever party in the House is pledged to support enlargement on both moral grounds and grounds of self-interest. We must confront the fact that in the light of enlargement, the decision-making processes in the European Union will have to be changed.
There are broadly two options available to us. One is that which was set out with coherence and fluency in the report from Mr. Dehaene, Lord Simon and former President von Weizsäcker. It is a perfectly honourable and openly espoused vision of a federal Europe, for want of a better shorthand term, where the prime focus of authority and loyalty would be to supranational European institutions. In the absence of a clear statement of direction from the Government, that is the sort of vision that I take the current Government to have in their mind too. That is given not only Lord Simon's former membership of the Government, but given what the Government have done in terms of signing up to the social chapter, seeking in principle to participate in economic and monetary union, their approach to the withholding tax and the extension of qualified majority voting, to which they have subscribed through the Amsterdam treaty.
I believe that that approach is profoundly wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) is advocating a more flexible Europe with the concept of flexibility written into the treaty of the EU. That is a common-sense and mature way in which to come to terms with the reality of a European Union which is increasingly diverse. I have yet to see evidence that the Government have come to terms with the nature and the gravity of the challenge which enlargement will mean for the entire EU. Some of the problems may be transitional, but we are talking about long transitional periods and long derogations. How realistic is it for us to think that a country such as Poland, let alone some of the south-eastern European states which have inherited the environmental catastrophes wrought by nearly half a century of communist rule, will accept as acquis communautaire, as is intended, the environmental standards written into the treaties and into European law?
How realistic is it for us to expect that it will be easy or quick for those countries in central or eastern Europe to impose tight border controls against the former members of the Soviet Union, such as Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation, while at the same time participating fully in the freedom of movement of persons, which they sign up to once they become members of the EU? How are the two things to be made compatible?
Some of these issues may be only short term but others seem to me to be more permanent. I question how long we can have one legal framework to govern agriculture or environmental policy when perhaps we shall have a European Union stretching from Rhodes to Reykjavik and from Estonia to the Canary Islands or to Madeira.
394
I therefore urge my hon. Friend to stick firmly to and to develop the concept of flexibility that he outlined in his speech today. Conservatives should be confident and unashamed about advocating that such flexibility be written into the treaty at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.
We can see some of the problems that may arise in the context of the on-going discussions about co-operation on justice and home affairs matters. I want to make it clear that I am completely in favour of practical, sensible co-operation between European countries in combating drug trafficking, fighting organised crime, and dealing with money laundering and international fraud. The habit of working together, which membership of the European Union encourages among its various member states, assists us in that co-operative work.
However, there are others on the continent of Europe who openly want to go much further than such co-operation and to have a common judicial system throughout the EU. They want it written into the Amsterdam treaty as a new objective that the EU should
"maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice."
In his comments at the press conference immediately following the Tampere summit, Mr. Prodi spoke about embarking on the long march to the goal of a common judicial system. Officials of the Finnish presidency appearing before the Select Committee on the European Communities in another place have called for a "single market" in justice and home affairs matters, and for qualified majority voting.
The Amsterdam treaty implies that we are at present in a transitional stage. It refers to five years until the Commission gains exclusive right of initiative under title IV, and five years until we move towards qualified majority voting on visas, asylum policy and immigration policy. At the Vienna summit, the Heads of Government agreed that within five years we should move to common measures and practical policies on asylum throughout the union.
The legal experts whose views I have read and sought on the fruits of Amsterdam say that as a consequence of the varied conflicts of national interest that were evident during the Amsterdam negotiations, we have ended up with a legal basis for justice and home affairs matters that is fragmented and complicated.
There are certain to be pressures from the Commission and from other member states at the forthcoming IGC for that to be clarified and made more coherent, and for a further push to be made in the direction of the communitisation of justice and home affairs matters. I hope that Ministers will reiterate their determination to resist such moves.
My final point relates to a matter referred to by the Foreign Secretary in his opening remarks, and by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) during his speech—the matter of openness and transparency with regard to proceedings of the European Council.
Having been a member of one of the European Standing Committees for the five years of the previous Parliament, I recall vividly, as someone charged with scrutiny of draft directives and other legislation on behalf of the House, the sense of frustration at being unable to discover what views

395
were being taken by other member states, and sometimes being unable to discover the view of our own Government with regard to forthcoming decisions.
That made the work of scrutiny difficult. It is not just a matter for occasional political debate. It is becoming something of a constitutional and democratic scandal that the European Council is, in effect, a legislature—not an Executive, but a body that takes decisions to agree to laws, which then become enforceable upon British citizens through the courts of this country, and that those decisions about law-making are taken in secret, without the press or the public knowing what is to be determined and what position is being taken by the various Governments represented at the Council. During the debate, I have detected common ground between members of different parties on the need for greater openness, which would be a prize well worth winning. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues will pursue it with vigour.
9.25 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: The debate has been colourful and lively, and many interesting contributions have been made from both sides of the House. I regret that time does not allow me to mention them all, and I hope that hon. Members to whose remarks I do not refer will forgive me.
We all agree that enlargement should be a priority for Helsinki. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made the point eloquently when he said that it was more than a matter of economics. Other hon. Members made the same point.
Serious doubts about European integration have been expressed in the debate. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) put the case no less forcefully than my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who made characteristically powerful and lucid speeches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made a powerful speech on the single currency, about which he has been consistent over the years. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that his speech was marred only by his unfortunate reference to supermarkets.
Labour Members who expressed unreserved support for the Government's position were conspicuous by their absence. There was a mixed response from both sides of the House. Many hon. Members, including my distinguished hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney), who made a courageous speech, called for honesty and straightforwardness in the debate on Europe. The appeal for honesty and openness is common ground for many hon. Members.
Behind all the arguments lies one great difference of view. It is the difference between the two visions of Europe. Helsinki and enlargement brings to the fore the choice between them. The first is that of Romano Prodi and many other European centre-left leaders. It is the vision of a highly regulated European super-state, in which, as the President of the Commission said:
"QMV should become the norm".
That vision includes all the apparatus of the federal state: an army, converged legal systems and a Commission that looks, talks and acts like a Government. There is no point
396
in Labour Members belittling that view because we have heard today an abundance of quotes, from Prodi and many others, which made that agenda explicit.
That vision contrasts sharply with the Conservative vision of a flexible, outward-looking, deregulated European Union, in which there will be a firm balance between the role of national Governments and that of EU institutions. The Helsinki summit presents a vital opportunity to set out and debate those choices once and for all.
Both sides of the House share a commitment to enlargement; we owe that to the former iron curtain countries. It is embarrassing that it has already taken so long. However, it will be accompanied by serious challenges to the European Union, which has already regulated too far, is—as the hon. Member for Hornchurch pointed out—incapable of managing its existing budget effectively, and struggles to retain the confidence of the people of Europe. Enlargement is a watershed and calls for far-reaching and visionary changes in the outdated, regulatory, interventionist model of Europe.
The Foreign Secretary, faced with that challenge, has proposed nothing that resembles a coherent strategy to tackle it. I fear that the Minister has been left with an enormous task in the limited time available for summing up. He must demonstrate that the Government are seriously addressing the challenges that enlargement poses, and that they recognise the enormity of the choices ahead. Those challenges are considerable and I shall list three or four of them.
The first challenge is creating a European Union that can allow for the flexibility to accommodate a much more diverse group of member states, ranging from Poland to Portugal. To most people, it is common sense that the same employment or social legislation cannot sensibly apply in Hungary as in Britain. That is what we mean by flexibility and the Conservative approach to it is modest and focused only on future legislation outside the core areas. That concept is being discussed in the report of the so-called three wise men and many European Governments support the idea that flexibility should be on the Helsinki agenda. The Government are unusual in saying that there should be no debate about flexibility, but that there should be a substantial extension of QMV. They are arguing for a rigid future for the EU, not flexibility, and they are nearly alone in so doing.
Secondly, there is the challenge of establishing a better check and balance to what has become the inherently regulatory tendency of the EU institutions. Even the most ardent integrationist must now accept that there is no point, in the context of enlargement, in piling regulation on to regulation when there is no chance of applicant countries such as Poland and Hungary meeting the existing directives for years to come. Enlargement must mean that we have already reached the high-water mark of regulation and higher hurdles in respect of cost-benefit and tests of practicality for new legislation should be built into the treaty.
Thirdly, there is the challenge of paying for enlargement, which was wholly unaddressed by the Foreign Secretary and remains wholly unaddressed by most member states. Everyone knows that the Berlin forecasts will be blown to bits when the new members enter the EU. The President of the Commission himself has said that he "assumes" that expansion will result in

397
the loss of the British rebate. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that: what is the Government's position and who will pay? [Interruption.] It is no good the Foreign Secretary shaking his head; that is what Romano Prodi has said. What is more, it is absolutely clear that, once there are 25 member states, the common agricultural policy will no longer be affordable and the Berlin projections will simply not hold water. Somebody has to pay.
Fourthly, the people of Britain will want to hear what the Government will negotiate into the treaty to protect their sovereign and democratic rights from further erosion. There are limits to integration and we are near those limits now. Treaty after treaty has eroded the democratic rights of people in this country and the time has come to clarify once and for all the roles and rights of democratically elected national Governments and the role of the EU.
Since coming to office, the Government have sought to improve relationships with our EU partners, but they have made the cardinal error of confusing friendship with negotiating weakness. They have adopted a conciliatory approach before negotiations have taken place and have failed to hold the line. The track record is one of going with the flow and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) referred to many individual examples such as giving up the opt-out on the social chapter, the surrender of the veto in 16 areas at Amsterdam, the conceding of the principle on tax harmonisation and failing to insist on serious reform of the CAP. It goes on and on.
In their approach to the intergovernmental conference, the Government have started in similar vein, offering up the concessions before it even starts. In September, the policy was fairly clear: minimise the agenda, stick to the so-called leftovers from Amsterdam and the Cologne agenda and perhaps dish up a few concessions, hoping that it would all pass quietly. In September, the Minister's predecessor wrote to me—I have the letter here—to say that the Government
"supports the agenda set out at Cologne".
He went on to explain that he did not see reasons for extending that agenda, but even as that letter was being written the Prime Minister's very own Lord Simon was drafting another report that would comprehensively undermine that strategy and provide European leaders and the President of the Commission with an opportunity to expand the agenda.
Today, the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that in some respects that agenda has already started slipping beyond the one set out at Cologne. More than that, the Government's own MEPs have voted in the European Parliament to widen the IGC way beyond the Government's preferred agenda to include, among other things, reconsideration of the Amsterdam flexibility clause, which he ruled out earlier this evening. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister disowns his own MEPs tonight, or whether he will be definitive about what will and will not be on the IGC agenda as far as the Government are concerned.
While we are on the subject, let me add that the Government's friends in the Liberal party have been even more explicit. Liberal MEPs have voted in favour of the extension of qualified majority voting to all areas, including taxation—a fact that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife neglected to mention.
398
The Government have already failed to rule out conceding the veto in approximately 19 new areas, and would receive nothing in return. It is no good saying that qualified majority voting has been the general rule in the past, because it has not been the general rule in those 19 areas. It will be in the future, however, and some of the 19 areas are vital to our national interests, including transport, supervision of credit institutions, Council procedure, own resources, co-operation with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, culture and the harmonisation of aid.
The Government have already accepted implicitly that they will concede a halving of the number of Commissioners. We understand the practical arguments for that, but it has been conceded before we have started. They have accepted that they will concede a reduction in the number of our MEPs, perhaps by as much as a third, and a reduction, after reweighting, of our share of the votes at the Council of Ministers. If we take that route, enlargement cannot amount to anything other than a substantial reduction of British influence in the European Union. It is folly to accept some of the proposed changes, and to make concessions, before we have even started, without negotiating—at the very least—safeguards of the kind that I mentioned earlier.
Not only are the Government in a muddle, and bereft of any clear strategy; they have offered the bargaining chips before we have started to play. It is not surprising that British public opinion is drifting into a more and more anti-EU stance—the figures have been quoted tonight—because, as many Members have pointed out, that increasingly negative shift is a direct consequence of the Government's unwillingness to come clean on their agenda, to make the choices explicit, to make the price of enlargement explicit to the British people, and to allow them to buy into both the costs and the benefit. It is a consequence of disillusionment, as treaty after treaty and regulation after regulation erode the democratic rights of the electorate.
The Government's duty is now to make the position and the choices clear, but what do we have? We have a Minister who is off on his bus, pootling around the country, mouthing banalities about the benefits of the single market. I hope that he has learned something from the experience; in particular, I hope that he has learned from Mr. Hopkins, who is quoted in today's Financial Times as saying:
"There was just not enough flesh on the bones for businesses … I used to be all for the euro, but what worries me is the pernicious onset of bureaucracy that goes with it."
Hear, hear.
I am sure that the House will take the Minister's reference to his travelling companions with the good humour that was doubtless intended. I understand that the leaflets in Hull refer to a new improved Vaz, but I fear that, if this is what that means, we would rather go back to the old version—classic Vaz, perhaps.
The Minister has a serious task ahead of him, and the sooner he gets off his bus and on to the job the better. The forthcoming negotiations will require great resolution, knowledge and wisdom. Nor is the country done any service by the tendency of the Government and the Foreign Secretary to make remarks about Conservative policy that imply in some sense that it is extremist, when it actually has the support of the majority of the British people.

399
It is the hallmark of the closet federalist that every attempt to address the issues seriously, or to criticise today's inadequate structures, is described as prejudiced or extreme. It is naive and starry-eyed to go into the enlargement process without recognising that the existing institutions of the EU are already not without their problems, and that those problems must be tackled alongside enlargement. We have the problem of regulatory addiction. We have an EU that is already regulated too far, and has failed to implement existing directives: we have a backlog of 2,979 unimplemented directives. We have an EU that has not delivered some of the most basic tasks of the single market, and one that has proved incapable of handling its own budget professionally and without fraud, as the recent Court of Auditors report showed.
To make those points is not anti-European. They are facts against which enlargement must be planned. An EU of 25 member states must allow for flexibility and diversity. It must for its own viability retain its people's democratic support. That means clarifying and establishing once and for all the role of member states and of national Governments.
The summit marks the first stage in a treaty that deserves serious debate. It marks the final choice between the two opposing visions of Europe. The vision of the Conservative party is of an EU that is free trading, flexible, outward looking, deregulatory and enlarged. The Labour party's vision is of an EU that has the untrammelled powers and apparatus of a super-state—whether we call it that or not—envisaging the same laws, applied in the same way, in the UK as in Poland, and more regulation, not less.
The time has come for the Government to come clean on their intentions. Do they support the Prodi agenda? No longer is it possible to pretend that the federalist vision is not writ large on the face of the treaty agenda. The Government would like to say one thing in Brussels, another in Westminster and another in Helsinki, but no longer can they belittle the treaty. It is in many respects the endgame that will determine the shape of EU institutions for decades to come. Let it be the beginning of a new, flexible, enlarged and free-trading Europe. Let it not be the endgame for the freedom of democratically elected national Governments.
9.42 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Debates that precede European Council meetings are excellent opportunities for hon. Members to express their views on the important decisions that lie ahead—in this case, at Helsinki next Friday. I join my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in commending the way in which the Finnish Government have handled the presidency. It is a model for other countries.
Conservative Members' speeches on Europe were, as usual, like a box of Celebrations—colourful, but different. No one view was the same as another. It would be churlish of me not to thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) for his kind comments on my appointment. He asked whether I would last longer than my predecessor, but I imagine that, with all the
400
speculation about the future role of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), it is probably the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon who should worry about job security.
No such worries affect the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). He seems already to have three jobs and is eyeing up another. Not content with being the shadow Minister for Europe, he has a golden handcuffs deal with Asda, is a putative Conservative candidate for mayor of London, and is the brains behind the reverse takeover of the month—that of a company named, appropriately, Nutsford. His various employments bring new meaning to the word "enlargement."
For reasons that the Foreign Secretary has made clear, the Helsinki Council will be a landmark Council. Enlargement will be the main business. We have heard a clear statement on the issue from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, the shadow Foreign Secretary. He stated unequivocally that, if the Conservative party were ever in a position to do so, it would block enlargement because it would not sign up to any treaty that did not include flexibility. It is an odd way in which to support the case for enlargement. It seems to be completely at odds with comments of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells.
In the time available, I will try to deal with the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon accused the Government of being involved in a sell-out of NATO. Nothing could be further from the truth—NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy. The common foreign and security policy will work in tandem and complement our relationship with NATO. We have made that clear at every opportunity. It was certainly made clear when I attended the historic meeting of the General Affairs Committee of the Council, when Defence Ministers joined Foreign Ministers in supporting this Government's initiative on a common foreign and security policy.
We shall keep close to NATO. As soon as we completed our discussions in the General Affairs Committee, we met the non-EU NATO members and other countries which had reason to want to be kept informed of developments. It is rubbish to suggest that we are in any way sidestepping our role with NATO.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon should be ashamed of himself for not supporting what my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary have said about the withholding tax. The Government are in no way prepared to support the tax because of the devastating effect that it would have on the eurobond market. That is why we have fought so hard to prevent it being imposed. He knows that and should be supporting the Government.
The hon. Gentleman should also be supporting the Government's action on the droit de suite, which he also mentioned. Ministers are fighting day in, day out to protect our position. The blocking minority on the droit de suite remains. There will be further discussions on 7 December on that important issue and we shall stick to our policy.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to the charter of rights. I am surprised at him, because I made it clear in my evidence to the Scrutiny Committee that it is a charter of existing rights. It sets out the rights that have been granted to EU citizens as a result of treaties and legislation. It is not binding or enforceable. It is a charter,

401
as we have said, not a new treaty. It is right that we should send the distinguished lawyer Lord Goldsmith as our representative on the drafting Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has told me that unfortunately he cannot be present for the closing speeches. He was right to say that on 1 May 1997 there was a sea change in the relationship between this country and the rest of Europe. He said that that was important, because at last we have a Government prepared to defend the interests of the United Kingdom, fully engage with our partners and ensure that this country's interests are paramount. As the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the former Deputy Prime Minister, said, no one can wield a handbag from an empty chair. For far too long, this country's negotiations were conducted by those who did not want to engage with our European partners.
My hon. Friend was also right to mention the importance of meeting the expectations of the people of Hungary, Poland and the other applicant countries. I have visited Hungary and Poland, where there is a tremendous mood of expectancy. Those countries are working very hard with EU negotiators to ensure that they meet the necessarily tough criteria set down in the acquis. I am confident—
Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Vaz: No; the hon. Gentleman has had a lot of time to put his views forward and I shall come to him later in my speech.
The sooner that the tough negotiations are completed, the better. We have made it clear that there is a self-imposed deadline. The European Union has to be ready for enlargement by 2002. We hope that the negotiations will be completed as soon as possible. When they are, the deal has to be ratified by the member Parliaments, so it will be some time before it comes into force. We shall be ready by 2002 and we shall do everything that we can to help the applicant countries.
The eloquent right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) rightly talked about the values of freedom and democracy, and the political advantages for the new democracies. It would be quite wrong for the EU to turn its back on these new countries. We believe that it is important that the EU should be as wide as possible, and that it should not be exclusive. It should allow entry to countries which meet the terms and conditions required—not just the Copenhagen criteria, but all the other economic criteria implicit in joining the EU.
On Turkey—a subject raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members—our position has always been that Turkey should be confirmed as a candidate in Helsinki. No special conditions should be applied to Turkey. We understand all the points that have been made today—including by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—on human rights. We are aware of that, as are the Turkish Government. However, it is not right that special conditions should be applied to countries seeking to become candidates. We hope that that will be confirmed at Helsinki.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams)—an old friend of mine from my days in the corridor at the cloisters—reminded us of the divisions within the Conservative party and of the pivotal
402
role that Britain now plays not just in Europe, but in the world. As the Prime Minister said in his Lord Mayor's speech on Monday—and as the Foreign Secretary repeated the day after—it is important that this country should play its role not just in European affairs, but world affairs.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr mentioned the euro. Our position on the euro has been clear since 1997. Five economic tests have to be met and, once they are met, there will be a referendum. In the end, it will not be the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon or I who decide by vote of this Parliament—it will be the British people who decide whether we join the euro. However, we will be in that position only when those crucial economic tests have been met.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is one of the most passionate and principled Members on the EU. He did not change his mind under the previous Government, or under this Government—as some hon. Members have done. There have been some remarkable conversions over the past few years. He wanted to know the Government's position on tax. The Government approach taxation in the EU in the way that we approach all other European issues—with a hard-headed assessment of what is in the British national interest. The UK is working actively and constructively with our European partners while retaining the national veto over tax. The hon. Gentleman described himself as this House's very own Jonah. I wonder which of his colleagues would be prepared to play the whale.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) was right to say that we must look at the size of the Commission. That is the purpose of the IGC—it is one of the key issues to be discussed. If a number of countries are to join the European Union, all of which have an emotional attachment to having their own Commissioners, the Commission will get too big and bureaucratic. It is important that we look at the structure of the Commission. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the larger countries were prepared to give up their second Commissioner provided that—but only then—there is a reweighting of votes on the European Council.
We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney)—but how mean of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to describe the hon. Gentleman as a semi-grandee. I thought that once one received one's knighthood within the Conservative party, one became a full grandee. The hon. Member for Wycombe was right to say that certain sections of the press have been poisoning the minds of sections of the British people. It is vital that we have an honest debate about the issue. I respect the hon. Gentleman for being able to do so, bearing in mind the views of some of his colleagues. Like the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, he has not changed his mind in the way that the personality of the Leader of the Opposition has changed. He has remained firm to his principles, for which I respect him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) asked whether we would publish a White Paper on economic and monetary union. There are no proposals for one at this stage, because the issue is not before the British people. On the fair distribution of propaganda for either side, of course it is important that everyone should have an opportunity to put his case.

403
It was a delight to hear from the hon. Member for Stone. He reminds me of the character in the film "In the Line of Fire". He is obsessed with Mr. Prodi. I am sure that if we burst into his bedroom we would find faded newspaper cuttings about Mr. Romano Prodi on the wall. He said that he was against withdrawal from the European Union, but then said that he wanted to renegotiate the treaties—just like that. Neither he nor the hon. Member for Teignbridge had an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), who asked what would happen when our partners refused to renegotiate. The logic of the attitude adopted by certain Conservative Members is withdrawal.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Vaz: No; the hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
The hon. Member for Stone assured his Front-Bench colleagues that they were on-message. I wish that he could have seen the face of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon when he said that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford was right to re-emphasise NATO's role.
In a careful and thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) spoke of the importance of the northern dimension. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary asked me to represent the Government at the northern dimension conference. It is absolutely right that we should engage with Russia on these issues, and the Russian Foreign Minister was present. We were forthright in criticising the Russians over Chechnya—my right hon. Friend wrote a letter to that effect—but it was also right to be at the conference and to continue the dialogue that had started via the Finns. We will put a great deal of time and effort into ensuring that the northern dimension is a success.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon said that he felt that Wales was being left out. I assure him that there is no reason to worry. I agree that it is very important to ensure that Wales and Scotland get a fair share of European money. That is why the Government fought
404
hard and successfully to obtain the best ever structural funds deal in Agenda 2000 negotiations in March, including objective 1 status. For the first time ever, west Wales and the valleys will get funding.
What can I say about the hon. Member for Teignbridge? He demonstrated humility. He quoted from letters going back to 1960. Goodness knows what the cupboards in his bedroom must look like. I assure him that his worst fantasies will never be realised. He, too, wanted to renegotiate the treaties—and he believes that our partners would accept that. No, they would not.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Vaz: No; I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point. There is no need for him to jump up again.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) tried to put France against Britain on the common foreign and defence policy. France and Britain are on the same side and, properly, leading on the issue. That is why, at the end of the Anglo-French summit last Thursday there was enormous support for the views that we had propounded.
The hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Tunbridge Wells talked about the Government's roadshow. The roadshow has demonstrated to me that the British people want to engage in a serious debate about Europe and have overwhelmingly supported our decision to go out and talk to them about it. Since 1 May 1997, we have fully engaged in Europe. We fight hard for the national interest and to ensure that we do the best for the people of this country and of Europe.
Mr. Tony McNulty: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 8th December, any Motion in the name of Mr. William Hague relating to the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 (Revocation) Order 1999 may be proceeded with as if Standing Orders Nos. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) and 17 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)), were applicable thereto.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Planning Laws
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
10 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight two specific issues raised by the intention of the McDonald's chain of restaurants to open a takeaway restaurant on the site of a former public house in the west Harrow part of my constituency. The first issue is the use of the A3 classification in planning law, and the second the way in which social audits and social reporting could stimulate responsible companies to achieve effective dialogue with local communities about the siting of their business premises over and above what is currently required by planning law.
One week from today, McDonald's is expected to open a takeaway restaurant on the site of the former Hungry Horse public house at the junction of Shaftesbury avenue, Shaftesbury circle and Porlock avenue in my constituency, right next door to the excellent Whitmore high school. McDonald's has made it clear in local newspapers that it sees the restaurant attracting customers from beyond its immediate locality—according to its spokeswoman, it will be
"a facility for everyone in south Harrow".
Many local residents are, not surprisingly, worried that what is now a quiet and pleasant area will have to suffer extra traffic, extra disruption, increasing levels of pollution, new levels of noise and additional litter. They ask why no one has consulted them about whether a restaurant should be there at all.
McDonald's has had to submit a planning application to the local authority for—crucially—only the external works to the restaurant, which would create a drive-through facility beside the sit-down restaurant. The use of sites as restaurants and public houses is covered by the same site designation in planning law—class A3, as laid down in the Town and County Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. In essence, because McDonald's has chosen a site with an existing A3 designation for its restaurant, there is nothing the local community, or the council on its behalf, can do to require the same level of full and detailed scrutiny of the plans as would be required if the site were designated differently.
A site that had little impact on the next-door school when it was a quiet public house, in a pleasant residential area—albeit with a small shopping parade, but no industry or major shopping centre close by—is soon to see a brash new owner with inevitably more intensive usage and the resulting greater impact on the community. Because no distinction is made in planning law between restaurants and public houses, the local planning authority—Harrow council—much to the frustration of local councillors and planning officials, cannot properly explore the change of use.
Many of my constituents who live in the immediate area around the site have formed the Shaftesbury campaign against McDonald's—SCAM—to highlight the difficulties posed by the development. SCAM has worked closely and very effectively with local people and councillors, and has completed research into similar developments elsewhere. In addition, Councillors
406
Huw Davies, Norman Stillerman and Navin Shah, who is the chairman of Harrow council's development and planning committee, have all highlighted their concerns about the current wide range of the A3 designation.
My constituents have a number of concerns about locating such a large fast food takeaway restaurant in a residential area. The restaurant will inevitably have to attract a large volume of traffic to the site to be viable. There are already considerable traffic and parking problems in the area caused by the narrow roads and the fact that the majority of houses were built without garages. Approaching the site by car usually requires careful weaving in and out of parked cars. Inevitably, the concern is that the restaurant will result in busier roads, more congestion and increased danger to pedestrians, to cyclists and, especially, to the children who attend Whitmore high school next door. Because Whitmore is the borough's designated school for children with physical disabilities, there has been and remains heightened concern about the additional traffic flows that a restaurant will provoke to and from the site during the school day.
The site is serviced by bus routes, but the location of the restaurant is unlikely to help both Government and local council ambitions to reduce demand for car travel. Indeed, the additional traffic the restaurant will generate could potentially wipe out the benefits of the substantial investment that has been made to provide priority to 140 bus journeys along local routes.
It is also worrying that the proposed vehicle exit from the site, rejected by the planning committee, is next to a bus stop. That could make exit from the site by car dangerous for drivers, pedestrians and bus users. It is an issue of particular concern to the school.
Shaftesbury circle is already a busy roundabout with congestion problems in the rush hour. A quiet public house added little to the difficulties, but there is no doubt that a busy takeaway restaurant could cause further significant problems.
There is no doubt also that the amenity of my constituents in the area close to the site could suffer. They are worried about additional litter being generated, and about the extra nuisance from noise and light at night, as the site would clearly attract people away from nearby town-centre areas to this quiet residential district.
I am also especially worried that because of the wide range of the class A3 designation, the local planning authority has been unable to consider the impact of a restaurant on the amenity of the site's most immediate neighbour, Whitmore high school. Whitmore is recognised by Ofsted as a school of very high standards, with 95 per cent. of last year's GCSE students gaining eight GCSEs or more. More than 54 per cent. gained grades between A* and C, and the most successful 45 students gained 424 GCSEs between them.
No doubt placing a takeaway restaurant so close to a large school population is a powerfully attractive proposition to the owners of the restaurant chain, as the school could provide a very lucrative market. However, the restaurant could be the source of some disruption to the life of the school. The boundary of the site is extremely close to the location of key classrooms used for teaching music and drama, so the potential for lessons to be disrupted by noise is clearly a concern.
In addition, the restaurant's close proximity to the school will undoubtedly inhibit the current smooth arrangements for checking the dispersal of students at the

407
end of the day. Unless McDonald's can provide suitable assurances that the children will not be served at all during the school day, the restaurant will provide further potential distractions to the school population.
The opportunity to consider all these issues, and therefore the appropriateness of the Shaftesbury circle location for a takeaway restaurant, was denied because the site already had a class A3 designation. However, if the site had been designated differently, and if the full and proper level of scrutiny of this particular application had taken place, that would not necessarily have prevented problems in the future.
At the moment, when planning permission is being granted for a change of use to A3 designation, it is not even possible to impose conditions that mean that the site could be used only for a public house or a restaurant. Indeed, attempts to do so by planning authorities have been overturned on appeal, with costs awarded against the authorities.
I recognise that it is right that development must, on occasion, be facilitated. However, my constituents have been extremely concerned at the restriction placed on their local council's ability to consider this development and therefore to examine its impact on them, simply because no change in site designation is involved. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of previous representations on this issue—from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), from the London planning advisory committee, the Local Government Association and from Harrow council, as well as other concerned local authorities. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give further thought to whether the current A3 classification is not drawn too wide.
Many of my constituents sense that McDonald's was well aware of the way in which planning laws would operate on this site. They ask why McDonald's chose not to consult them until after the planning application had been submitted. Local people—a key stakeholder group that is affected by McDonald's selection of this site for the restaurant—feel that they have been presented with a fait accompli and that they must expect to have to accept the inevitable. Where their views have been formally expressed, they are being ignored by the company, which is now hoping that a planning inspector will find in its favour over the drive-through element of the plans.
It is difficult not to have some sympathy with the view put to me by one constituent that the attitude and behaviour of McDonald's have amounted to little short of premeditated corporate arrogance. Certainly, the behaviour of McDonald's has not appeared to be that of a socially responsible business, nor that of a business keen to build relationships with local people.
Increasingly, the wider business world recognises that questionable social, environmental and ethical behaviour affects the bottom line and that ignoring the needs of stakeholders such as local people can bring with it damaging disruptive publicity. Companies as diverse as Shell, Monsanto and Nike have suffered poorer corporate performance because of high-profile negative publicity generated as they ignored important social dimensions to their business activity.
It is a truism that we live in the knowledge economy. Information flows are considerably greater than ever before and, increasingly, the reputation of a company
408
affects its financial performance. Information about social and environmental liabilities is increasingly sought by investors keen to minimise their risks. There is growing recognition that competitive advantage derives in part from a business's relationship with its stakeholders, including the communities in which it seeks to operate. Social auditing and reporting, like the parallel environmental reporting that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has rightly sought to promote, provide a framework for producing information beyond merely the financial headlines that is of value to shareholders and stakeholders alike.
The big accounting firms are developing new wings of their businesses to support companies through social audits. Organisations such as the excellent New Economics Foundation and the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability increasingly advise companies and provide auditing services that mirror the international work of, for example, the global reporting initiative. Initiatives such as the voluntary SA8000 scheme launched by the Council on Economic Priorities are already being used by Toys 'R' Us and several other European retailers. The AA1000 standard launched in Copenhagen on 15 November is being used by the Co-operative bank to audit its award-winning social report. Such initiatives are heightening awareness of the potential of social reporting.
According to Forum for the Future, around 30 big companies, including 20 of the FTSE top 100, are involved in substantive social reporting. The Body Shop's social report included sections covering social, environmental and animal-testing performance and has been widely praised as a model. Shell International's social report won praise from some as
"a groundbreaking display of corporate soul-searching",
with many of the company's critics acknowledging that a significant step forward had been taken.
The Co-operative bank's partnership report was a key part of its business strategy, combining a financial report with an account of the bank's impacts on its key partners: its shareholders, customers, staff, suppliers, local communities and so on. That has undoubtedly been a factor in its profits tripling since 1994.
Other recent social reports have featured levels of employee satisfaction, information on health and safety records, levels of compensation that had to be paid out and the degree to which child labour was used. In the context of this debate, such reports can involve the degree of community involvement in selecting where to site parts of the business.
Social auditing and reporting is a young process, albeit one with growing heavyweight business support. The Government need to give the process a friendly steer to encourage business to consider more carefully its impact on all stakeholders, including local communities. Government must monitor the standards and processes being used by social auditors to ensure that, over time, they are credible and rigorous.
I hope that the Government will take the opportunity provided by the company law review to engage in a dialogue with business organisations about how to encourage greater transparency and reporting of companies' relationships with all their stakeholders.
BT produced its first social report this summer. Independently verified, it would not have been 100 per cent. comfortable reading for shareholders. However,

409
BT received a broadly favourable verdict, albeit with suggested improvements, from the verifiers. BT chairman Iain Vallance said:
"There are those that believe that a concern with essential values or indeed the community at large is incompatible with the business aim of creating shareholder value and that managers should focus on making profits and steer clear of difficult compromises and trade-offs involved in trying to balance the interests of various constituencies. This is a misplaced belief."
McDonald's will open its restaurant in west Harrow a week from today. The lack of consultation by the company, or through the planning system, has caused real frustration among my constituents. I hope that, to protect other communities from being similarly affected, my hon. Friend the Minister will now consider amending the A3 classification used under planning law and examine the opportunities to encourage effective social audit and reporting.
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on his success in securing this debate and on raising an important aspect of the Government's planning policy. I know that he will understand that I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of the specific local case that has prompted him to obtain the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a formal role and responsibility in the planning appeals process. However, I can set the case within the context of the general legislative and policy position, and I hope that I can make some comments in which my hon. Friend will find some comfort.
It may be helpful if I begin by clarifying the relevant legislation. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, which, for the sake of brevity, I will refer to as the use classes order, sets out classes of land use, as my hon. Friend will know. It sets out four classes of land use—A, B, C and D. Changes within each of the individual classes do not constitute development under the law at the moment and so do not require planning permission.
The use classes order is a well-established deregulatory measure within the town and country planning system. It was introduced on the grounds that the changes of use that it permits would each have a broadly similar impact, for instance, in terms of noise, traffic generation and appearance. That was an assumption made at the time the orders were introduced. The intention is to strike an appropriate balance between facilitating development and encouraging enterprise, and protecting local amenity and environment.
In general terms, across the country as a whole, the UCO plays an essential role in delivering a positive, proactive planning service that enables businesses and local communities to thrive. It removes from businesses and others the requirement to seek planning permission from the local planning authority for uses that are generally uncontroversial and do not adversely impact on local amenity. The UCO is kept under review so that problem areas can be addressed or particular matters clarified. Overall, it is considered to be working reasonably well. Since 1987, only five amendments have been made. That is the general context.
410
Class A3 is relevant to the case that my hon. Friend has raised. It comprises uses for the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises and of hot food for consumption off the premises. So the class may include restaurants, cafes, wine bars, public houses and take-away establishments. The A3 class was introduced to reflect the loosening of the then traditional boundaries between different types of catering establishments. The aim was to enable the trade to adapt to changing trends and demands and, therefore, for the general public to have greater choice in their areas.
In general, across the country as a whole, the freedom to change use within the food and drink class has caused little difficulty. However, as my hon. Friend has said, my Department has received a number of representations, including correspondence from some of my hon. Friend's constituents, from the London planning advisory committee and from the Local Government Association as well as a number of London authorities. Their concern is that some of the changes of use within the A3 class—for example, to use as a themed pub or a super-pub or from a pub to a take-away—because of the way in which the different outlets have developed over time, can lead to new or more intensive activity and give rise to issues of parking, noise and public order that arguably ought to be examined through the planning system. The argument has been put that some specific changes, perhaps such as that described by my hon. Friend, raise substantially different issues within a locality that deserve examination.
Of course, there are other extensive controls outside the planning system that can be used by local authorities to remedy problems with matters such as parking, noise and public order. For example, local authorities have wide-ranging powers to prevent or abate noise under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In addition, they can issue street litter control notices and so on.
However, I realise that there are concerns as to the efficacy of existing controls, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are giving those concerns careful consideration. We are taking some actions that may go some way to reassure him that we are considering the issues that he has raised about change of use within the A3 class.
The White Paper on the future of transport contained a commitment to look for ways of improving the planning system's delivery of an integrated transport strategy. That included a review of the changes of use allowed under the UCO to establish their transport implications in relation to traffic generation and parking. I hope that my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that, in commissioning a study into improvements to the planning systems delivery of an integrated strategy, we have included a comprehensive investigation of the impact of changes within the A3 class. That will form a specific strand of the study. It will consider not only the transport-related effects of such changes, but the impact on local amenity and the environment—for example, litter, noise and relationships with other land uses in the area.
My Department has just circulated a specification of the research to organisations that have expressed an interest in undertaking that work. Early next year, a tender for the whole study—including the elements that I outlined—will be let, and the report will be completed by next summer. We shall then consider the research findings and the recommendations alongside the representations that we have already received on the subject. That will allow us to come to a view on whether there are significant

411
problems, and their nature and extent. We shall then consider our response to the problems identified by the report. I hope that that offers my hon. Friend some comfort. We shall certainly consider the findings of the study as soon as possible.
The aim of the Government's planning policy for town centres is relevant to the debate. Our policy, as set out in planning policy guidance note 6, is to regenerate existing town centres and high streets. Sustaining town centres depends a great deal on the flexible use of floor space. It is widely acknowledged that vacant properties are a blight on town and district centres. The UCO helps business to respond quickly to changing demands. Keeping premises open and occupied can also have the effect of protecting other businesses in the area.
However, PPG6 acknowledges that problems can arise when changes of use—such as from shops to restaurants—create new concentrations of single uses, such as restaurants, bars or takeaway food outlets; there can be cumulative effects that cause local problems. Proposals for change of use in those circumstances should be assessed as to their contribution to diversification, and as to their cumulative effects on such matters as the loss of retail outlets, traffic and parking. Although I realise that town centres may not be the main issue in the debate, measures exist whereby local authorities can consider the impact of change of use on them.
My hon. Friend mentioned the value of social auditing. We are aware of work in that area, which, as my hon. Friend said, has the aim, at first instance, of improving the economies and environments of developing countries by setting out clearly the commitments and responsibilities of business and other stakeholders. I know that the Department for International Development works closely with all its development partners, including the United Nations, in supporting social auditing as a means of promoting socially responsible businesses which have positive impacts on all their stakeholders.
My hon. Friend requested that the Government give a friendly steer to the adaptation of that concept to the planning system in the UK. I can give him that reassurance. We fully endorse that type of partnership between central and local government, non-governmental organisations, businesses and the wider community,
412
whereby the commitments and responsibilities of all stakeholders across a range of policy areas are clearly set out.
In that context, my hon. Friend may be pleased to know that, following our planning concordat with the Local Government Association, that association is now working on a planning users concordat with the business and voluntary sectors. That will set out the roles, priorities and responsibilities of all three parties. It will highlight the essential contribution of the voluntary and business sectors to planning decisions, encourage positive engagement and promote effective collaboration, and it will provide a valuable framework for co-operation. When there are specific concerns about a particular local business, it is generally the case that socially responsible companies are happy to meet local residents and local authorities to seek ways in which their concerns may be addressed.
I fully recognise the examples of good practice that my hon. Friend cited in his speech. The planning users concordat is all about fostering good practice, and it is to be hoped that more businesses will opt into that mode of meeting concerns in the local community where they are considering developing.
The Government are aware that some aspects of the use classes order—particularly the operation of class A3—have caused concern in some locations and in some specific cases. Our forthcoming research has been expanded to investigate fully the issues and concerns raised during the debate. We would need evidence of widespread and significant problems throughout the country to justify amending the UCO, but we are not averse to amending it if we find that there are such problems.
The UCO, as it stands, offers some valuable freedoms and flexibilities, which enable business to respond to changing circumstances. Nevertheless, I can assure my hon. Friend that we want to continue to monitor the operation of the order and assure ourselves that the problems that he has described are not widespread. If they are widespread, we shall respond to that concern.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues to our attention today.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

NHS Dentistry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Jackie Ballard: I am pleased to have secured this debate on a matter of great concern in my constituency and to many other hon. Members, who may try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The House last debated NHS dentistry when my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) initiated a debate on the subject in 1998. Sadly, little has changed since then, and in Somerset the position has worsened. In 1998, 10 out of 71 practices accepted new adult registrations on the NHS; today only five do so. In 1998, 72 per cent. of children in Somerset were registered with a dentist; today, that figure is 70 per cent. In 1998, 63 per cent. of adults in Somerset were registered; today, only 49 per cent. are registered.
Many of the dentists who accept NHS patients have a much higher than average list, so waiting time is increasing. In 1998, 200 people called the dentists' telephone helpline each week because of problems with accessing an NHS dentist; today, the number of calls has doubled. In 1998, only two practices in my constituency were taking new NHS patients, and I complained about that at the time; now, there are none in my constituency.
Many people, especially in the more rural parts of my constituency, have no access to NHS dentistry unless they travel long distances.
Mr. David Heath: As my hon. Friend knows, my constituency borders hers and I have the same problem. Only one dentist is accepting NHS patients, who may have to travel for one hour to reach a dentist. The initiative that we were promised to solve that problem has done nothing to improve matters. In fact, they have got worse.
Jackie Ballard: I thank my hon. Friend. I shall refer to the investing in dentistry initiative later.
As my hon. Friend said, many people must travel long distances to reach a dentist and, in a rural county, 11 miles may be a very long distance for someone without easy access to transport. For people living in Wellington in the south of my constituency, the nearest dentist who is taking patients is in Cullompton, which is in Devon. For people living in Taunton, the nearest dentist is 25 miles away in Minehead, and Taunton is the county town of Somerset. Those who rely on public transport—the elderly, the poor, the most vulnerable and those who cannot drive—are disadvantaged, and inequalities in health are worsened. The Labour party manifeso promised that access to NHS services would be based on need and need alone. Clearly, in many parts of the country, access is dependent on transport, finance and mobility, not on need alone.
48WH
In many parts of the United Kingdom, NHS dentists are becoming as rare as hens' teeth. Dental services are now a lottery of postcode and geography. Dentistry is being rationed, and that has happened by stealth, not by Government decree or after public consultation. We do not have a national dental service. The previous Government seemed to be content to allow that. During their 18 years in power, there was a steady erosion of access to NHS dentistry, with a reduction in the services provided on the NHS and a drop in the number of people registered with an NHS dentist.
I became interested in the subject long before I was elected to the House. In 1991, I was deregistered by my dentist because the fee structure made it difficult for him to repay his practice loan, earn a living and provide a high-quality service. When I raised the matter in the local press, I was denigrated by the local Tories who, with their usual grasp on reality, said "Problem! What problem?"
People who pay national insurance contributions for many years think that it is a sort of insurance policy which enables them to use the NHS when they need it. We know that national insurance does not work like that, but that is the impression that many people have, and they feel cheated. I hope that the Minister will not brush aside my anxiety and that of other hon. Members, or deny that there is a problem. I hope that he will be able to assure us that he is committed, not just in theory but in practice, to dentistry as a core part of the national health service.
The Government cannot expect dentists to make a commitment to the NHS unless they too make a commitment and spell it out clearly. For example, the Government promised to publish a dental strategy later this year, but, according to a recent parliamentary answer, publication is now expected in the new year. Perhaps the Minister will be more specific this morning.
After the debate in 1998, I received a letter from a local dentist, stating:
"The morning I received your letter I took thirty minutes to surgically remove an abscessed tooth under NHS regulations. The fee was £25.90, of which the patient paid £20.72. After deduction of expenses I receive £5.90 before tax. I regard this as completely inadequate remuneration. A hospital referral would cost the NHS several hundred pounds and the patient would receive their treatment free of charge. This is an intolerable situation."
I emphasise that the fee received by the dentist before tax was £5.90 for half an hour's work. I do not believe that any of us in the House would do half an hour's work for £5.90. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is prepared to sell himself cheaply. Not surprisingly, the dentist who wrote to me is no longer taking new NHS patients.
Dental health should be an integral part of primary care. I am disappointed that many primary care groups do not seem to involve local dental practitioners. Oral and dental health is mentioned in health improvement plans, but without easy and affordable access to NHS dentistry, the nation's oral health will decline.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that dental provision in the NHS is omitted from primary care strategy almost altogether and has been virtually forgotten by many people in rural areas?
Jackie Ballard: When we debated the setting up of primary care groups, I remember the Minister saying

49WH
that dental practitioners should be an integral part of the primary care groups and their service. That is certainly not happening in my part of the country, and I do not believe that it is happening elsewhere. I hope that something can be done to encourage primary care groups to include dental practitioners.
Mr. David Heath: And optometrists.
Jackie Ballard: I shall not stray into the realm of eyes, although I realise that they usually go with teeth.
Oral examination is important. In Britain, there are as many deaths from oral cancer as from cervical cancer and skin cancer. Dentists can spot the early signs of oral cancer. I have been told by local general practitioners that there has been an increasing demand on their time because of poor oral hygiene, gum disease and mouth infection, which would previously have been seen at an earlier stage and prevented by dentists. Only this week I received a letter from a GP in my constituency, who stated:
"I very much support your attempts to improve access to NHS dentistry. As a GPI must admit to being very fed up with having to sort out people with dental problems who cannot access a dentist, either because they have not registered with an NHS dentist or they are not prepared to pay dentistry fees. In particular it is acute dental infections which cause problems. From my point of view the most important aspect of this is that dentists should be able to provide 24 hour emergency care."
Another GP wrote to me stating:
"I share your concern about NHS dentistry. It is amazing how a Government can quietly see the service disappear without any hue and cry."
My local GP out-of-hours co-operative, Deane Doctor, reports a 25 per cent. increase this year in the number of calls related to dental problems. The simple fact is that decay and infection will not go away without treatment and, if that treatment is not easily accessible from a dentist, people will go to their general practitioner, adding to the pressure of work which they are already under.
In Somerset, 51 per cent. of adults are not registered with a dentist. Others, like many in my constituency, were registered and seeing their dentist on a regular basis, but recently, out of the blue, received a letter telling them that their dentist would no longer see NHS patients, that there were no vacancies with other dentists in the practice and that patients therefore had the choice of paying into a private dental health plan or registering with a dentist 20 or 25 miles away. In those circumstances, many people will not register, but wait until they have an emergency. Not only will their dental and general health decline as a result, but they will find that emergency treatment is not available in Taunton; they will have to travel far to find it.
In responding to the debate, I am sure that the Minister will draw attention to the investing in dentistry initiative, which the Government have introduced to improve access. Coincidentally, the day that I learned that I had secured this debate—I believe in coincidences—the Secretary of State for Health sent a letter to all hon. Members, in which he said that the initiative had spent £10 million on the expansion of NHS dental practices. However, two years ago, the
50WH
British Dental Association said that £40 million was needed to reverse the decline in the number of NHS dentists and the problem of access to dentistry. When the scheme was introduced, the then Minister said that it would improve the availability of general dental services and extend the benefits of good oral health by focusing help on the areas with the most serious problems.
The Minister knows that Somerset has a particular problem. I am sure that he will tell us how much has been spent in Somerset, but I know those figures. Bids totalling more than £800,000 went to the Department of Health from Somerset health authority, but only £200,000 has come into the area under the investing in dentistry scheme. In my constituency, a bid for a new surgery was rejected, as was a bid for a new computer system. A new surgery was approved, but that bid has not been taken up because of difficulties in recruiting dentists. Another bid for a new surgery was rejected and a further bid for a new practice was approved, inasmuch as £15,000 of a £25,000 bid was accepted.
The investing in dentistry scheme has clearly had a minimal effect in my constituency; it has not even stopped the decline. The problems in my constituency go back eight or nine years. Therefore, is the Minister content that the scheme has focused help on the areas with the most serious problems?
Before the general election, the Labour party said that NHS dentistry was in crisis. At Prime Minister's Question Time on 15 October 1996, the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), said that he did not know how the Prime Minister could
"dare mention dentistry in the national health service after what his Government have done to it."—[Official Report, 15 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 584.]
However, in responding to an Adjournment debate in 1998, the then Minister, now the Secretary of State for Health, said:
"we must not create a crisis out of a problem."—[Official Report, 18 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 1161.]
Before the general election, Labour Members believed that there was a crisis, but by 1998, they believed that it was just a problem. I do not know how the Minister can think that the crisis ended in 1997. If he does not think that there is a crisis when my constituents are deregistered by their dentists, for whatever reason, or when people move into the area and cannot find a dentist to take them as an NHS patient, I hope that he thinks that it is a problem that he must solve sooner rather than later.
The Department of Health is piloting phone-and-go dental access centres, but my constituents will not be amused to phone and be told to go 20 miles. I hope that the Minister will tell us his definition of a reasonable distance that people should be asked to travel to a dentist. I hope that the debate will enable hon. Members to tell the Minister of their concerns, so that he can tell us, and our constituents, how and when he intends to improve access to NHS dentistry.
9.44 am
Ms Joan Walley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on securing this morning's debate, which is taking place in a format that I hope the Minister will not

51WH
find too painful. He is here with all of us to try to find a solution to the problem that we have inherited from the previous Government. I shall frame my speech in the context of that inheritance. No matter how painful finding a solution might be, we must do so simply because of the cuts in NHS dentistry that have taken place during the past 18 years. Several changes in dental provision have occurred in recent years.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Is the hon. Lady aware that there were 4,500 more NHS dentists when the previous Government left office than when they took office, and that spending on NHS dentistry was 60 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979?
Ms Walley: The important issue is access to NHS dentists for those who need treatment. From birth, people should receive regular preventive dental care and treatment when they need it.
The dental registration scheme which was introduced as part of the new 1990 NHS dental contract has caused the crisis that we have inherited. Following those changes, the number of children and adults registering was much higher than the then Government expected, so a 7 per cent. cut in fees was soon introduced. That consitituted a threat to withhold approximately £15,000 in earnings from each dentist and was due to an overspend. The hon. Gentleman must consider the effects of his party's policies, which changed the formula and the basis on which dentistry had traditionally been agreed. For that reason, we must accept that we have inherited a crisis and turn to the future to discover what needs to be done.
The core of the problem is that, in those areas where access to NHS dental care is not easy, people are angry. They are often in pain and that grim problem should not be tolerated. We must do something about it. Dentists have been squeezed by the formula. The cost of the treatment that they provide must be looked at; dentists must have the time and funds to provide the necessary treatment.
The problem is not necessarily one of too few dentists, but one of too few NHS dentists, especially in the areas of highest need—the postcode syndrome. Access to treatment is unequal, and I implore the Minister to take urgent, considered action. He should decide on the strategy that is needed in the long term in the context of the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.
The hon. Member for Taunton gave a thorough introduction to the debate. We heard that the investing in dentistry scheme was launched in 1997 and that, initially, £9 million was made available for it. We in north Staffordshire expected that that funding would make a difference to the problem that we had inherited. However, only £175,000 was paid out in the first year of the scheme, despite a provisional allocation of £9 million. I accept that an additional £10 million was made available in the following financial year. The problems of launching that new system emphasise how difficult it is to set up new facilities, especially given the training and other cuts that have taken place during a sustained period over the previous 18 years. It takes time for such schemes to make a real difference.
I am pleased that 10 practices in north Staffordshire, out of the 310 practices nationwide, were successful
52WH
under the investing in dentistry scheme, but that is a drop in the ocean and the problems of north Staffordshire remain. I make no apology for being parochial and speaking about the problems that my constituents face in being unable to get to an NHS dentist.
I draw the Minister's attention to the further problem of the recruitment and retention of dentists. In north Staffordshire, the health authority has appointed a designated officer to address that problem. Much innovative work has been done to encourage people in dental schools to move to north Staffordshire. North Staffordshire does not have the necessary training places, and people often practise in the area where they trained. If there are no dental training facilities in a particular area, that area will find it even more difficult to recruit and retain people. However, in the past few months, our health authority has funded one third of the educational element of a vocational training scheme based in Crewe. We have high hopes that, after one year of vocational training based in north Staffordshire, two practitioner trainees will continue to practise after completing their educational qualifications. Two practitioners, however, is a drop in the ocean. It does not solve the problem, although I admit that it is a tiny step forward.
I should like to concentrate briefly on the scale of the problem in north Staffordshire. In the week beginning 12 September, a constituent who had suffered intense toothache for about four weeks and was unable to find a dentist consulted north Staffordshire's emergency advisory services. She was given a list of NHS dentists practising in my constituency, one of whom was available to see her, but in four weeks' time. That is termed an emergency service. The constituent was provided with pain-killing relief, but was able to obtain an earlier appointment—only because of my intervention. That should not happen.
We have already heard how not receiving treatment at the right time can lead to far greater dental problems, and greater recourse to general practitioners. Anyone who is in immediate pain should be given emergency treatment; otherwise, the problem will be exacerbated. I am greatly concerned about the human suffering that results from the lack of NHS dentists where they are needed.
In statistical terms, north Staffordshire has a poor dentist to population ratio—1:4,100. The ratio for England and Wales is 1:3,045, and that for the west midlands is 1:3,597. North Staffordshire's adult registration rate is the lowest in the west midlands. I take no pride in that whatever. It is also significantly lower than the average in England and Wales. The England and Wales average is 45 per cent.; ours is 38 per cent. Therefore, one in six people in north Staffordshire is not registered with a dentist, which shows the scale of the problem. A dental advice line monitors where calls come from, and a disproportionate number—650 to 710 a month—come from what is defined as the north Stoke area.
Applications are being made for third wave personal dental service pilots. When the health authority bidding is assessed, it is crucial that the Government should consider north Staffordshire's need for that pilot. The success of the bid on its own will be insufficient; again, it will be a drop in the ocean. We want a formula whereby

53WH
patients can be registered with dentists, allowing a linkup with the sure start programme. That will ensure that children are registered from the start of their lives through to old age. A strategy to link with primary care groups is also urgently needed. I recently met the chairman of the primary care group in my constituency, and the chairman and chief executive of the health authority, and it is crucial that a dental strategy should be built into primary care groups.
When the Minister considers our personal dental service pilot bid on which I hope that he will look favourably, will he also consider the long term? Will he consider north Staffordshire as a pilot area? We need to start to think about how to make NHS dental services available to the 63 per cent. of people in north Staffordshire who are not registered. Joined-up thinking with other Departments would enable a link with the sure start scheme and the new primary care groups.
We must also consider how to ensure that children receive the dental care that they need. In the next few months, a national debate on fluoridation will take place. I would much prefer that debate to take place after we have been assured that everybody has the right access to NHS dental care.
9.56 am
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard)—who is also my neighbour—on securing this extremely important debate. Had she not secured it, I would have sought to do so in the coming weeks. The situation in Somerset, which she has already described, is becoming worse by the day. Sometimes hon. Members are guilty of hyperbole, but, in the past two weeks, people have come to my surgeries to tell me about two practices in my area that have reluctantly decided to move away from NHS dental work. Those practices have asked their patients to move on to private dental insurance, and the people affected are rightly worried.
This problem must be put in the overall context of health care provision in rural areas. It is difficult to access the health service if one lives in a rural area. Services that are taken for granted in urban areas and throughout most of the country are not available in much of rural Britain. That should concern all hon. Members, and the Minister will know, from his own constituency, what difficulties sparsely populated rural areas can present.
The situation in Somerset seems to be worse than elsewhere; I am sure that the Minister will confirm whether that is the case. The perception is that there has been a wholesale flight from NHS dentistry in Somerset. I am aware of only one practice in my constituency that is admitting NHS patients, and my constituency covers the best part of 900 square miles. As I said, many practices are moving patients from NHS lists on to private dental insurance arrangements.
The location of practices, which are few and far between anyway, is a problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton mentioned, some people have to travel 25 or 30 miles to visit a dentist. It would be
54WH
ridiculous if everyone in London was told to go to a dentist in Slough—the equivalent distance—and people would object. In our part of the world, however, travelling such a distance is considered normal. It is questionable whether there is genuine access if there is a complete absence of public transport. If the only way of getting to the dentist is by private car, many of the people who are most in need of dental check-ups will not be able to go because of inconvenience and inaccessibility.
The reason for that is, I suspect, based on a number of factors. I do not blame the dental practitioners in question, because many of them stopped providing NHS access with the greatest reluctance. They do not want to be private practitioners. They want to continue to provide the service that they have provided throughout their working lives, but the arrangements that govern their remuneration and practice are currently so unattractive that they feel unable to do so.
An article in the Health Service Journal, published on 9 September, examined why dentists move from NHS to private provision. It found that dentists have increased private provision principally to improve the quality of dentistry, to increase choice in clinical decision making, to get more time with patients and to widen the range of treatment options. Each of those reasons is, in effect, based on a clinical decision as to how to provide the best treatment for patients. Rightly or wrongly, dentists have concluded that they cannot provide such treatment in the context of the present NHS arrangements.
Financial security is also an important factor. It is difficult to run a small practice when one's remuneration fails to meet its overheads or enable it to work effectively, or when one seriously doubts whether that remuneration will continue. That is a particular problem for a dentist who, at some stage, intends to sell the practice because he or she wants to retire or move elsewhere, and who realises that it will not fetch a reasonable price as an NHS practice. Such a practice cannot be passed on because it will not provide a sufficient return on the necessary capital investment. Practitioners are concluding that their interests, and their patients' interests, do not lie in the provision of NHS care. At the same time, people desperately want access to NHS care, but the practitioners simply are not there.
The initiative that was announced two years ago with considerable fanfare may have achieved wonders across the country, but it has had a limited effect in my constituency, where the arrangements have been subject to further decay. People who move there are astonished. Recently, the wife of a Royal Air Force officer who is based at the Royal Naval air station in Yeovilton—somewhat confusingly, her husband is in a different service from the base at which he is stationed—was unable to find dental care. The Royal Navy would not provide dental care because she was RAF; nor would anyone else provide it. She had been moved to an area that she did not know at the behest of the Ministry of Defence, yet could not obtain dental care for her family. I had to write to the health authority and various other people to try to put her name on lists that were effectively closed. Such problems are encountered regularly.

55WH
I cannot stress sufficiently the importance of primary care across different disciplines. I know that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to stray too far into the world of optometry, in which I used to practise, but there are many parallels. If we fail to get primary care right, not only in general practice but in dentistry, optometry and other disciplines, we will not achieve the hoped-for reduction in disease, and we will see increased hospitalisation because diagnoses will not have been made at the appropriate point. In the long run, that will cost the Government and the health service more, and will subject people to inconvenience and distress that could have been avoided.
For heaven's sake, let us treat the matter as a major problem that needs urgent and serious attention. We must get NHS dentistry right and look at those areas where provision is bad. Provision in Somerset is particularly bad and requires the Minister's urgent and special attention. We must get the contracts right, so that we recruit and retain practitioners in health service practice. Perhaps we shall then provide the service that people reasonably expect from the NHS throughout the country, including rural areas, not just in areas that are lucky enough to have an abundance of practitioners.
10.6 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on securing this debate. It is somewhat disappointing that all the examples that have so far been cited are from the west of England or, in my case, the south of England. For that reason, I was particularly pleased that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) contributed to the debate. It is not merely a question of localised pockets of difficulty; there is a national, structural problem with NHS dentistry.
The debate is particularly apt at the moment because dentistry may illustrate the direction in which the rest of the NHS is moving. There has been a covert move away from a publicly funded service, albeit with contributions from patients, to a purely private arrangement. Many of my friends in dentistry are extremely concerned about that. They feel a conflict between their social conscience, and their clinical and professional responsibility towards patients. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said that registration may have caused the crisis, but that is wrong. Registration was a good idea. It created a link between dental practitioner and patient, and could have formed the basis of preventive dental care.
Some 15 years ago, enormous improvements were being made in the dental health of the whole population. The Isle of Wight was proud to have the lowest number of dental caries in children under 10. We regularly sample our school population, and I am sorry to say that that record has been completely ruined. The Isle of Wight now has one of the highest rates of dental caries in children. That is largely a result of changes in access to NHS dentistry. West Wight now has no national health dentist. The practice there closed down overnight, and people must now take a bus into the county town of Newport and travel to the depths of Ventnor or Cowes in the hope of finding a dentist. That constitutes a bus journey of about two and half hours, which is ridiculous.
56WH
It is clear that we need to make dentistry available and accessible to people everywhere, and there are two possible answers. We could take the view, which is overtly taken by the Conservative party, that the NHS can survive only with more insurance-based funding. Clearly, organisations such as Denplan, which have taken over the funding of NHS dentistry, may have a role to play, but the majority of my constituents cannot afford such a service. They truly believe that, having paid into the NHS, they are entitled to some care. The alternative answer, which is emerging from the Government's actions—
Mr. Hammond: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, is he opposed to a mixed economy in dentistry, in which NHS dentists see NHS patients but can offer a menu of treatment that includes NHS options and options that are not available through the NHS? Does he see that as a positive or a negative step?
Dr. Brand: I am a firm believer in a mixed economy of provision. It is sad that, at the moment, the better dentists and those who are best equipped have moved away from the NHS. In the past, those people found it possible to mix their practice. The Government-based fee system can take time to catch up with reality, so their private work often helped them to invest in leading-edge technology. That is one of the problems at the moment. I have no problem with a mixed economy of provision, except when it is no longer mixed and becomes available only to those who can afford private insurance.
The Government's apparent solution to the problem is not to talk to dental practitioners to see how a contract can be devised to enable them to offer their services to NHS patients, but to supply a range of services through dentists directly employed by district or area health authorities. I do not have a problem with that if it is the Government's overt policy, but if that is the case, they should say so. If we are no longer to use independent dental practitioners to provide national health services, let us make sure that a comprehensive service is set up alongside them. It would be sad if that happened, because I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that it is useful to have a mix within the same practice.
I have had extensive correspondence with my health authority over dental problems on behalf of my constituents. I was interested to learn that health authorities are not obliged to provide NHS dental care for patients other than those needing emergency treatment. This is ridiculous. It is 18th-century stuff. It is inadequate that the NHS is responsible only for yanking out teeth and putting in the occasional filling. So much can be done now to retain people's dentition throughout their lives. We seem to be going back to the pre-war set-up, when people were given an appointment with the dentist to have all their teeth out and receive a full set of dentures for their 30th birthday. It is disgraceful to deal with dental care by concentrating only on dental emergencies.
That policy also has a major effect in the medical field, not only by increasing the work load for general practitioners—all GPs moan about that, but they can cope with it. There is a real problem about the dental part of medical training. I think that I had two lectures on dentistry. Proper dentists spend five years studying,

57WH
and the average GP is not suited or trained to cope with dental problems. Doctors do, however, need help from their dental colleagues in cases of patients with heart disease—especially valvular heart disease—or other diseases that make it imperative that they should not suffer from oral sepsis. Such patients need regular access to dental hygienists and regular checks.
A great many of my constituents do not have access to such services. My health authority informs me that the new pilot dental service, to which it hopes to recruit people, will deal only with those needing emergency treatment, or those with learning difficulties—a special group that has always been catered for by the directly employed service.
We face a crisis in dentistry of successive Governments' making. The present Government owe it to the nation to say which course they wish to take. They must either reinvest the money that they are not currently spending on NHS dentistry into a comprehensive, directly employed, accountable service—there must be an honest debate about the advantages and disadvantages of that—or they must have meaningful discussions with general dental practitioners to ensure that they can once again offer their services in the NHS.
10.15 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on securing this debate, which gives me the opportunity to experience for the first time the somewhat unusual sensation of standing in this Chamber. I was not quite sure where to sit when I came in, and I wonder whether we might be encouraged to change our positions depending on the nature of the debate, and on how close to, or far from, each other we feel on the subject. If it is anything to go by, I notice that today both the Minister and I have positioned ourselves as close to the centre as we reasonably could in the seating available.
The number of Members attending this debate is smaller than it might have been had the subject been debated on a Wednesday morning in the main Chamber. The distractions there are somewhat different for us, because if the debate tends to flag, one can always look at the Public Gallery. We do not have that option in this format, but there are buses passing outside, and a JCB busily working in Parliament square.
There are approximately 21,000 general dental practitioners providing NHS care in England and Wales. About three out of four adults registered with a dentist receive NHS care, while one in four is a private dental patient, often, but not always, through choice. Dentists derive 39 per cent. of their income from private treatment, which is a significantly increased percentage. Most of that increase is due to private work being carried out on NHS patients.
As I said in my earlier intervention on the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), we have achieved a genuine mixed economy among NHS dentists, where it is working properly, in which patients are able to access their dentist under the NHS, but, once the need for treatment has been determined, are offered a genuine

58WH
menu of choices, including treatments that are available on the NHS and those that are not. I hope that hon. Members will agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and me that more choice is always better than less, provided that it is a genuine choice. I accept the caveat that patients must have access to a dentist on the NHS in the first instance.
The scare stories that one reads, especially in the local and regional press, about there being no NHS dentists in an area are largely untrue. In reality, there is a population of mixed-practice dentists who are, in many cases, unwilling to expand their NHS lists. That does not mean that they have ceased to practise in the NHS altogether. It means that, having regard to the need to assure their own gross incomes—a point to which I shall return—in order to meet their practice overheads and to provide adequate care and time for their patients, they no longer feel able to take on additional NHS patients and remain viable at the current level of NHS fees for service.
That is the core of the problem about which most hon. Members are approached by constituents who are unable to access an NHS dentist as a new patient. The problem is probably getting worse. Half the health authorities in a recent British Dental Association survey reported that the shortage of accessible NHS dentists during the preceding year had worsened.
The number of adult patients registered with a dentist peaked at 24.8 million in 1993 and, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said, has been falling since then. That is partly due to changes in the registration time limits. The fall put on its greatest spurt between December 1997 and December 1998, when the number registered fell from 22.3 million to 19.7 million. During 1997–98, the Government underspent their NHS dentistry budget by £56.5 million.
The BDA estimates that 20 million adults do not seek regular dental treatment. For whatever reason—cost, fear or simply apathy—that group of people tends to use emergency dental services only. In the longer term, it will clearly be necessary to tackle the issue of those 20 million people who do not pay regular attention to their oral health. That crucial cultural change will not be achieved quickly or easily. I accept that the concept of phone-and-go centres—in areas where they are working—will probably appeal to people who want to be able to access NHS dentistry quickly and easily on the occasions when they need it, but do not seek continuity of care from an NHS dentist.
A more immediate problem—which many hon. Members will have come across in their postbags and I understand is to be the target of the investing in dentistry programme—concerns the estimated 4 million patients who would like to register with an NHS dentist but are unable to do so. They represent an unmet demand for registration that it is imperative that the system should meet.
There is a significant geographical misdistribution of dentists. As one might expect, problems exist in deprived areas with socio-economic difficulties. However, there are also problems in more affluent areas in which premises and establishment costs are particularly high. That is part of the nub of the matter, and I should like to put some points to the Minister about it later.

59WH
The way in which general dental practitioners are remunerated is distinctly different from the way in which general medical practitioners are remunerated. General medical practitioners receive reimbursement for their premises and establishment costs, whereas general dental practitioners receive item of service fees on a national scale across the country, from which they then have to meet the costs of their premises and establishment. That can present grave problems to general dental practitioners who operate in areas where the costs of premises are exceptionally high but are reimbursed only with the same fees that colleagues in lower cost areas of the country receive. I am sure that the Minister is armed with the fact—and will refer to it if I do not—that the investing in dentistry programme has addressed that problem at the margin. Indeed, it has addressed it in my constituency, where at least one new NHS dental practice has been enabled to start up by a grant that has helped it to overcome the high initial capital cost of premises. However, the scheme has been widely condemned as heavily bureaucratic, and its impact has been localised.
The hon. Member for Taunton mentioned the long-awaited strategy for NHS dentistry, which has now been in gestation for 18 months and is presumably under lock and key in Richmond house in a state of partial completion. As a result, this debate is taking place in something of a vacuum. It would be interesting if the Minister were able to enlighten us as to the contents of the document and when we are likely to see it.
I recognise that Health Ministers are regularly embarrassed by the phenomenon of finding that, while they are slaving away in Richmond house over a policy or strategy, some spin doctor in Downing street has managed to wind up the Prime Minister to announce yet another undeliverable pledge. In this case, the pledge was that within two years everyone will be able to see an NHS dentist. To the man in the Dog and Duck, the phrase "see an NHS dentist" would have meant "be able to be registered with an NHS dentist". He would not have thought that the Prime Minister meant "catch a glimpse of an NHS dentist crossing the road". Four million unregistered potential patients want the chance to access, and be registered with, an NHS dentist. However, it now appears that the Prime Minister's pledge should be interpreted in a rather more literal sense—and even that is probably undeliverable. He appears to be offering a drop-in dental service, which, although it may address the urgent needs of the 20 million people who do not seek regular and preventive dental care, will do nothing significant to address the needs of the 4 million who would like to be registered and to engage in proper preventive oral hygiene and dental care.
Thirty phone-and-go centres will not even begin to scratch the surface of the problem on a nationwide basis-that figure represents approximately one centre for every three health authority areas. Two phone-and-go centres are currently running as pilots, one of which, in Shropshire, has already become a phone-and-wait centre. Its capacity is completely filled and patients are unable to gain immediate access to a dentist, which was the whole point of the project.
Jackie Ballard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason why 20 million people do not register is that
60WH
many people are still afraid of going to the dentist? They hope that nothing will go wrong with their teeth, and put it off. If fewer and fewer people register and go to the dentist regularly, that is likely to perpetuate across the generations. As a parent, I found that, if I took my child with me to the dentist when I had a check-up, she could see that it did not hurt. If the only time one goes to the dentist is to have emergency treatment, it is more likely to hurt, and one's child will be less likely, as he or she grows up, to seek dental treatment voluntarily.
Mr. Hammond: I am sure that the hon. Lady is right. In a moment, I shall ask the Minister about those 20 million people, specifically whether any analysis of their motives for not engaging in the system has been undertaken. I suspect, as Liberal Democrat Members have suggested, that the future lies in closer integration of primary dental care with the general primary health care system. We should try to break down that wall and encourage people to access the system more easily and overcome their fears.
It is estimated that to register the 4 million people who can reasonably be categorised as seeking registration would require an extra 2,000 dentists. Where does the Minister think the dentists required for the Prime Minister's initiatives will come from? I entirely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight about the trend towards salaried dentists. If that is the Government's intention for the future, they should state it clearly. The obvious source of salaried dentists for the new service is the existing community dental service. People involved in that service are deeply worried that, because it is already overstretched by having to deal with the increasing needs of the elderly and trying to act as a back-stop service provider, it will be denuded by salaried dentists going off to serve in the new phone-and-go centres.
The Prime Minister's announcement represents a sticking plaster solution, which will be a high-cost way of dealing with a relatively small number of patients, but one—no doubt this has been noted—that will create 30 separate photo opportunities for Ministers throughout the country. Likewise, the much vaunted NHS Direct access to dentistry scheme, whereby NHS Direct will provide guidance for patients on where they may access an NHS dentist, is nothing new. It is no more than formalising a service that most health authorities provide already.
I have noted from this morning's comments that others share our belief that there must be greater integration of primary dental services into the primary health care system in the future. Oral health is a helpful part of overall health, and dentists, like pharmacists and, in deference to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), perhaps optometrists, consider that they are left out of the mainstream of the primary health care system. They are left out of the general thrust of the Government's policy in developing primary care groups and primary care trusts. They are not involved in initiatives, such as the NHS net, yet they, too, need access to patients' records to provide proper continuity of care.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight cited the example of a patient with heart disease, when it is essential that dentists are aware of a patient's overall medical history. Dentists have not been involved in discussions on

61WH
referral patterns although they, too, refer patients to hospital and play a significant role in the primary detection of cancers of the head and neck. Will the Minister say whether dentists are included in the Government's cancer referral pledge that all urgent referrals with suspected cancer will be seen by a specialist in a hospital within two weeks? I asked the British Dental Association that question yesterday. It said that it did not know the answer and had received no guidance from the Department of Health about it.
It is self-evident that there is no chance in the short term of recruiting enough new dentists to solve the problem. Clearly, the solution will lie in incentivising existing NHS dentists to do more NHS work and to be open to new additional NHS patients, some of whom may then go on in the mixed economy to buy private care from them as part of the overall solution to their dental hygiene problems. Has the Minister considered the fee basis? Has he compared the way in which GPs are remunerated with reimbursement of their premises and establishment costs? Has he considered how changes to the general dental practitioners' remuneration system could impact on the current situation by addressing the high costs that general dental practitioners face in some areas?
Does the Minister see a way forward, either by cost-related premiums on fees in specific areas or by separate premises reimbursements? Perhaps such an initiative could include incentives not only to overcome high localised costs, but to attract dentists to what are currently unattractive areas. The contributions of Liberal Democrat MPs from the far south-west have put the thought into my mind this morning that the Government may deal also with the additional costs that are associated with sparsity in rural areas.
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of existing charges for NHS dentistry on those 20 million people who are not seeking regular dental treatment? Has his Department undertaken any study to see whether the charges that are currently levied are a significant deterrent to those people, or are other factors keeping them away from a continuing relationship with their dentist and a programme of preventive oral care? What cost-benefit analysis has the Department of Trade and Industry carried out in relation to encouraging additional attendance for preventive dental care, given the established interaction between oral hygiene and general health?
Can the Minister say whether patients who visit phone-and-go centres will have access to the full range of options offered by most general dental practitioners, including the choice to have private treatment which is not available on the NHS tariff—for example, non-amalgam fillings? Alternatively, will the phone-and-go centres effectively become the second tier in a two-tier service, with patients offered only the limited NHS menu if they are forced to visit such centres rather than to register with an NHS dentist who is offering a mixed economy practice?
It may surprise some people to know that dentistry is the second largest cause of lost working days in the country. In Glasgow, it is the single largest cause of general anaesthesia being applied. It is not a side show. Clearly, there is a major problem, which can be tackled
62WH
only by incentivising dentists to do NHS work, to address the real problems of their cost basis in high-cost areas and to integrate dentistry more effectively into the primary care system. That will make them feel part of the mainstream of our health delivery system. The problem will not be solved by soundbites and the creation of photo opportunities for Ministers—although I acknowledge that the Department of Health has some very photogenic Ministers—nor by the Prime Minister raising expectations that cannot be met.
As in so many cases, no one doubts the ability of the Government, and particularly that of the Prime Minister, to spot the opportunity for a soundbite. The Prime Minister leaves a trail of pledges for others to try to meet, as, sadly, we have seen elsewhere in the NHS, often regardless of the cost in terms of disruption to the smooth running of the service and real clinical priorities. I look forward to the Minister's answers this morning to my specific questions and those raised by other hon. Members, and to hearing—in the absence of the promised White Paper on the strategy for NHS dentistry—what the policy is, beyond the soundbites that have already been announced.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): I call Minister Hutton.
10.37 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): That is the first time that I have been referred to as Minister Hutton. However, this is a modernising Parliament and we have a modernising agenda.
I congratulate all hon. Members who have been fortunate enough to take part in the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). Whenever NHS dentistry is debated in the House, it is clear that right hon. and hon. Members have strong feelings about its accessibility. They are concerned about the current situation, as are the Government. That is why we have taken the steps to which reference has been made during our debate to try to remedy the situation that we inherited in 1997.
We can analyse the problems, there has been much today with which I do not disagree. However, even more important than that is the need to find solutions to the problem. Of course, it is the Government's job to examine the matter, and I shall be outlining the measures that we have taken so far and those that we intend to take. We all share the responsibility for that. It is easy to criticise, but it would be nice now and again to hear some ideas about solving the situation from Opposition Members. They have been conspicuously missing from today's debate so far.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton on introducing the debate and on her thoughtful comments. The Government have begun an ambitious programme of modernising the national health service. We have also set challenging targets for improving the health of the population through our White Paper on a public health strategy. We are building a national health service for the future, creating a service that is both fit for the new century and one that will be there when people need it. Although it must always remain true to its founding values, the national health service must—I

63WH
am sure that it will—rise to the challenges ahead if it is to meet the growing demands of our population in the next millennium.
The hon. Member for Taunton expressed concern that I would brush her anxieties aside. I shall not do that. I want to expound on some of the actions that the Government are taking and our vision for the future. The Government believe that NHS dentistry plays a key part within our modernisation agenda for the national health service. All those who have ever suffered from simple toothache know how crucial good oral health and good dentistry can be to the quality of their lives. In the past 50 years, the hard work and skill of dentists and other members of the dental profession have served our population well. Needs and demand are changing; so must the provision of NHS dentistry. It needs to adapt and keep pace. I recognise that people are impatient. We need a faster, more convenient health service which is better attuned to the needs of our modern society; and that obviously includes NHS dentistry.
I must make it clear to the Chamber, and I shall not apologise to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) for doing so, that when the Government took office in 1997, they inherited an NHS dental service that faced some serious problems which were caused by the neglect and the indifference of the previous Administration towards NHS dentistry. The provision of dentistry was, at best, patchy. In parts of the country, there were big gaps between the demand for NHS dentistry and its availability. There were acute problems, and I agree with hon. Members about access to dentistry in the south-west.
Nationally, about a third of health authorities report problems for some of their residents. In recent years, the number of patients registered with NHS dentists had dropped significantly. Patient registration, which was introduced by the previous Government in October 1990 as part of a new pay contract with dentists, peaked in December 1993, when 21.6 million adults were registered. Since then, the number has fallen to 16.8 million—a drop of nearly 5 million.
In September 1996, the previous Government cut the registration period for adults from 24 to 15 months. That meant that people who did not re-visit their dentists in 15 months—previously 24—were taken off the list. That change alone led to a drop of nearly 3 million in the number of registered adults. I was one of them. I came across that new rule when I went back to my dentist in my constituency in Barrow only to find that I had been deregistered. I think that the hon. Member for Taunton said that she or one of her hon. Friends had had that problem, too. The duplicate registrations that can arise when patients change dentists have been weeded out, accounting for another 1 million of the drop. The balance of about 1 million represents people who either deliberately chose not to reregister or who became deregistered because dentists decided not to treat some or all adults on the NHS. It is constructive to consider why that should be.
Before 1990, access to dentistry was informal, with many patients building relationships with an individual dentist over a long period. With a new contract in 1990, relationships between patients and dentist were formalised by a system of registration. Since then, dentists' incomes have been partly based on registrations and, consequently, access to dentistry has
64WH
depended heavily on registration. Registration was intended to promote continuing care, but it quickly became an end in itself. The previous Government introduced the 1990 contract without fully piloting many of the changes that it contained.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister seems to be generally hostile to the principle of registration. Will he make it clear whether the Government are committed to registration in principle or are hostile to it?
Mr. Hutton: I am trying to explain the drop in the figures that the hon. Gentleman and others have mentioned. I shall come to the new dental strategy in a minute, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient.
As I said, the previous Government introduced a contract in 1990 without piloting many of the changes that it contained. Its intentions were therefore based largely on theory rather than practice, and the consequent results were mixed. In particular, there were significant drawbacks for oral health, NHS dentistry overall and expenditure. The new contract resulted in an overspend of £200 million, which eventually had to be written off. The contract was based on future activity forecasts to guarantee dentists' incomes. They were unsound and resulted in a 7 per cent. fee cut, which led to many dentists increasing their commitment to the private sector—a fact that has been widely commented on this morning. The level of treatment per adult rose while the level of treatment per child fell, and it is difficult to see any clinically based reasons why that should have been so.
The shift towards dentists doing more private work has been slow, but it has been steady. Only a small number of dentists do no NHS work at all, but the amount of time that the rest devote to the NHS has fallen. In a 1993 British Dental Association survey, 75 per cent. of general dental service dentists said that they received 75 per cent. or more of their earnings from the NHS and just 12 per cent. said that they received less than 25 per cent. By 1999, those figures had changed to 58 and 18 per cent. respectively. More than 1 million people now have private dental plans.
Dr. Brand: The Minister said that most dental practitioners still did NHS work. Does he have the facts available to differentiate between NHS work for children and NHS work for adults? My impression is that a large number of NHS dentists have dropped NHS adult work. That is where the difficulty arises.
Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figure immediately. I will write to him with the requested information because that is an important point.
It is true that availability problems are not spread evenly across the country or our society as a whole. There tend to be fewer access problems for children than for adults, which partly addresses the concerns of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). Access is more difficult for charge-paying adults than for those exempted from charges altogether. In many areas, dentists' lists remain open, and anyone who wants NHS treatment can get it. In others, the situation is worse. For example, in the Stockport health authority area, 56 per

65WH
cent. of the adult population is registered with a dentist, whereas in Bromley the figure is, I am afraid, only 25 per cent. Across England as a whole, the average is 43 per cent.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked whether the Department considered that the situation in Somerset was particularly worse than elsewhere in the country. I shall share with him my understanding of the position in Somerset. In the 12 months from September 1998 to September 1999, adult registrations in Somerset declined from just under 183,000 to just over 177,000—about 45 per cent. of the population. Over the same period, child registrations fell slightly from 69 to 68 per cent. of the child population.
Those figures do not exactly correspond to those given by the hon. Member for Taunton. I cannot explain why they differ slightly; perhaps we will explore that matter in correspondence. In general terms, although the figures are clearly low, they compare favourably with the average for England of 45 per cent. for adults—the average in Somerset—and 62 per cent. for children. In fact, the figures for children in Somerset are higher than the national average.
We accept the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and others have made about the problems of equity of access; of course, that is a fundamental concern which we share with all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Even where there are enough NHS dentists to meet demand, the process of finding one can be awkward, time-consuming and off-putting. Today, we have heard accounts confirming that position. The Government are committed to reversing that decline. We want the service to be faster and more convenient for patients—a modern dental service which meets the demands of modern life. Our target, which was announced in September by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), is that, by the end of 2001, everyone who needs NHS dentistry will be able to get it.
We have already taken significant and positive strides forward and improved access to dentistry by using the investing in dentistry initiative and personal dental services. The investing in dentistry initiative spent £10 million expanding NHS dental practices. Across the country, 363 locations benefited from the scheme and 830,000 more patients can register with an NHS dentist. Eight investing in dentistry bids were approved from Somerset, including two from the constituency of the hon. Member for Taunton. Those two grants, totalling more than £30,000, have been approved for two dental practices in her constituency. When the new dentists are approved, which we hope will be done soon, they will deliver treatment to thousands more patients in her constituency. Throughout Somerset, the eight schemes should raise 19,000 new NHS patients. Of that target, 6,000 new registrations have already been achieved. I accept the criticism that Opposition Members made about the situation in Somerset, but we are trying to deal with the problem.
Jackie Ballard: Yes, funding has gone to practices in my constituency but, as the Minister knows, there are
66WH
difficulties recruiting dentists. I suspect, but I do not know, that dentists feel that Somerset is an affluent area containing quite a few people who can afford to pay for private treatment, that they can make more money in a private than in an NHS practice and that there is no demand for NHS treatment in Somerset.
I return to the Minister's comments on the Prime Minister's promise. He said that everyone would have access to NHS dentistry within two years. Will he define what he believes to be a reasonable distance to travel? I have with me the health authority list that is given to people who are looking for a dentist in Somerset. It gives two addresses in Minehead and one in Shepton Mallet. Interestingly, the other two postal addresses are not in Somerset, which means that the list contains only three addresses in Somerset. How far does he believe someone should have to travel for treatment?
Mr. Hutton: I do not want to avoid answering the hon. Lady's question, but effectively I am being asked to tell the Chamber what is in the new dental strategy. I had the same problem with some of the questions that were asked by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Clearly, I am not in a position to discuss the details of that strategy. With great respect, hon. Members will have to be more patient. When we publish the new dental strategy in the new year, the answers to some questions will become more apparent. However, I share the hon. Lady's concerns. If I were in opposition and my constituents were told that they had to travel 30 or 40 miles to see an NHS dentist, I should not be satisfied.
Mr. Hammond: I accept what the Minister says, and I shall wait with bated breath for the strategy document. If my questions are not answered in it, I shall put them to him again. Will he say precisely what he meant when he said that everyone who wants access to NHS dentistry will have it by 2001? Does that mean that everyone who wants to register, and to have an on-going relationship with an NHS dentist and to obtain preventive care, will be guaranteed the ability to do so?
Mr. Hutton: We certainly want to improve access to NHS dentistry. That was made clear by my right hon. Friends at the Labour party conference and on other occasions. I give credit to the hon. Gentleman, who is once again trying to get me to announce what will be in the new dental strategy. With the greatest respect, I am afraid that he will have to wait until it is published.
We accept that the previous arrangements for the provision of dental services were too rigid. Local nuances and the need for such services could not always be met. The personal dental services pilots have successfully overcome some inflexibilities. They were introduced in 1997 to test whether new arrangements could serve as an alternative to the national contract for general dental services. The framework that is contained in the National Health Service Primary Care Act 1997 was used by the pilots.
Dr. Brand: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: With great respect, I shall not give way any further. Time is short and I need to conclude my remarks.

67WH
The first wave of 15 personal dental services pilots began in October 1998, and the second wave of 23 pilots began in October 1999. They are concerned with access and seek to guarantee a higher quality of service, but they should have the flexibility to meet the varying needs of different elements in our society. The pilots involved, for example, the provision of services to children, deprived communities and the homeless. Some specialist services, such as sedation, general anaesthetics and restorative dentistry are also part of those innovative schemes.
Proposals for the third wave, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) asked about, are being considered. Access to services for those with special service needs, such as the elderly in residential homes, are included in those expressions of interest. There have been expressions of interest in the third wave of personal dental services from Somerset and from Stoke for the establishment of dental access centres. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North and the hon. Member for Taunton wish those projects well. I hope that they understand that I am not in a position today to say whether those expressions of interest have succeeded. An announcement will be made when a decision is taken.
The personal dental services complement general dental services practices, which remain the key way by which most people get high-quality NHS dentistry. There was some concern that phone-and-go centres would provide only a second-tier service. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge had something of a cheek to refer to a two-tier service, since that was precisely the legacy that his party left behind when it left government.
I confirm that phone-and-go centres will provide all the treatment that is necessary to maintain oral health, including check-ups—they will not merely be emergency clinics. They will plug gaps when there are problems of availability. They will provide a high-quality service that is based around the needs of patients. At those centres, people who cannot register with an NHS dentist but who want to see one can simply ring to make an appointment. They can be confident that they will receive good NHS care.
Those centres are fully consistent with our ambition to provide faster and fairer treatement through the NHS. Schemes will be set up in various locations, including high streets, clinics and in some of the new primary care walk-in centres. Opposition Members emphasised the importance of linking dental practice with primary care, and we accept that. That is why the new phone-and-go centre in Swindon, which will open later this winter, will be co-located with a walk-in primary care centre. That is how we want such services and initiatives to develop.
There will be about 30 dental access centres, which will ease the most acute problems of access across the country. Expressions of interests for the third wave of access to dental access centres are currently under consideration along with the third wave of the personal dental services pilots. We are confident that there is sufficient manpower in the dental profession to staff those centres. The number of dentists continues to rise.
68WH
The phone-and-go centres and personal dental services offer the opportunity of making the most of all the talents in a dental team.
I have more to say on this matter but, sadly, time is about to run out. I confirm what I said to the hon. Member for Taunton at the outset—that the Government attach great importance to improving access to NHS dentistry, and that the present situation is not acceptable. That is why we have taken action. We are investing in dentistry and improving access, which has had a significant impact. Despite some of the criticisms that have been made this morning, we are developing a new dental strategy for the NHS, which we shall publish in the new year. We have also made clear commitments today and on previous occasions about restoring access to NHS dentistry.
We recognise the importance of good health and value the well-being of our nation. I hope that hon. Members agree that the Government are trying to deal with those concerns, which we take seriously, and that we are putting in place appropriate measures to tackle the problems.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What progress has been made to ensure that the parallel chamber is televised throughout Parliament in our offices? I spoke to my staff five minutes ago and I understand that the arrangements for televising broadcasts from this Chamber to our offices have still not yet been completed. I believe that a feed is available to the press, but that it is not available to staff, researchers or parliamentarians around the Palace. I hope that you can throw some light on the matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The light that I can throw will simply reflect the comments that Madam Speaker made in the Chamber yesterday. I am sure that they were widely heard. She said:
"I am taking steps to find out whether we can have that for next week."—[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c.159.]
Next week has yet to arrive.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I was slightly confused about the status of the gentleman who sat next to the Deputy Speaker. I tried to establish whether the Modernisation Committee recommended that Officers of the House should not dress as Officers of the House when they are in attendance in Westminster Hall. I believe that this Chamber is not a Committee of the House, but an extension of the House. It is hard to sustain the dignity of the House of Commons in this Chamber if Officers who are working in the Chamber do not dress in a way that maintains the dignity and traditions of the House. Would you give a direction to the Officers of the House that they should treat this Chamber in the same way they treat the House itself, of which this place is an extension?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member that the report of the Modernisation Committee that gave rise to the experimental activity in which we are engaged gave no formal approval for the use of the Mace, for prayers or for formal attire. I also remind the hon.

69WH
Member that, when not in the Chamber but still on duty, Officers of the House do not wear their formal rig. For that reason, no such attire is required here.
Further to that, I must remind the hon. Member that points of order of this sort are an unwarranted intrusion on private Members' debating time. If he seeks to take the matter further, I suggest that he make it part of his report to the Modernisation Committee—everyone is entitled to make a report—which the Committee will consider at the end of the experimental period.

NATO Action (The Balkans)
11.1 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I introduce the debate by being unashamedly personal: is there any sign of a Marshall plan for the Balkans? In particular, is there a proposal to do anything about sanctions against Serbia? That country is the engine of economic revival in the Balkans, and sanctions would make things far more difficult. I am not alone in that opinion; it is also the opinion of Mrs. Alison Elliot, who speaks on behalf of the church and nation committee of the Church of Scotland, of which she is a convenor.
Half a century ago, I was 17 or 18 years old. I was "22424588 Trooper Dalyell", Gunner-Driver in the Royal Scots Greys, based in the former SS barracks at Luneburg with the Rhine Army. That involved being in a tank and firing guns either at the Hohne ranges in Belsen or at Lulworth. The smell, the din, the cordite are still with me.
The regiment was commanded by Lt. Col. Duggie Stewart, DSO, who was Britain's gold medallist at the Helsinki Olympics. My squadron commander was Major Aidan Sprot, who was Viscount Willie Whitelaw's brother-in-law. The major published a moving account of the Greys' progress from Alamein to Anzio, Monte Casino, Normandy, the Rhine crossing and the Elbe. Those experiences were shared by many in the sergeants' mess, some of whom were proud holders of the Military medal.
I say all that because my formative years gave me not a moral superiority but certainly a more cautious attitude to modern war and bombing than those who took the decision—Prime Minister Blair or President Clinton and their Ministers—to unleash missiles. Frankly—it is a hard thing to say—they seem to see war through celluloid images. That may be generational, but it is against that background that I speak with great anger about what has happened.
Stationed with the British Army of the Rhine I was able to visit the flattened cities of Essen, Nuremburg, Osnabruck and Hamburg. Even then, one saw evidence of reconstruction. Rebuilding and the reinstalling of machinery were tangible results of the vision of General George Marshall and his colleagues, who imaginatively embarked on a programme of aid—Marshall aid. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister, the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), whether there is any sign of a Marshall plan for the Balkans? During the conflict, NATO gave the impression that the people of the Balkans were to partake of the prosperity of western Europe. We heard endlessly about the rebuilding of the Balkans. I want to know whether any effort has been made even to start that rebuilding.
During an Adjournment debate three weeks ago and again during the Foreign Affairs debate on the Queen's Speech on Monday, I asked about the 130,000 jobs at the car plant at Zastava that were destroyed. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I visited Zastava at the end of September, and the destruction that we saw was appalling—acres and acres of twisted machinery. The factory produced 230,000 cars a year and although the Yugo was not the most

71WH
popular car, it was at least a source of work. What does such a massive number of unemployed bode for Serbia, which I repeat is the economic engine for the Balkans?
Mr. Edward Leigh: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, the Government seem not to want to give substantial help to Serbia while Milosevic is still in power. That may be a desirable aim, but is it fair to the Serbian people?
Mr. Dalyell: It has been repeatedly emphasised that we have no quarrel with the Serbian people. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax will bear me out: to put it mildly, the trade unions of Zastava were not fans of President Milosevic. There is a real difficulty.
The second question that I asked during those debates concerned an assessment of the long-term effects of pollution that was caused by the recklessly irresponsible targeting of the chemical complex at Pancevo and the oil refinery at Novi Sad. I believe that I am entitled to ask about the Government's response to Pekka Haavisto, the Finn environmentalist who reported for the United Nations environment programme Balkans task force. He asked whether the rules of warfare that resulted in the people of Serbia and Kosovo being faced with life-threatening pollution should be reviewed. Do the Government agree with Haavisto? What is their response to his report?
Thirdly, I asked about the blocking of the Danube. Putting it bluntly, when my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and I went to the Ministry of Reconstruction in Belgrade, it was made abundantly clear that no effort whatever would be made to unblock the Danube at Novi Sad until the dollars and the deutschmarks were put on the table to pay for the rebuilding of the bridges. I know that the city of Dortmund has made an offer, but what is NATO's general response to that and to the worries of Bulgarians, Romanians and others who are greatly disadvantaged?
My hon. Friend and I had the Bulgarian ambassador to lunch last week, and we found that the situation is extremely serious for those countries. As Misha Glenny pointed out:
"The stability pact is washed up on a distant shore of the European Union bureaucracy … Countries like Romania and Bulgaria bent over backwards to assist the West during the bombing campaign and they expect payback, but they're not getting it. If they don't get payback, their rulers will be out. And what you might get in their place, heaven knows. We're not even … giving Romania and Bulgaria reasonable access to EU markets.
The Stability Pact was a good signal, but it is not happening. It really isn't moving. And yet you don't get Robin Cook coming on television every day to say the Stability Pact is in danger of being washed up, which it is. Do we hear people saying out loud: 'We're in new danger?' No."
I ask about the stability pact and the power stations because I never believed that those graphite bombs were simply a matter of technical, temporary knockout. If one drops graphite bombs on power stations, one should expect the delicate machinery to be destroyed.
I refer to the article in The Times by Simon Jenkins entitled "Robin Cook's wasteland" in which he said:
"Only the lifting of sanctions can save the Balkans from Nato's folly".
72WH
There may be two sides to that story, and there ought to be a response as to what we are doing to save the people of the Balkans from the winter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has been to Kosovo, and I know that the former leader of the Liberal Democrats has often been there. I have repeatedly asked what the military has asked me: is it true that only the Irish Guards provide night patrols? If night patrols are not provided, there will be no chance to stop the ethnic cleansing. The British Army and the NATO forces went to war in order to stop ethnic cleansing, and now it is happening in reverse.
On the World Service at 5.30 on Tuesday morning, as I was driving to Edinburgh airport, I heard Bernard Kouchner—I did not take down his exact words because I was on the motorway. He said that he had been promised 6,000 policemen, but that very few had arrived. There were 60 from the Ulster constabulary, and at most he had 1,400 people.
What kind of provision are we making for the protection of the Serbs? I have asked the Prime Minister
"what discussions he has had with (a) France and (b) Russia on the operations of KFOR designed to protect the remaining Serb populations in Kosovo."
He replied:
"NATO allies and Russia discuss all aspects of KFOR operations on a regular basis and Kosovo was discussed at the Ministerial Anglo/French Summit on 25 November.
Protection of the Kosovo Serbs and other minorities is one of KFOR's top priorities, with around half of KFOR manpower currently involved in minority protection duties. Security for all communities remains our central objective."—[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 81–82W.]
If that is so, why are there so many press reports about the murders of Serbs? Are they false? I hoped that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West, would be here, because notice was given that I would mention Robert Fisk's report of 20 November about monasteries. It states:
"Last week, I drove down the same road to Prizren and sought out the same church. I found the field and steel gate. But the church was a ruin. A single wall stood. The rest was pulverised stone. Goodbye, then, to the icons and the saints with the staring eyes. Goodbye to Jesus. Goodbye to the Serb Orthodox church. All across Kosovo I found identical scenes, places of worship—sometimes 600 years old—levelled with explosives and hammers, the very identity of Serb history turned to dust amid fields and hillsides by Nato's Kosovo Albanian allies.
The Serb church has issued its own list of destroyed or partly demolished buildings. Between 13 June—when Nato troops entered Kosovo—and 20 October, they say, 74 churches have been turned to dust or burnt or vandalised. The 15th-century monastery of the Holy Trinity above Musutiste, begun in 1465, has been levelled with explosives. The monastery of the Archangel near Vitina, built in the 14th century, has been looted and burnt."
The article goes on at some length. My hon. Friend the Minister has first-class honours in theology and a great knowledge of ecclesiastical history. I am sure that he cares as much as I do, but I am entitled to ask how such a thing can happen when there is massive KFOR expenditure and commitment.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Before my hon. Friend brings us to the general situation in Kosovo, is he aware

73WH
that the president of the Jewish community of Pristina, who has recently been driven out of Kosovo by the Kosovo Liberation Army, said:
"Jews and others are driven out of Kosovo, some disappear, some are murdered and their murders attributed to forces beyond NATO's control. Some, like the Serbs and Roma of Orahovac, are imprisoned in a new Warsaw Ghetto?"
Mr. Dalyell: Jews, the Roma and other minorities have suffered dreadfully. My hon. Friend and I were told in Belgrade that the 52,000 Albanians—that was in September and there may have been a change since—had not been molested. Did we go to war for Greater Albania? I do not want to go on too long, and that is a long subject.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: It would be useful to give an example of the challenge faced by KFOR forces in defending Serbian property, people and churches. I have recently come back from a visit to Kosovo with the Select Committee on Defence. The Queen's Dragoon Guards were permanently guarding a church in which the local Albanian population appeared to have no interest, so the permanent guard was ceased and the church was to be put on a patrol pattern. Within three hours of the guards' being taken away, that church was burnt to the ground.
Mr. Dalyell: I would be selfish if I went on for too long, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss his experience with the Committee.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman told us that he was a soldier, so he will know that there is a limit to what armies can do and guard. I saw 30,000 Roma at Podgorica the day before yesterday, and every one was a tragic case. I do not pretend that KFOR is completely flawless, but, rather than concentrating his criticisms on it, he might say, as I did yesterday in Pristina, that the action will never be stopped until the Albanian community and its leaders are prepared to support NATO. The force that can close the shops in Pristina can find the relevant people and stop them. It is a lack of leadership on the part of the Albanian politicians that is the bane of the matter, rather than inefficiencies on the part of limited forces in KFOR.
Mr. Dalyell: I accept that, but I am conscious of the fact that I am probably the last person on the planet to whom the Albanians would listen.
Would the Minister be prepared—I know that it is not his part of the Foreign Office—to make "The Balkans 1807–1999: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers" by Misha Glenny required reading for those who advised him in the Foreign Office? It should also be read by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who has direct responsibility for the matter.
The end of Glenny's book states that the interventions of 1878, 1914 and 1940
"were so destructive that they guaranteed the Balkans' relative economic backwardness, compared to the rest of Europe. And the violence that these inteventions encouraged, often inflicted by one
74WH
Balkan people on another, ensured the continuation of profound civil and nationalist strife. In the West, however, these events are rarely regarded as the result of external intervention. On the contrary, the Balkan countries are seen as culprits who force the reluctant outside powers into their unfathomable conflicts. This imagined Balkans—a world where people are motivated not by rational considerations but by a mysterious congenital bloodthirstiness—is always invoked when the great powers seek to deny their responsibility for the economic and political difficulties that the region has suffered as consequence of external interference. 'The Balkans,' Theordore Geshkoff wrote in 1940, 'are usually reported to the outside world only in time of terror and trouble; the rest of the time they are scornfully ignored.'"
Geshkoff is right. The issue becomes all the rage or seems to be forgotten when the British media move on to something else. The book continues:
It is during these long periods of neglect that the Balkan countries have badly needed the engagement of the great powers. Yet the only country to demonstrate a sustained interest in the economic development of the Balkans was Nazi Germany during the 1930s.
The NATO assault on Serbia and Kosovo should be judged above all in this light. Should the West fail to address the effects, not merely of a three month air war in 1999, but of 120 years of miscalculation and indifference since the Congress of Berlin, then there will be little to distinguish NATO's actions from any of its great power predecessors. The NATO campaign can hardly claim either a moral or political victory if its sole achievement is the explusion of Milosěvić's Serbia from Kosovo.
There is an unassailable case for political and economic restitution in the Balkans. Yet this is a daunting challenge. The lack of preparedness on the part of NATO was obvious during the air campaign. It was evident after victory, when the Alliance proved incapable of stopping the KLA from imposing a regime of intimidation and murder which provoked the departure of almost the entire Serbian minority population from Kosovo within weeks of the Albanians' return. If the greatest military machine in history is unable to impose law and order in a small province, one cannot help wondering what the future holds for the international community's other, larger Balkan protectorate, Bosnia-Hercegovina; and whether the great powers, above all, the USA, have the political and economic resources to deal with Serbia as it hovers between civil war, economic collapse and conflict with its sister republic, Montenegro. Yet if the great powers fail to seize the present opportunity by investing heavily in the region, the suffering of the Balkans will surely continue for several decades into the new millennium."
The suffering of the Balkans is what this debate is about.
11.22 am
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful to be called. I think that this is the first speech that I have made as a Back Bencher. I know that I am confined to 10 minutes—[Hon. Members: "No, you are not."] Am I not? Wonderful. I note—as I have slightly more time—that this Chamber fulfils a dream of mine. I longed for the day when we could speak in a less confrontational, semi-circular Chamber. I thought that that day would never come, but here it is.
I agree with so much of what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, but I am bound to say that I disagree with him on the necessity for NATO to take the action that it did. The hon. Gentleman has been to Serbia, but I wonder whether he has ever gone to the refugee camps of the Albanian Kosovars in Kukes and Macedonia; knowing him, he probably has because he is assiduous in these matters. I do not think that he would have found a single person there—I never found one,

75WH
even among relatives of those killed by NATO—who did not regard the NATO action as both necessary and right.
Mr. Bowen Wells: It is not surprising.
Mr. Ashdown: I think that it is surprising. If your uncle or aunt were killed by an array that was bombing your country, you might have some doubts about whether that was the right path to pursue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I am afraid that I must ask all hon. Members to desist from this casual across-the-Chamber approach. The hemicycle configuration may well encourage it, but I intend to discourage it. All remarks must be made through the Chair and if hon. Members expect to have an opportunity to engage in the debate, they must wait their turn in the proper manner.
Mr. Ashdown: I take your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in so far as it applies to me, which I am sure it does.
I also disagree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow about lifting sanctions. I can only tell him that in my recent conversations across the Balkans over the past four or five days, I asked that question of every person I met. The answer is best characterised by someone whom I met yesterday in Kosovo. He has a sister in Serbia, married to a Serb, who is suffering under the sanctions. He said, "I am not sure that the sanctions are right and I am not sure that they are not counter-productive in their present form, but I am sure of one thing: any relaxation now would be used as a propoganda victory for Milosevic. That we do not want, and that my sister does not want." That is the reality.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman on the need for a co-ordinated policy towards the Balkans and the tragedy of the lack of it. I believe that if history is generous to us, it could well say that the Balkan wars of the latter decade of this century came before Europe was ready—it had not yet prepared the institutions for dealing with them. We have no such excuse for not stabilising the peace, for which we have made such great sacrifices. I fear that the cost of both the Bosnian war and the Kosovo war will be great in terms of the sacrifices made at the time and I remain unconvinced that the unco-ordinated policies that we follow—although they are successful in some areas—will deliver a stable peace.
It seems that we in Europe and the international community have decided that the best way to deal with the Balkans is to Balkanise our approach to them, which is utterly crazy. Each of the successive conflicts has ended with a further duplication of institutions, overlapping competencies and a further proliferation of useless institutions—like the hon. Gentleman, I suspect that the stability pact is one of them. There are piecemeal policies which, although they are followed with some success in one country, are not interlinked with others. The institutions have, at best, muddled lines of command. Europe has no co-ordinated, central, regional vision about what the Balkans could be, nor is there a focused political will to drive it forward or a central body to enact
76WH
it. It is a difficult—even intractable—interlocked and complex problem; to deal with any such problem in that way is folly, but to deal in that way with the Balkans, which has seen 1,000 years of conflict, conspiracy and fissiparousness, is manifest stupidity.
I shall say something that people seem reluctant to say. The problem is that we are now losing the peace there. That is not because of inadequate actions in Kosovo, because it is actually going rather well in some instances, or because of the situation in Bosnia or in Montenegro—after my recent visit there I feel rather more optimistic than I might have—but because our actions are not locked together in a regional approach. This is pre-eminently Europe's problem. If the Balkans go bad, we will suffer. The United Nations has neither the structure nor the political will to provide that regional approach. Although this is Europe's problem, the US is putting greater resources into many of these countries than we in Europe are. It is deeply engaged in Montenegro, for example, and providing money, while Europe's only contribution so far to an area that could blow up the Balkans in the next few weeks is 62 pregnant cows.
In this century, there have been four Balkan wars, two in the first two decades and two in the last decade. That is not counting one world war which started in the Balkans and another in which the Balkans were a major battle field. If at the end of the century we do not understand that we have to tackle the problem on a regional basis, we are stark staring mad. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear Conservative Members agreeing with that, because they are not going to agree with what comes next.
There is a reason for that failure. Europe will not face up to the reality of its current position. Let me say something that no one else will say: Europe is developing into a super-power. Can we in Europe continue to be in the ludicrous position of creating a hugely powerful economic entity—perhaps the second most powerful economic entity, if not the most powerful—through the euro, yet have no political responsibility attached to it? That is a free ride which Europe cannot afford any longer. We are creating an economic giant, yet wishing to continue as a political pygmy. We must admit to that. If, as I believe, we are creating a super-power in the world, with that economic strength goes political responsibility and we must behave accordingly. It is in the nature of super-powers that they should be sensitive about their border regions and concerned about their marches. The Balkans are the marches of Europe. That is why they are our problem, yet we seem content to believe that once again Uncle Sam should bail us out in our own backyard. That approach will not work, and the grave danger is that sacrifices made in the war could be lost in the peace.
I hope that Europe will now establish institutions to deal with the region. I am confident that our new European Commissioner, Chris Patten, and Mr. Solana, will bring to the Balkan region the European co-ordination that has so far been lacking.
I shall identify some problems and state the current position. I am more confident than I expected to be about the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The situation is progressing slowly, although we have not reached an irreversible point. On a visit there four or five days ago, I was encouraged by the extent to which we

77WH
have progressed. A continued application of resources and patience is needed from Europe; the desire and willingness to take responsibility for their actions is needed from the Bosnian politicians. That has so far been lacking.
In many ways, I was listening to the dialogue of the deaf in Bosnia. The Bosnians were saying that we had to come and do things for them and make them act; we were asking why they did not yet have a fully fledged democracy. That question ignores completely the fact that we are asking Bosnians to create in several years the democratic institutions and free market that we took 300 or 400 years to create. In Kosovo, we are asking the same, except that there we are asking for that to be done in months and following a devastating civil war. The Bosnians wanted us to be the Hapsburgs, but we would not do it; we wanted Bosnia to be Switzerland, but it was not ready to be that. We must have patience to see the job through. However, I am generally optimistic.
In Montenegro, Milosevic has tried by economic destabilisation to do what he did by brutality and ferocity elsewhere in the Balkans. We can support Djukanovic with a relatively small sum—perhaps $10 million. If that sum is provided quickly, we can stabilise Montenegro economically and prevent Milosevic from destabilising it. Milosevic is unlikely to use immediately the 12,000 or 15,000 JNA—Yugoslav national army—troops that he has in Montenegro: he will use other means to seek to destabilise that country. However, if we act now and are prepared to provide the resources to stabilise the dual currency that Djukanovic has established, we have an opportunity to wrest Montenegro from the power of Milosevic without war and without everything that accompanies war.
I am much less optimistic about Kosovo. The Serb violence of which the hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke is now diminishing. There have been no murders in Pristina—save for the terrifying one on the night before last—since the most recent arrival of British troops. That could be because all the Serbs have already been kicked out, but 100,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo. The tragedy concerns the Roma: their houses have been burned while NATO—our army—has been there. I spoke to a Roma woman whose child was born a few days ago on a truck crossing the terrible mountains that separate Kosovo and Montenegro; I crossed those mountains shortly afterwards. It shames me to say that a child had been born in the back of a truck and that that woman was there with 30,000 other refugees. I have seen so many refugees in the Balkans—Serbs driven out by Croats, Croats driven out by Bosnians, Muslims driven out by Serbs. In Kosovo, a further tide of refugees is being driven out under the suzerainty of NATO.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked why NATO cannot protect people in that tiny province—if the most powerful army in the world cannot provide peace, what is its purpose? We have the most efficient army in the world, yet have been unable to protect the Catholics in Northern Ireland for 30 years. The hon. Gentleman must realise the limits of military power. The job cannot be done without the support of Kosovar politicians. I
78WH
suspect that I made myself unpopular in Pristina yesterday by telling people straight that NATO could not stop the atrocity unless they supported NATO.
Mr. Dalyellrose—
Mr. Ashdown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue briefly.
I told those people that their capacity to achieve the independence that they sought for Kosovo depended on whether they honoured their word to the international community to create a multi-ethnic, tolerant and liberal society capable of taking its place in Europe. I said that their current actions would remove the possiblity of their achieving their dream of an independent Kosovo more surely than anything else that they could do. It is up to them to come forward to assist NATO. I said that yesterday to Hashim Thag: the head of the KLA, and to all the political leaders, including Rugova.
Kosovo stands on the brink. I greatly fear that it could slip back into chaos, despite the best efforts of Bernard Kouchner, who is doing a difficult job with great imagination. He needs all the support that he can get; he does not have the support of the Albanian Kosovar population, and I fear that Kosovo will end up almost where it started.
I give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow with apologies for the fact that I have taken up so much time.
Mr. Dalyell: There are many shortcomings. However, it cannot be said that we did not understand the limits of military power. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I pleaded with the Prime Minister both publicly and privately and before bombs were dropped not to take such action precisely because we understood those limits.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman took a sincere and well-meant position; I disagreed with him. He overestimates the current capacity of military power to keep the peace in Kosovo, and to stop the killings that we both deeply regret, without the support of the local population.
We have made great sacrifices. The opinion on the Balkans of the population and, perhaps even more, of our politicians in Europe is: "Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt, won the war. Now we can turn our back on the area." Much patient careful focusing of will, much understanding and much careful and wise positioning is required to push towards peace and stability in a region that has infected the rest of Europe with war for so long. I, and most of that area's people, dream of such an outcome. However, that cannot be achieved without courageous politicians on the ground taking the decisions necessary to support the forces that are there to help them. The task cannot be done without resources or patience either, but, above all, it cannot be done unless we in Europe accept that the Balkans is a region and that it must be dealt with as a region. That is our region, and we must get our act together to ensure that such action is taken.
11.37 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: At the onset of the bombing, many of my hon. Friends and I signed an early-day motion that condemned NATO aggression as unlawful and immoral. I wish to consider the unlawfulness of the action. Both the Foreign Secretary and the former Secretary of State for Defence—now the Secretary-General of NATO—told the House on several occasions that they had legal authority for NATO's war against Yugoslavia on the basis that force could be used in extreme circumstances to avert humanitarian disaster. That the bombing acted as a catalyst to humanitarian disaster is now clear. Eminent lawyers are arguing that the military action was illegal.
In a recent pamphlet for the Centre for Policy Studies and in an article for The Times on 16 November, Mark Littman QC disputed the lawfulness of the action. Submissions made on behalf of the Yugoslav Government against several NATO countries, including the United Kingdom, were put before the International Court of Justice, alleging that the NATO intervention was unlawful. Mark Littman noted in those publications that the Yugoslav case fell on a technicality. The United Kingdom could have waived the objection and accepted the Yugoslav challenge to have the legality of the bombing tested before the court. The Government chose not to do so. Mark Littman commented:
"Given the weight of opinion and legal authority against the NATO position, the paucity of evidence in its favour and the reluctance of the UK to test its view before the International Court of Justice, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the NATO action was illegal."
I submit that the action undoubtedly was illegal; that bodes ill for the future of international law. However, we do not have time to consider that. My overriding reason for opposing the war was my belief, now justified by what we see happening in Kosovo, that the intervention would make matters far worse.
I wish to consider the lead-up to the war. I was disgracefully smeared during the previous debate on the matter, so I shall repeat this point: wherever a crime against humanity is committed, I fully support measures to bring the perpetrators to justice. There are no exceptions to that. I condemn without reservation the Serb murderers, especially Arkan, who has done so much damage throughout the Balkans. I condemn equally—I ask those who supported the war to join me in this—Brigadier General Agim Ceku, who was the main perpetrator of Operations Storm and Flash in Croatia where thousands of Serbs were massacred or disappeared. I recently visited the mass graves and met some of the 300,000 Serbs who were ethnically cleansed. It is interesting to note that, just before NATO went to war with Yugoslavia, the international court tribunal's report, implicating Ceku and an American general in the war crimes that were committed against the Serbs in the Krajina, was leaked. I shall try to obtain an Adjournment debate on that subject.
We should be even-handed when we talk about war criminals, but such are NATO's double standards in this war against Yugoslavia that, far from comdemning Ceku, it accepts that he is now in charge of the so-called Kosovo Protection Corps, the KLA by another name. That reflects NATO's determination to demonise just
80WH
one side in the Balkans. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) talks about the Albanian leaders, but they were our brave allies. We acted as their air force during this war when we took the side of terrorists and murderers. We should not be surprised if their behaviour has not changed.
Another factor in the run-up to the war was the Rambouillet ultimatum. I was pleased to see Robert Fisk's excellent article in The Independent recently, which said:
"In the last days of the Paris peace talks on Yugoslavia last March, something extraordinary happened. The Serb delegation—after agreeing to a political solution in Kosovo—was presented with a military appendix to the treaty which demanded the virtual NATO occupation of all of Yugoslavia."
The Serbs turned down that demand, as would every country in NATO, and NATO went to war. Yet 79 bombing days later, NATO, which had refused to contemplate a change in the military document, lost all interest in the appendix and was content to keep its forces in Kosovo. It did not want to go into the rest of Yugoslavia. The House should debate that in detail because history will show that the Rambouillet accords were an ultimatum, deliberately engineered to start a war.
When I was in Kosovo recently with the parliamentary wing of NATO, we met Mr. Thaqi, the ethnic Albanian leader, the good and brave Mr. Veton Sorroi, who is one of the few hopes for Kosovo, and Mr. Trajkovic, the Kosovan-Serb leader who painted a gloomy picture of what was happening in Kosovo and outlined his fears for the other minorities who live there. Since then, he has been shot in the leg, through the door of his flat. I do not want to criticise soldiers, but, if KFOR cannot protect the leader of the Serbs in Pristina, there is little hope for other ethnic minorities.
Mr. Ashdown: I wonder whether the hon. Lady knows the circumstances of the shooting. Mr. Trajkovic was shot with a.22—one would hardly shoot a rabbit with a .22—through a glass door which deflected the bullet. There is a strong opinion on all sides that that may have been carried out by one of his own people, or even by himself.
Mrs. Mahon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, but I heard the same argument to support the view that the Serbs blew up their own houses in Pristina. That type of comment is not helpful.
We were told by military and civilian international representatives in Kosovo that they expected the risk and gravity of terrorism for ethnic and criminal motives to increase, and it has. It was clear then, as it is now, that the terrorist organisation—the KLA—was organising, with some success, the murder, kidnapping and ethnic cleansing of all minorities. When a general who briefed us refused to admit the KLA's involvement, I was told to talk to the Irish Guards. As we were staying and sleeping in tents in the camp, I talked to some of the Irish Guards who told me that the KLA was organising those activities. They were clear on that. Since the KFOR occupation, the Roma, Montenegrans, Turks, Bosniaks and Jews have been ethnically cleansed by the KLA.

81WH
According to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees report on minorities on 3 November, 348 murders have been committed, 116 kidnappings have taken place and more than 1,000 houses have been burnt down. How many times were we told that we were going into the area to stop ethnic cleansing and murder? How many times did we hear Jamie Shea, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson, who is now Secretary-General of NATO, say that we wanted the Serbs out, NATO in and the refugees back? What about the refugees now? Are we not worried if they belong to one ethnic group instead of another? The Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence should make statements to the House on the situation in Kosovo. The deafening silence is scandalous.
I mentioned Orahovac, which is a Serb and Roma—and once a Jewish—enclave in Kosovo. It is supposedly under the protection of the Dutch KFOR peacekeepers. I have referred to what the Jewish community leader said about the situation there, but information that I received today from Orahovac is appalling. A Serb woman, Mirjana Jokic, pleaded with a group of reporters only yesterday:
"Get us out now, please. Living in Orahovac is worse than being in a concentration camp."
Describing the situation as catastrophic, members of other ethnic minorities said that there is no electricity, food or heating in the Serb and Roma parts of town. Almost the only way for people to get food is to wait, sometimes for days, for aid that is delivered by international, Serbian and humanitarian organisations. Babies are being born in basements with no electricity or water. A 70-year-old Serb woman, Javana Cusic, said that she has not seen fruit or vegetables for more than a month. Threats by ethnic Albanians have been increasing hour by hour. It must be awful living under those conditions.
Mr. Blunt: It may help the hon. Lady to illustrate the failure of NATO's policy if I point out that, of the 300,000 children who are in education in Kosovo, it is thought that only 1,000—one third of 1 per cent.—are of Serbian extraction, which shows that those people with families have left the area. Only the old people, who are not welcome in Serbia, remain. The future is horribly clear.
Mrs. Mahon: It is only a matter of time before we have an ethnically pure Albania. Albanians such as Veton Sorroi receive death threats if they speak against the terror that is taking place in Kosovo. I agree with the right hon. Member for Yeovil; the Roma are in a worse position than other ethnic groups.
A joint report issued by the OSCE on Wednesday confirmed that there is now a climate of violence and impunity. If attacks by Albanians against the dwindling population and the gypsies continue unabated, more misery will follow. Muslim Slavs in the Prizren area of Kosovo are suffering intimidation and violence because that is how the KLA organises things. We were told when we were there that the organising groups pick on
82WH
certain groups of people at certain times. The people who guard them have a very difficult task. The tragedy is that we should not have been there in the first place. Had we increased the number of OSCE verifiers and sent 10,000 instead of 2,000—as some of us pleaded with the Government to do—the present misery could have been avoided.
Yesterday, I read in The Guardian that a mob of Kosovo Albanians attacked a family of elderly Serbs and killed one of them. On Sunday, the leader of the KLA, the self-proclaimed leader Hashim Thaqi, and the war criminal General Agim Ceku, presided over a rally at which KLA members, wearing uniforms of the now so-called unarmed Kosovo Protection Corps, fired hundreds of rounds from rifles and guns to celebrate their flag day—KFOR simply looked on. It is time that the Government made a statement giving their response to the lawlessness that is in Kosovo.
My final point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. Will the Minister explain to hon. Members the current legal basis for sanctions against Yugoslavia? The House of Commons Library told me on 29 October that the reason was that extreme criminality was being carried out by a Government against their people. That was the message, although I may not have quoted the exact words.
The current extreme criminality is perpetrated by the KLA against its own people. What shall we do about that? We need a clear understanding of why sanctions still apply because the original reason for imposing them no longer exists. I have mentioned the article by Mark Littman and I advise hon. Members to read it because it spells out clearly the illegality of NATO's decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I are members of a campaign to build bridges with the people of Yugoslavia. At the end of September, a delegation from the campaign visited Yugoslavia. We found that the lives of the vast majority of ordinary citizens there have been shattered by the bombing of their country. The consequences continue to take an enormous toll on people from all ethnic groups who have little, if any, influence over the terrible circumstances in which they find themselves.
It has been said that we are not enemies of the Serbian people. Serbia is a multicultural country and I wish that more people would go there. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow under estimated the number of Albanians who live in Belgrade: there are almost 100,000 of them, working in very good positions. There are also 50,000 Montenegrins there—Belgrade is a very mixed community. I visited the camps to which Albanians were driven by the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and I went into Macedonia. My hon. Friend and I also visited the camps outside Belgrade. We visited a Roma camp where people were housed in makeshift conditions in an old school. A visit to refugees is heartbreaking. Some of them have been in the camp for four years, but no one is calling for these Romas or Serbs to return to their homes. NATO has operated a set of double standards.
The civilian infrastructure of the whole of Yugoslavia is devastated. The environment is poisoned. Homes, schools and hospitals have been destroyed and roads and bridges have been ruined. We took masses of photographs, so we have all the evidence. The

83WH
destruction of the electricity supply and the water purification systems presents an on-going threat to public health. All in all, NATO's action has been an absolute disaster. I have spoken honestly and earnestly. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is the Minister having to take the flak. This is not his brief and I am sad that he has to be here to listen to what I have said. I know him to be a very good and compassionate man. The sooner the Foreign Secretary comes to the House to make a statement on the chaos that is now Kosovo, the better.
11.54 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be extremely brief. I commend this new non-confrontational arrangement of the furniture. I, too, have long wanted it. I hope that it will signal a new kind of politics, with less of the fake aggression and synthetic skirmishing which mark too much of the party battlefield.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for initiating and introducing the debate, although his perspective and mine are somewhat different. From what I have seen of these wars which began in April 1992, I know that one of their distinguishing features was that civilians not only suffered; they were targeted with particular and peculiar ferocity.
With the NATO bombardment of Kosovo and Serbia, we find ourselves in some sense complicit in the targeting of civilians. I believe that because of the manner in which that air campaign was conducted. The attack on the television station in Belgrade was an attack on an unambiguously civilian target. The attacks on bridges were attacks on civilian targets. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have suffered, and are suffering, not only in Yugoslavia but in countries upstream and downstream of the Danube. What did we do in Kosovo itself? We bombed from 15,000 ft so that our casualties should be zero. I do not wish there to be allied casualties, but if the result is that thousands of civilians are killed on the ground who would not have been killed if the operation had been conducted differently, we must ask ourselves what kind of people we are, and whether we have learnt so very much since the tragedies in Bosnia.
What happened in Bosnia when Srebrenica fell in July 1995 was that obviously we assumed that Dutch lives, especially, but also British, German and French lives, mattered on one scale of values, and Bosnian lives mattered on another. It seems to me that the lesson has not been learnt, because we have done the same thing again.
An example with which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be familiar is the incidence of cluster bombs on the soil of Kosovo. Most of the injuries inflicted on casualties in Kosovo every day come not from Serbian and mines or Albanian-laid land mines, but from these engines of death which were dropped by NATO. Many more failed to explode because of the high altitude from which they were dropped—the failure rate might be as high as 20 per cent. There are, on the ground, more than 14,000 cluster bombs with the characteristics of aerially sown land mines. Technically, they are not land mines, but they have the same effect. If we do not consider this matter on a moral level, the Ministry of Defence must seriously question a strategy in which one of its major
84WH
weapons is just not working and is jeopardising allied soldiers, as the tragic case of the two Gurkhas who were blown up showed.
Mr. Dalyell: How does that lie with the claims of credit from the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson, in relation to the Montreal convention on land mines? Lord Robertson told us endlessly what an achievement it was to have resolved the problems with that convention.
Mr. Bell: That is an interesting point. We congratulate ourselves on signing a treaty while at the same time we not only fail to clear anti-personnel mines on the ground but, in this case, sow some ourselves by dropping them from the air. We should reproach ourselves for that and our Government should learn from it. There is no point going through these experiences unless we learn from them.
That applies to sanctions. I have spent an enormous amount of the past 10 years in countries affected by sanctions. I cannot remember one—and Kosovo is a classic—in which sanctions have worked; they have also been unproductive or counter-productive. It is a classic case of their benefiting the warlords and racketeers and penalising ordinary people. Arkan was mentioned. I know him: in a singular sense, he counts me as a friend. I can assure hon. Members that he enriched himself as a result of sanctions imposed on Serbia in 1993. We have to be aware of the consequences of our actions.
One other point has not been raised so far. I believe that there is a crisis among the 200 or more nongovernmental organisations and aid agencies in Kosovo. The streets of Pristina are crammed with traffic jams involving those white vehicles. I heard yesterday of an Army sergeant who is using combat rations—probably against Queen's regulations—to take food up to a starving family in a distant village because none of the aid agencies and NGOs has been up there.
We have to learn from that. I hope that the Department for International Development will evaluate what is working and what is not. To some extent, the operation has to be militarised. We have the best Army in the world, and it has done magnificently in Kosovo, bringing aid and helping people, but, as the Army withdraws and civilian agencies take over, we find that they are simply not doing so well.
May I reinforce what was said by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who has a particular knowledge of these circumstances? He said that it is right to do what we have been doing. Our strategy has been right, but our tactics wrong. We have to hang in there. We must commit ourselves. We must not let these people down. As we end the bloodiest century in recorded human history, we have to realise that throughout the world—and especially in the Balkans—we cannot afford a future like our past.
12 noon
Mr. Bowen Wells: I am grateful to be called to speak briefly in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on initiating the debate and starting it off so bravely. I also admire the courage of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). Both hon.

85WH
Members have spoken without fear against their Government on these matters and both have been criticised unjustifiably. In my hearing, they have been accused of being traitors to their country. I deeply regret such remarks in the House, as they are entirely undeserved.
I want to focus my remarks on the humanitarian effort. After all, one of the main reasons for going to war—we are talking, unambiguously, about war—was to prevent a huge humanitarian disaster. That was the reason given by the Prime Minister to the House of Commons. However, we have had a huge humanitarian disaster and it is continuing. There is a humanitarian disaster in Kosovo, where more than 820,000 refugees now face the severe Balkan winter, in which temperatures are likely to fall to minus 20 degrees. Many older people are incapable of surviving that and will die of hypothermia, as will young children and people in ill health. Hypothermic deaths are likely in large numbers, not just in Kosovo but in Serbia, where there are more than 800,000 refugees or displaced persons.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the traditional meaning of humanitarian aid. Humanitarian aid, under which the Red Cross and Red Crescent have operated in war zones, was designed to be totally even-handed. It was not supposed to matter whether someone was a non-combatant or a combatant or for what side he fought: anyone in need was to be provided with food and shelter to survive conditions in war. That is why the Red Cross could operate for both sides during the second world war: it was dangerous, but it was allowed to operate.
We are starting to use humanitarian aid politically, particularly in this part of the world. If we continue to do so, we will exacerbate the hatred and tensions in the Balkans. Far from producing an overall settlement—the war was intended to achieve that—we will sow the seeds, as we are already, for further Balkan wars and atrocities. The 800,000 refugees in Serbia are not being serviced by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which should be operating even-handedly in Serbia as well as in Kosovo.
Let us deal with Kosovo first. More than 50 per cent, of houses that are capable of being repaired will remain unrepaired if the necessary materials are not provided for the whole of the coming winter. Those that have been repaired are the result of the provision of those materials, principally by UNHCR operating outside its normal parameters. Of the 50 per cent. that are temporarily repaired for the winter, only one room has been repaired. The rest of the houses will remain unrepaired, which means that the rest of the population—some 400,000 people—will have to be accommodated by friends or relatives in difficult conditions. There will be no food—it will have to be provided by the World Food Programme—and no heating because of the destruction of the power stations. Those people will face a difficult winter, whether in houses that have been temporarily repaired or in those that have not.
What is happening on the other side of the border in Serbia is even worse. Repairs have not been carried out, equipment has not been provided by UNHCR, and Serbia is without heat because of the bombing of power
86WH
stations. Heat is available only by burning wood. People go out to collect firewood and there is a risk of being blown up by a cluster bomb land mine. There will also be massive environmental destruction as a result of people collecting firewood to keep warm during the winter.
Sanctions against Serbia mean that oil cannot be imported. Heating oil, which is an alternative to electricity for the provision of heat, also cannot be brought in. What are we doing about it? The European Union has organised a large convoy of tankers—I have seen pictures of them—carrying heating oil to be transported across the Serbian borders to the three towns immediately north of Kosovo in Serbia. It is to be supplied to the mayors of those towns for distribution to refugees without heating. It is going only to those three towns because they are headed by mayors who are against Milosevic. If that is not a distortion and a complete undermining of the concept of humanitarian aid, I do not know what is. I do not believe for a minute that that heating oil will be distributed in accordance with the desires of those supplying it. Milosevic is capable of taking it over and distributing it to whomever he likes. That is the nature of sanctions: they give power to the Government to use the supplies entering the country exactly as the Government decide.
Humanitarian aid was never supposed to be about that. It is being used politically and is making a farce of the concept. It will exacerbate the tensions within Serbia between those who have the heating oil and those who do not. That is an entirely unacceptable means of producing a peace settlement, which is what we are supposed to be looking for. The objective of the allies was—however much it is denied—to get rid of Milosevic. They have not done so. They had to negotiate with Milosevic, and they have negotiated the present settlement with him.
We must now move on to the next stage of providing an effective settlement in the Balkans. That will never happen unless humanitarian aid is provided without any prejudice as to its recipients, whether Serb, Roma, Kosovar, Jew or whoever. If people are in need, the humanitarian organisations—to which we are proudly contributing through our Department for International Development budget—must lay the foundations for reconciliation after this terrible war. Bridges must be built and sanctions lifted in order to begin to provide a basis for a settlement in this war-torn area.
12.9 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. In this chamber, the correct address is Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I am speaking, I note that several hon. Members still wish to speak. If hon. Members keep their speeches brief, they can all have their say.
Mr. Wareing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to work in these surroundings for the first time. We are working in humane and civilised conditions, which certainly cannot be said of circumstances in Yugoslavia.
I listened with great interest to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). They have witnessed the

87WH
dreadful conditions in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia more generally. They mentioned the names of people and towns, but I guarantee that there will be no mention in any newspaper, radio broadcast or television programme tomorrow of what they had to say.
Incidentally, how many massacre sites have been discovered and how many bodies recovered? When Serbs were carrying out massacres, not a day passed when we did not see horrible scenes on our television screens and on the front pages of our newspapers. We were told that all that was a result of ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. I am not surprised that we shall not see any of that in tomorrow's newspapers, and I remind hon. Members of a matter that I raised in 1993.
On 2 May 1993, I stood on the edge of a massacre site in Bosanskibrod in north Bosnia, where 38 bodies in different stages of decomposition were already laid out on the ground. I shall never forget the smell, the flies and the general atmosphere in that town. I felt how I imagine British soldiers must have felt when they liberated Belsen concentration camp. Not a word appeared in the press or the media, whom we informed. The present Secretary of State for Scotland was there and was asked by a pressman, "Who are these people?" He replied: "Oh, they are Serbs who have been massacred by Croats." "But we cannot print that," said the pressmen. "Why not?" asked the Secretary of State. "It will only confuse people," was the reply.
Everything had to be seen in black and white. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will confirm that. So I am not surprised at the lack of even-handedness from day one. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) spoke about the war starting in April 1992. My God, massacres were going on in 1991. Serbs were being driven from their homes in Croatia in 1991. In early 1992, I remember meeting a Serbian man and a Muslim woman who had been driven out of their homes in Rijeka, Croatia, because they were ethnically impure in the eyes of Franjo Tudjman who, in my eyes, is a war criminal. Those people were not allowed to remain in their homes in Croatia.
Hardly a word is ever spoken about that. We sometimes saw the Foreign Secretary twice a week during the Kosovo conflict. However, he does not get up to speak to the House about the circumstances in Kosovo and the plight of people in Serbia which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said, is a multiethnic state. Hungarians form 25 per cent. of the population in Vojvedina and, as far as they are concerned, there is little oppression. I have met them, so I know that that is the position.
There is no doubt that the ultimatum issued at Rambouillet offered the Yugoslavs the choice of submission or destruction. No sovereign state would have submitted in that way. NATO said to Yugoslavia what Hitler said to Czechoslovakia. He told the Czechs, "We are justified in occupying the whole of your country because you are persecuting German minorities."
We must see the bigger picture, not just the Balkans. The Balkans fits into the world strategy of NATO, which is dominated by the United States of America. We must consider our relations with Russia, which played a major part in ending the conflict in Kosovo. Yet Russia was rewarded by the refusal to allow a Russian sector.
88WH
Had the Russians had a sector, many innocent Serbs who have been murdered by the Kosovo Liberation Army may have been alive today.
We must examine the matter in the context of NATO wanting to enlarge. The real motive for the Rambouillet ultimatum was not to save the population in Kosovo or Serbia, it related to the expansion of NATO. Incidentally, annexe B was not shown to Russia until after the event. Russia ought to be included to a greater extent in the security of Europe. After the second world war, we brought West Germany into the community of western nations, despite its Nazi past. What do we do with Russia at the end of the cold war? We ignore it. I was very pleased when I heard on the radio that Russian troops had arrived in Pristina ahead of everyone else. At least they were making a point and making their mark.
We must examine the Balkans within the broader picture involving our relations with Russia. I want an assurance from the Minister—who, I appreciate, is a compassionate member of my party—that Kosovo is still recognised by the United Kingdom as part of the sovereign republic of Yugoslavia.
12.16 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I—
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are these debates not meant for Back Benchers?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: They certainly are.
Mrs. Gillan: I do not claim to have the experiences of other contributors to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has persevered in continual raising this topic. However, I do not need the experiences of other hon. Members to know that there is a serious problem. I reiterate the call from Conservative Members for a full inquiry into Britain's diplomatic and military roles, and the aid that has gone to Kosovo. The Prime Minister displayed arrogance in replying to a question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow in May and another from my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party concerning the request for an inquiry. The Prime Minister dismissed the latter question with one line: "I see no need." However, today's contributions reveal a serious need for a full inquiry and for lessons to be learned.
Conservative Members never had any doubt that it was right for NATO to take action to deal with the atrocities committed by Milosevic. Indeed, we were successful in removing Serbian forces from Kosovo. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that the international community seems in danger of losing the peace. Indeed, I would go further and say that we are now in danger of turning a disaster into a catastrophe.
The policy of armed intervention to stop the violation of human rights carries a responsibility to fill the vacuum when the oppressor is forced to leave. That has not happened in Kosovo, and the repercussions can be felt throughout the Balkans and Europe.
Will the Minister respond to Back Benchers' valuable points? Even though the subject is not his direct responsibility, I hope that he will pay attention to

89WH
matters raised in our debate, especially those concerning the state of the inhabitants of Kosovo, who are living in damaged houses without heat or light and who are without policing in a lawless society. It is important that we know the Government's attitude towards the chaos in Kosovo, not least for the protection of the population and the 260 non-governmental organisations working in the area.
I shall give the Minister time to reply, and I hope that he will say specifically whether he will join the rest of the House in calling for an inquiry, and what will he do about the dreadful conditions. Winter and peace in Kosovo could prove to be more lethal than bombs and bullets.
12.19 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for the persistence and integrity with which he has pursued these matters and presented them to the House. He recently won The Spectator Back Bencher of the year award, and all hon. Members would wish to congratulate him sincerely on that. He brings to our deliberations the highest standards of debate, which have been reflected here today.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said that we come from different perspectives and are using a range of perspectives in the analysis of the origins of the conflict and subsequent actions. However, what is shared in this Room is a deep, genuine and serious humanitarian concern for the people and their futures. I was particularly struck when my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow used the seminal phrase about the danger of seeing war through "celluloid images". That was echoed by others, who said that after the crisis and the media images we should not walk away and go on to the next crisis. We should not forget and neglect what has happened. That has not happened in the House precisely because, with respect, most hon. Members who have contributed have direct personal experience over the years of going to the place of conflict, taking notes, listening, discussing and bringing back information. That is a strength in depth in the House. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has a track record in aid and development and in asking questions to ensure that aid reaches the people who need it—that view was buried in his questions about whether heating aid was getting through.
I have only a few moments in which to reply and cannot possibly answer all the questions, using the full notes that I have and making comments. However, if any questions are outstanding, I hope that hon. Members will write to my Department. We shall try to respond appropriately and to take the debate on board.
I share with hon. Members the fact that I, too, visited Kosovo. I was the first Minister to go there after the Secretary of State for Defence. I did so precisely because I wanted to take in engineers with expertise in technology and in dealing with power stations and water plants so that they could start rebuilding Kosovo. That was two short weeks after the KFOR troops had moved in. We intervened for humanitarian reasons, and we should not lose sight of that.
90WH
I want to say something about how I saw Kosovo and about the work that has been done to repair energy plants. I visited the power station Kosovo B, which is up and running and producing 40 per cent. more electricity than it did before the conflict. If I had more time, I could spell out exactly why that is. Surprisingly, the grid system goes through the whole of Yugoslavia, not simply Kosovo. So, there is more detail that I would like to spell out.
We are not constructing a wider, full plan for the whole of Serbia. The reason for that is that we are not reconciled with Milosevic. Sanctions, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) put it, would give Milosevic a propaganda victory, and we agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised pertinent points about Rambouillet and the legal basis, and I shall touch on that in the moments that I have. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow received a written answer to his question on 26 November. That reply sets out some details, and I simply refer to it for the record. However, at the same time, the UK has not evaded the case brought by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the International Court of Justice. The case was about only interim measures, not the substance—we were not asked about the substance in the first place. The FRY has not yet brought its full case to court and has been asked to do so by January 2000. Then, the allies and NATO, including the UK, will have the time and opportunity to respond, and we shall if the FRY persists with its case. In a sense, the case is still pending at this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax referred to Mr. Fisk's article. We disagree with his analysis. The Serbs refused to negotiate seriously on the Rambouillet text. They refused the political agreement, which the Kosovo Albanians accepted. There was no ultimatum to the Serbs at Rambouillet. The Foreign Secretary co-chaired those meetings and he writes in a letter to The Independent today that it is
"wrong to say that the Serbs were prepared to agree at the Rambouillet peace talks to a political resolution in Kosovo. At the second round of talks, as well as refusing to discuss implementation, the Serbs sought to reopen large parts of the political text to which they had previously indicated assent. All members of the Contact Group, including Russia, refused to accept this."
I shall not read the full letter, but simply touch on it for the record. There are debates and arguments to be had on that issue, but the case put by Robert Fisk was not clear cut and absolutely accurate.
Of course, reconstruction must focus on the future. What do we do immediately and in the longer term? We need to be clear about what we face. There have been massive displacements among the 2 million Kosovars present at the time of the conflict and people have been murdered. Some 400,000 people were displaced inside Kosovo before the NATO air strikes, and there were 90,000 outside Kosovo. A quarter of all European Union asylum applications in 1998 came from Kosovo Albanians. There was a real crisis, and we should bear that in mind.
What are we doing to rebuild Kosovo? I visited it in June. The estimates of the damage to housing varied greatly, from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the total stock. However, much of the damage was not the result of bombing, and I was surprised at how little bombing

91WH
damage there was. The damage was actually the result of fire. The roofs of houses had collapsed because the wooden beams had collapsed. The white wall structures were still standing and the roofs could be repaired. That seemed, in housing terms, to be more of a rehabilitation job than a clear-and-build job. The flats were still standing in Pristina. While I was there, they were empty. Two days later, they were full of people, as 10,000 people a day came back on trucks and tractors. I saw washing hanging out from the flats, as people started to rebuild their lives. The worst areas were the villages, and I saw Pec. However, the roads were intact. I visited the hospital that was mentioned, which was not bombed. The power station to which I referred was not bombed. However, it seemed to have suffered from 30 years of neglect and from a lack of basic care and maintenance on the part of the previous regime. The machinery—there were boilers from Britain—was 60 years old and needed basic repairs. The problem was that there were no staff to run the power station, and the engineers were doing that job.
I want to give just one vignette in the moments that I have left, because it is important. While I was at the power station—most of the work force had gone—an Albanian engineer knocked at the door and asked for his job back. He said, "I worked in this power station 10 years ago, when I was replaced by a Serb from Belgrade."
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Battle: May I just finish this point? Then, I certainly will give way.
Meanwhile, the Serb who had been doing the job the previous day had gone home and rung in sick because he feared that Albanians would return and that his house would be burnt down as a result. A soldier went and sat in his house while he returned to work. The Serb and the Albanian then worked on getting the power station up and running, and it is up and running now. I offer that as a tiny sign of hope that ethnic conflicts can be diminished and integrated into contexts in which people might work together.
Mr. Dalyell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer, but it is all about Kosovo. My hon. Friend should go to Belgrade and see the destruction that has been caused to the solid old Austro-Hungarian empire buildings. It cost £80 million to put Bishopsgate right, and the damage from an IRA bomb in Manchester amounted to £300 million. For missiles to ruin the centre
92WH
of a capital city is another matter. What my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I saw at the Zastava plant and Novi Sad was absolutely horrendous.
Mr. Battle: I take the point. Again, I do not have time to go into what we are doing in Serbia. However, the international community is in place on the ground in Serbia with programmes to meet genuine human need, which will continue through this winter and beyond. However, I should say again that while the regime is still in place, with the corruption and the rest of it, it is not all that easy to get aid through to the places where it is needed. However, non-governmental organisations are already operating in Serbia. The European Community's humanitarian office, to which the UK contributes, has increased its programme in Serbia to 62 million euros this year. The International Committee of the Red Cross has assistance programmes in place. There are soup kitchens to provide hot meals for more than 1,000 people. I checked and found that the winter programme that is being put in place provides clothes, shoes and stoves that will help 300,000 people. Those programmes are happening now.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford referred to the difficulties of getting heating oil through. However, it is being blocked at the borders. That suggests that, in other circumstances, a Marshall plan could be put in place, but that there is not an agreement among all the parties to undertake reconstruction. One of the parties is still sitting out on that issue.
Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the Minister because he has been generous in the last few seconds. I want to place a few comments on record, because the question was asked whether there would be a real tragedy in Kosovo this winter. In my most recent visits there, every official, expert and Kosovar whom I met believed that, tough though it would be, this winter would be better than last. Then, they could not bring in the harvests and did not have time to mend their roofs. Although I cannot pretend that nobody will suffer, it will be easier this winter than it was last year under the Serbs.
Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
I want to say a quick word about the Danube. The Danube commission is in place and has been for some time, but it needs agreement. An offer is on the table to clean up the Danube if Milosevic will ask for help and assistance, including financial aid and assistance, to do so. The terms of the Danube commission are there precisely to achieve this.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Theatre (Education)
12.30 pm
Mr. Llew Smith: I declare a non-financial interest as a member of the board of Gwent theatre in education. The debate will cover not just the future of a few theatre companies, but the future of theatre in education and the benefits that our children derive from that experience.
I was reminded of that some days ago when I received correspondence from Sir Cameron Mackintosh, who stated:
"I feel very strongly that involving children in the performing arts at an early age is vital for two reasons. Firstly, it opens their minds and releases their imaginations to creative possibilities and secondly, it allows children from any background or economic circumstance to show and develop their talents on an equal basis. There is no better way in which children can express their self-worth than through working with other children and being encouraged to show what they can do."
Similar sentiments and recognition of the importance of the work were expressed by Hannah Gething in a letter to a local newspaper, the Abergavenny Chronicle, which stated:
"I never realised that education could be so enchanting, inspirational and fun until, at the age of ten years, our class was dragged down to the school hall to watch 'A Midsummer's Night Dream' by William Shakespeare.
A play containing fairies, love, comedy, oppression and class divisions, was softened by Shakespeare's portrayal of magic.
Yet, in my opinion, this magical play would not have captured the intentions of its playwright if it were not for the spectacular performance of Gwent Theatre. Despite being a small company, they create performances that all professional theatre companies would be proud of.
To lose Gwent Theatre would be to lose a valuable and creative part of the community."
The letter continued:
"How many theatre companies would be willing to take in the youth of our town … in order to give them a chance to get off the streets and realise talents they were unaware of; talents that could go unrecognised at school?
It is Gwent Theatre who have enabled our young people to attend some of Britain's most successful musical and acting institutions and have prepared other young people for film and television.
Cutting Gwent Theatre's funds is a tragedy but surely not a tragedy where we can simply close the script!"
This debate is our way to ensure that the script is not closed. Indeed, it will not be closed until the drama strategy of the Arts Council of Wales is scrapped.
Only yesterday, the Welsh parliamentary Labour party unanimously called for an inquiry into the matter. It was right to do so, because before becoming the chairperson of the Arts Council of Wales, Sybil Crouch described the drama strategy as a tragedy that will further deprive valley communities outside Cardiff, Milford Haven and Mold, and the consultation process as a mockery. Yet when she became the chairperson, by sheer coincidence, she decided that the strategy was acceptable and proceeded to defend it.
I can forgive a fool, but it is difficult to forgive those who sell their past and everything that has been important to them to further their self-interest and to damn those who are victims of their decisions. Unfortunately, the Minister in the Welsh Assembly who
94WH
is responsible for the arts seems to be willing to peddle the nonsense provided to him by the Arts Council of Wales. He announced a few days ago that the drama strategy will result in more money, more performances, more actor weeks and larger audiences. That is untrue, and if he did not know that then, I hope that he does now. My hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and I issued a statement that we were saddened that that Minister should be part of such a publicity stunt, which gave a totally inaccurate picture of drama in Wales. My hon. Friends and I met the Arts Council of Wales on Monday and were told that theatre in education companies that had made bids for the franchise for the work had
"to be wanted in the area".
I suppose that that is what Hannah Gething was trying to express in her letter to her local newspaper, and we agree with that sentiment—if we did not, we would be treating our communities and their opinions with disdain.
Theatr Iolo's successful bid for the Gwent area had support from London, Cleveland, Warwick and Merthyr, but not one organisation or individual in Gwent was willing to support that bid for the franchise. When we met the Arts Council of Wales, we suggested that, following the publicity surrounding the recent scandal, someone must have written in to support Theatr Iolo's bid, but the council could not name a single organisation in Gwent that had supported it.
Compare that with Gwent theatre, which received support in Gwent from all—I emphasise all—Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, members of the House of Lords, local authorities, 120 schools, 120 voluntary organisations, a petition signed by more than 8,000 people and stars of stage, screen and television, including Victor Spinetti and Caroline Sheen, who played the lead in "Mamma Mia" in the west end a few days ago and who is a product of Gwent young people's theatre. That support is not confined to the people of Gwent. Outside Gwent, 125 Labour Members of Parliament and dozens of Welsh Assembly Members showed their support.
Gwent theatre is "wanted in the area" because it started theatre in education in that country 20 years ago. It built up a company and a service that is one of the finest in the United Kingdom. The Arts Council of Wales told us that the successful applicant had
"to be wanted in the area",
but it is ignoring its own rules, the support for Gwent theatre and the total absence of local support for Theatr Iola.
The Arts Council of Wales is telling people in my valley and other valleys in Gwent that they are not clever people, but idiots, so it cannot allow them to determine the direction of theatre in education or the company that should represent them. The Arts Council of Wales, in its plush offices in the capital city of Wales, is making decisions for those people. Its argument is that not only are people in Gwent incapable of determining the direction that theatre in education should follow, but none of the hundreds of thousands of people in Gwent has the skill, talent or creativity to direct a theatre in education company. The Arts Council of Wales decided to overcome the problem by asking a Cardiff-based company to go and to educate the people of the valleys.

95WH
People from the valleys are not idiots. They are capable of making such decisions, as they were capable of creating the history and a community spirit of which we are proud. The first production by Gwent theatre, which I was with 23 years ago, reminded us of that history. It taught us that the history of our community is not a history of kings, queens and generals, but a history of working people, miners, steel workers and women who worked in factories and at home. That is the history of my village and of our parents. Gwent theatre consistently reminds us to be proud of that history and those communities and never to apologise for them. It can do that because it has been a part of those communities and that history, which it has helped to create.
We wanted to have a rational debate with the Arts Council on the franchise for theatre in education, so we requested certain information. We asked to see Theatr Iola's bids. We asked for the minutes of the discussions in which the decisions were taken, for the minutes of the discussions on Theatr Iola's business plan, for the details of the organisation that supports Theatr Iola and for copies of the individual marks on the 13 criteria that the evaluation panel awarded to each franchise, but all those requests, and more, were refused.
I can only assume that there is something to hide, but what? We are talking about a charitable body—a small theatre company—not about an arms manufacturer selling dodgy weapons to even dodgier foreign powers, so what is there to hide? Why should these requests be refused? Companies such as Gwent theatre and Theatre Powys have made their bids public.
Mr. Richard Livsey: The value of theatre in education, as the hon. Gentleman has said, is immeasurable to young people; it gives them poise, confidence and the ability to make progress in society and to carve out a career. In rural east Wales, companies such as Theatre Powys will not be able to continue as a result of the strategy of the Arts Council of Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there should be a major inquiry and a reversal of that strategy, which is destroying community-based theatre in Wales?
Mr. Smith: I agree totally with the hon. Gentleman, but that inquiry would be worthless unless we have access to the information that he and I, and many others, have demanded. However, being optimistic, I always believe that it is impossible to keep a secret. Information is leaking out. Although Theatr Iola refused me access to information on the bid, it provided me with other information. I discovered, for example, that its business plan did not mention where in Gwent the company would be sited, or the costs of setting up such a company in a different county. I do not understand how the Arts Council could have accepted the business plan without that information, especially as Gwent theatre's building, which has been refurbished in the past few years, is now worth about £500,000. If Theatr Iola wants to go to Gwent, it will need a similar base. Surely the cost of that base should have been included in the business plan.
Theatr Iola informed me that the funding for its base could come from the money in its bank account and from any other successful bids for funds that it may make in future. Obviously, future grants will not help to
96WH
solve its immediate problem of setting up a base in Gwent by April 2000. I contacted Companies House in Cardiff to check how much money Theatr Iola had in the bank in April 1999. It was £25,000 in credit. If it used every penny of that money. It could not purchase a dilapidated building in the most deprived part of our community.
Mr. Livesey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Powys county council has earmarked £145,000 to support Theatre Powys this year, but it is not prepared to match that sum for an outside company? That puts in focus the inadequacy of its financial plans.
Mr. Smith: The position is similar in Gwent. When we asked the Arts Council why it did not check that financial backing was not available to Theatr Iola, it informed us that it could not be certain about such matters. We were staggered by that remark, because that is the one thing that should certainly be demanded in determining a business plan. Where will the base be? What will it cost? How will the money be raised? Those are a few of the questions that must be answered. When I asked the director of Theatr Iola where its base in Gwent would be, he admitted that he did not know, saying, "Look here, we would not want the base to be more than 25 miles away. If it was more than 25 miles away, we would have to pay the additional expenses demanded by Equity." So we can forget about Theatr Iola being based in the northern part of my community—the most deprived part—because those additional expenses are more important than anything else.
When we raised such issues with the Arts Council, we were shocked to be told that the money could come from the £125,000 franchise. If Theatr Iola used all that money, it could have a base similar to that of Gwent theatre. Every penny of that money that it uses is a penny less for the services that were awarded the franchise. We asked how many members of the evaluation panel, whose responsibility it was to decide which bidders would be successful, had allocated points when judging the individual companies that applied for the franchise, but the Arts Council refused to give us that information. It also refused to deny that Theatr Iola was allocated points for criteria on which it should have been impossible for it to receive points. For example, a company cannot be given points for receiving local authority support if it receives no such support. It cannot receive points for having a base, if it has no such base. It would be as though I had awarded top marks to someone who had not even bothered to sit an examination.
It is scandalous that only half the evaluation panel that took the decision had witnessed a performance by Gwent theatre. How can a company's artistic ability be judged without seeing one of its performances? The Arts Council would not tell us of the scores allocated to each company. It did not explain the allocation, nor did it convince us that nothing underhand had taken place in awarding the franchises.
This debate is part of a campaign to rectify that wrong. We hope that the Welsh Assembly, as one of the bodies responsible for Arts Council moneys, will insist on an inquiry, as did the parliamentary Labour party yesterday evening. During the elections to the Welsh Assembly, nearly all the parties told us that they would

97WH
make a bonfire of the quangos; they would end the quango state in Wales. Unfortunately, that has not happened, but they could begin to rectify that wrong by putting pressure on the Arts Council to change its decision. The Arts Council is as much a quango as any other. The campaign will continue until the injustices have been rectified, and the Arts Council must realise that it is as simple as that.
12.48 pm
Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) for securing this debate, for his vigorous support of the campaign and for his work as a member of the board. I also thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) for his contribution to the public meeting on the issue. The same points can be made about Theatre Gwent as about Theatre Powys.
The headquarters of Theatre Gwent is in my constituency at Abergavenny. I have been associated with the company all the time that I have been a Member of Parliament. I have seen performances in village halls, in the middle of Monmouth during the festival and in schools recently.
The decision taken by the Arts Council of Wales not to award Gwent theatre the contract to provide theatre in education of Gwent is mistaken and perverse; it will have catastrophic consequences for a theatre company that has gained a reputation for excellence. That is a serious problem.
I am not qualified to comment on artistic matters, but I can comment on public accountability. How can a publicly funded Welsh body allocate £125,000 without making available its business plan? I ask the Minister to request that the companies' business plans be deposited in the Library.
How can Theatre Iola show evidence of support from local authorities, which was a key criterion, when it did not seek any such support? According to the criterion, each applicant must supply evidence of planned or obtained local authority financial support. To our knowledge, none of the local authorities in this area gave any support. They were not asked to do so, even though a key criterion is to provide education through education authorities, which are funded by local authorities. In response, Blaenau Gwent county council said:
"The whole procedure has been deeply flawed and none of the stakeholders, the funding partners, have been involved in the allocation of the new franchises."
Monmouthshire county council said:
"All members of the Council have unanimously condemned the decision of the Arts Council and asked all authorities in Wales to hold them accountable for recent decisions."
The third point that I wish to make is on the assessment of artistic ability of the two companies—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak because the Minister and his hon. Friend have given him permission. However, the debate is intended to be between the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and the Minister, and the hon. Gentleman is now eating into the Minister's time.
Mr. Edwards: I shall just finish my last sentence, having sought permission to contribute from the
98WH
Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent. How can the panel assess the artistic ability of either company if it has not gone to the schools? I have been to the schools—I asked permission to do so. It is incredible that a decision can be made on the performance of a company in a school without the evaluation board going to the school. That raises serious issues about public accountability and the accountability of the Arts Council of Wales, and I hope that there will be an investigation.
12.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I am pleased to take part in a debate on this subject, in which there is great interest. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) secured the debate, but I am also glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and others are present and taking an interest in this important matter.
I recognise that the issues that were raised today are of a serious nature. They were well presented, with passion, by my hon. Friends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent will be aware, the Arts Council of Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly. Nevertheless, arts policy is important to the UK Government, and I fully recognise the concerns raised by my hon. Friend in defending his constituency interests.
I should briefly outline the context of arts funding in Wales. As hon. Members will be aware, the Assembly has the power, under section 32 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, to do anything that it considers appropriate to support the arts in Wales. The Arts Council of Wales is an Assembly-sponsored public body set up by royal charter. The relationship between the Assembly and the Arts Council is governed by the council's management statement, which makes it clear that it is for the council to allocate resources, and for the Assembly to satisfy itself as to the proper conduct in fulfilling that role. Tom Middlehurst, who is responsible for post-16 education, retains direct political control of the Arts Council of Wales and of the areas mentioned. Given the seriousness of the points made today, I am taking an interest in such matters, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Clearly, my hon. Friends who have spoken today are unhappy about the Arts Council's decisions on who will obtain funding under the new theatre for young people scheme, and about the process by which such decisions have been made. The scheme has replaced the school-based theatre in education scheme, which was previously run by the Arts Council. Under the new scheme, funding to provide theatre and educational experiences will be limited to five theatre organisations, which is a reduction on the eight companies that currently receive funding. My hon. Friends have mentioned Theatre Gwent, Theatre Powys and Clwyd Theatre Cymru in north Wales, all of whose bids were unsuccessful. At this point, I should declare an interest: my wife, Councillor Margaret Hanson, is the chair of the Clwyd Theatre Cymru board, but she receives no remuneration for that post.

99WH
I am aware that early-day motion 980, which calls for a review of the proposed scheme, has been signed by well over 100 colleagues. I am also keenly aware that there have been meetings in the House of Commons between hon. Members and the Arts Council, between the First Secretary and hon. Members and between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and hon. Members. Deep concern has been expressed about the impact of the decisions on the theatres that have been mentioned.
In preparing for this debate, I read with great interest the detailed press reports, from all parts of Wales, of further representations. Among those making representations were Victor Spinetti and the Guild of Writers and Musicians, who live and breathe the theatres involved, and recognise the great contribution that they have made to the community in Wales. I must not ignore the local authorities, which are integral to the success of theatres in north, mid and south-east Wales, and which have also expressed concern.
I intend to ensure that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, and by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, are put to the Assembly and the Arts Council.
Mr. Edwards: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will request that the bids of Theatre Gwent and Theatr Iolo are deposited in the Library of the House and, possibly, in the Welsh Assembly library?
Mr. Hanson: I shall put the request to the Arts Council and the responsible Assembly Secretary.
As I have mentioned, I have no direct responsibility for the Arts Council in Wales. However, I believe strongly in openness and transparency in decisions made by public bodies; I always have and I always will. Openness and transparency were central to the devolution settlement that was agreed: making decisions more open and accountable, and making them closer to the people affected. I was not party to the process by which decisions were made by the Arts Council in relation to the scheme. However, in the interests of openness, I shall write to the Assembly Secretary, Tom Middlehurst, and to the chief executive of the Arts Council, to pass on the concerns of hon. Members who have spoken today. I shall ask them to reply to me at the Welsh Office about those concerns. I shall also request the information for which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth asked, and I shall consider the possibility of placing those items in the Library.
100WH
Devolution is about partnership. Just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State listened to the Assembly's thoughts on the Queen's Speech, I hope that the Assembly will listen to the concerns expressed in this House today, in the spirit of co-operation and openness that we are seeking to engender in the partnership process. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent will be aware that the theatres concerned can appeal should they so wish. An independent assessor would sit on any appeal panel.
Mr. Llew Smith: May I inform the Minister that that is a misuse of the English language? The Arts Council took the decision that Theatre Gwent should not have that franchise, and the Arts Council will decide whether that franchise should be restored. As I understand the meaning of the word, that is not independence.
Mr. Hanson: I shall look into that. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the appeal process, it is in place. I have seen correspondence that my hon. Friend has had with the Assembly Secretary, and he may be able to refer the matter to the Welsh administration ombudsman, if there is evidence of any inappropriate action. I have heard his request for a full inquiry into the matter, and I shall ask the Assembly to treat it with the gravity that it deserves.
The Government believe in theatre and education in the UK context. It is one of the main strands of our arts policy proposals. Education and theatre provide a great opportunity to expand people's potential, involve them in our communities, and make Britain a centre for world excellence in arts and culture. Our three aims are building excellence in the arts, allowing greater access and allowing education to develop a love of the arts and a skill base for future economic development.
I support the call for openness. I shall write to the Assembly Secretary and the Arts Council, and I shall consider the question of the appeals panel, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent mentioned. I shall also ensure that the Assembly addresses his concerns. It is important, in a spirit of partnership, openness and sharing, that differing views are understood, and that the future of the arts in Gwent, Powys and north Wales is considered. I cannot comment on propriety, but I shall ensure that those matters are dealt with.

Chief Engineering Adviser (Cabinet Office)
1 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is a great pleasure to speak in this Chamber, although I note that there is considerable lack of room in the public areas.
Given that I am speaking in a new Chamber, I shall begin by giving a bit of a history lesson. The 19th century was a golden age for many, although by no means all, in Britain. Our empire spanned the globe, and British warships ruled the waves, preserving a Pax Britannica. It was also a golden age of engineering, and the two ages are connected. Names such as Brunei, Stevenson and Faraday were prominent in the public eye. Those great Victorian engineers were feted by society, and enjoyed something like celebrity status, largely because they were pioneers whose achievements represented a quantum leap in the development of human civilisation.
Improving or developing an existing invention never quite captures the public imagination in the same way, even if, in doing so, its original impact is expanded a millionfold. That, to a large extent, has been the unenviable lot of the 20th-century engineer. He has developed and refined the engineering discoveries of his 19th-century ancestors, and, as a consequence, has been rather taken for granted.
Of course, the advances made by engineers during the past 100 years—the jet engine, mains electricity, the computer, clean hot and cold running water, television, life-saving medical equipment, the motor car, and the telecommunications revolution, including the information super-highway—have had an incalculable and unparalleled impact. Those developments have shaped the ways in which we live, and to which the 20th century can lay claim, yet the contribution of the 20th-century engineer has never been properly recognised.
If ever a moment crystallised the boundless possibilities of human ingenuity and spirit, it was Neil Armstrong's giant leap for mankind—one of the century's, if not the millennium's, indisputable triumphs. It was also an engineering triumph, as was its transmission live on television into our own homes. The media may erroneously refer ad nauseam to rocket science and NASA scientists, but the scientific principles that underpinned Apollo 11's success were not new and, in themselves, could never have propelled man to the moon.
What actually made possible the outstanding achievement of the century was the insatiable capacity of engineers to solve any problem, however daunting it initially appeared. Essentially, the first moon landing was made possible by the application of new materials, allied to innovative mechanical and electronic systems. They are inescapably the preserve of the engineer, rather than the scientist. The fanciful thought of putting a man on the moon fascinated, but eluded, man since the dawn of civilisation. It fell to 20th-century engineers, however, to turn that impossible dream into reality, and shatter for ever any imagined boundaries to human endeavour.
Similarly, I believe that the problems and challenges that the world faces in the 21st century will be largely the preserve of the engineer, rather than the scientist. As the
102WH
world population continues to rise and the third world continues to develop, a time bomb is ticking with regard to the adequate provision of food, energy and shelter. Sustainable development will be the new millennium's holy grail, and engineers, who may be the only people equipped to find it, are already searching. As this century nears its end, the engineering profession is producing visionary solutions to the challenges that the world faces in the next, in key areas such as transport, energy, telecommunications and the environment. Those are the fronts on which the sustainable development battles of the 21st century will be fought. The good news is that engineers are already mobilising.
Engineers have always been the world's problem solvers, as the history of the last millennium verifies. Until quite recently, their contribution to the development of civilisation was recognised and society regarded them highly. For a variety of reasons, that is no longer the case. During the past 100 years, their status—but not their contribution or their quality—has diminished significantly.
Engineers have indisputably shaped the past, and will undoubtedly shape the future, but they are also shaping the present. Projects designed and built by engineers include the fabulous millennium wheel, known as the London Eye, which stands across the river from the House, and is sponsored by British Airways; the millennium dome, which is controversial in the eyes of many, but a superb technical feat in the eyes of everyone; the channel tunnel; and Portcullis house, which stands opposite this very Chamber, and involved ground-breaking construction methods, including prefabrication techniques that are being copied abroad. They are breathtaking examples of engineering, and remind us that engineering's contribution to the development of civilisation continues apace.
Of course, great engineering is not only, or even primarily, about aesthetics and landmark projects: it is about improving the quality of everyday life. Engineering is also about wealth creation and the nation's well-being. It underpins the entire UK economy and determines our competitiveness on the international stage. The Government claim repeatedly, and publicly, that engineering contributes just 8 per cent. to UK gross domestic product, but their standard industry classification codes reflect an obsolete, out-of-date, flawed definition which encompasses only the heavy, metal-basing end of the engineering spectrum. They have erroneously consigned engineering to a heavy manufacturing ghetto that is in serious decline in all the G7 developed nations.
The Government's ignorance is damaging the industry and the profession alike. What about construction, telecommunications, aerospace, utilities and the process industries? Surely no one, except perhaps the Government, would dispute that all those industrial sectors also constitute engineering sectors. Certainly, the companies that operate in those sectors would not dispute that fact. Many of them have shown their engineering credentials by becoming corporate members of representative bodies such as the Engineering Council. Why would they affiliate themselves to such bodies if they did not consider themselves engineering companies?
If the Government took account of all engineering-led

103WH
industries, the calculation of engineering's true contribution to GDP would rocket to more than 40 per cent. If sectors such as financial services and retail, which could not function without engineers, were also taken into account, the figure would probably be nearer to 80 per cent.
In 1998, engineering employed about 1.8 million people and accounted for some 80 per cent. of all UK exports, which were valued at £142 billion. Those statistics demand that the Government should afford engineering far greater attention. They should listen far more closely to what the country's engineers have to say on matters of major national importance.
Following the recent rail tragedy at Ladbroke Grove, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions invited Sir David Davies, who is one of the country's most eminent engineers and president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, to conduct a personal investigation into the effective operation of train protection systems. That was a sensible course of action: no one is better qualified than Sir David to conduct such an investigation. How much more sensible would it have been to consult him and other, similarly qualified engineers about rail transport policy before the accident?
The technological boundaries of the Government's much vaunted, knowledge-based economy are rapidly changing. As we move inexorably towards such an economy, so the boundaries of engineering are changing in parallel, and engineering is set to become yet more central to civilisation's development and our nation's well-being. More solutions to the global challenges that confront our nation will be found by engineers than by any other group. I believe that engineering will become more important than ever before. In the distant future, it may prove vital to the preservation of life itself.
What of the present day? The influence and impact of engineers on society extend far beyond engineering. Business, commerce and the whole of industry, not just manufacturing, are largely led by engineers. They are led not by accountants, as many people assume, or by corporate lawyers, as some may think, but by engineers. At the last count, 17 of the FTSE top 100 companies were run by engineers, compared with only 15 by accountants. In total, qualified engineers hold about 160 of the total number of directorships of FTSE companies.
Engineers also dominate the academic world, with the latest count showing 18 out the 106 institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom to have engineer vice-chancellors or principals—more than from any other discipline. It is vital to the future success of the country that the Government listen to the nation's professional engineers and, if the nation is to prosper, that they receive and understand sound and timely advice on engineering matters.
We now come to the crux of the debate. At present, the principal source of advice to the Government on all engineering-related issues is the chief scientific adviser to the Cabinet, Sir Robert May, one of the most eminent figures in the scientific world. Engineering forms part of Sir Robert's brief, because the Government see engineering as no more than a branch of science, a subset on a Venn diagram.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's persistence in
104WH
not employing an engineering adviser to the Cabinet sends an unfortunate message to the 2 million or so engineers in the United Kingdom, which is that their status and their contribution to the quality of our lives are not acknowledged or understood at the highest level of government?
Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady has hit the nail on the head. By every measure, engineers enjoy—if that is the word—a lower status in the United Kingdom than in France, Germany, the United States of America or Japan. The Government's continued refusal to accept that engineering is wealth-creating, and different from science, helps to perpetuate the myth that engineers are of a lower status. That is a dangerous and ignorant over-simplification of reality.
Science is the business of discovering about nature and its laws, of finding out what is already there. If one scientist does not find something, there is every probability that, in due course—I am always an optimist—another one will, because scientists are investigating the existing universe and its components. Engineering, however, is about applying the findings of science to create something that has never existed before. Engineers and engineering provide the nation's creativity, innovation and competitiveness, and their views on major issues are not necessarily the same as those of the scientific community.
That is not merely a question of semantics. The distinctions between science and engineering demand that the Government look on them as related but distinct, and treat them differently. It should not be assumed that the interests of engineering and engineers are the same as those of science and scientists. Special measures need to be applied. Nor should it be assumed that a scientist thinks in the same way as an engineer, or vice versa. Scientists are theoretical; engineers are practical and entrepreneurial. It is unlikely, therefore, that one individual could ever represent both groups to everyone's satisfaction.
Science is a net consumer of the national wealth, while engineering is a creator of it, and the key enabler in exploiting the science base and in turning scientific discoveries into practical solutions. That must be recognised in its own right, as it is in other countries. Only the ignorance of politicians in the United Kingdom ensures that it is not. The time is overdue for the Prime Minister to appoint a chief engineering adviser to the Cabinet to mirror the very different role of the chief scientific adviser.
On the previous occasions that the engineering community has questioned the logic of the present strange situation, it has received little encouragement. I have tabled parliamentary questions on the issue, as has the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who is also one of only seven chartered engineers in the House. One of the reasons routinely given by the Government for their refusal to consider the proposal is that to give engineering its own representative would be unfair to other specialist disciplines such as medicine or the social sciences, both of which also form part of Sir Robert May's brief. The Government ask why engineering, but no other specialist discipline, should be singled out for special attention. That argument is weak and unacceptable. It damages the wealth-creating capability of the nation and the well-being of our people.

105WH
It is not an argument given in France, Germany, Japan or the United States. It is given only in the United Kingdom.
The call for an adviser on engineering should not be seen as a personal attack on Sir Robert May or on his performance as chief scientific adviser. He is an eminent figure in his own right—he even had some training in chemical engineering in his formative years—but essentially he is a natural scientist.
The engineering community has other channels of communication with the Government, as I am sure the Minister will point out, as well as other opportunities to make its voice heard during the policy-making process. It can, and does, respond to Government consultation exercises and submit evidence to Select Committees. It lobbies in the usual way. In all this, its voice is heard no more clearly, or given any greater weight, than the myriad other pressure groups fighting for the Government's ear. That is extremely old-fashioned. It is neither cool Britannia, nor good government.
Evidence of the Government's muddle on the issue was demonstrated last week, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) tabled a question on ministerial responsibility for engineering in the Minister's own Department. He received a wholly incorrect answer which even failed to mention the engineering responsibilities of Lord Sainsbury. This muddle is unforgivable.
As Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury has recently agreed to a regular six-monthly meeting with the chairman of the Engineering Council, Dr. Robert Hawley, to discuss issues of interest to the engineering profession. I welcome that. The Department of Trade and Industry is collaborating with the Engineering Council to develop a closer relatonship with it, and with the profession generally, which I also welcome. Those are undoubtedly moves in the right direction, but they are insufficient when compared with the practices of other nations in which engineering is close to the heart of government.
A great responsibility for the future health and wealth of the nation rests on the shoulders of the country's 280,000 registered professional engineers, and on the additional 1.5 million people employed in engineering. Appointing an engineering adviser to the Cabinet would follow the practice of other developed nations and would demonstrate clearly that the occasional public proclamations made by the Government about the importance of engineering are not merely hollow words. It would send a clear message to the rest of the country that the Government consider engineering important, and it would greatly help the engineering community in its efforts to maintain a world-class engineering work force, thereby sustaining the UK's global competitiveness. It might even ensure that scientific discoveries made in this country are translated into engineering products and sold by British manufacturers, rather than having Japanese and American firms pinch British ideas from British scientists and make money out of them, as happens at present.
The engineering companies on which this country depends are suffering damaging skills shortages because of their inability to recruit top-quality young people into
106WH
engineering. Bright young people take engineering at society's valuation, and if engineering is looked down on by society, we should not be surprised that young people choose not to enter the profession—a point admirably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, as I think I am allowed to call her in this Chamber.
Is the Minister aware that only 43 per cent. of students taking up engineering degrees in 1997 had the equivalent of two grade As or better at A-level, compared with 99 per cent. for medicine and 56 per cent. for law? That is stark, statistical proof—if it were needed—that engineering is not seen as a preferred or attractive career option for the most able school leavers. Yet engineering is so critical to the success of our country that it needs to be attracting the very best available talent.
The time for platitudes is over. The Government will not be thanked by the engineering industry or its professionals for mouthing sweet nothings, no matter how attractive they may be. The time is long overdue for the appointment of a chief engineering adviser if the long-term future of our economy is to be assured. After the customary praising of engineers and engineering, I hope that the Minister will say that at long last such an adviser will be appointed, for the benefit of engineers and the nation's economy. Frankly, nothing less will do.
1.21 pm
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity so early in the Session to respond to a debate in this new Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on securing the debate, and on the passion and deep knowledge with which he introduced the subject. I confess that prior to my preparations for the debate I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman is a chartered engineer. However, I have been able to discuss the issues with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas).
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield for giving me another opportunity to place on the record the enormous importance that the Government attach to engineering. We have a deep understanding and appreciation of the extraordinary contribution that engineers make today, as well as the contribution that they have made in the past, to the quality of our lives and the strength of our economy. I endorse much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of engineering and engineers. Those of us who have had the pleasure of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who was a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, will know that he was a passionate advocate of the importance of engineering to our economy. I assure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that I am no less enthusiastic on the subject.
We have a problem in this country in that engineering is seen as a glory in our past, rather than a strength in our present and vital to our future; yet British engineering remains a world leader. For example, last week the Royal Academy of Engineering awarded the 1999 McRobert award, our most coveted prize for innovation and engineering, to Buro Happold, the UK engineering partnership that designed the magnificent millennium dome.

107WH
It is a pity that so few people in this country realise that the techniques of packet switching, without which the internet could not exist, were devised in Britain by British engineers. Perhaps more people, but not enough, realise that the world wide web, which makes the internet useful and usable to millions of people around the world, was devised by another British engineer, Tim Berners-Lee, and the team with which he worked at CERN, the European centre for nuclear research.
The generation, exploitation and application of knowledge, in which engineering plays a central role, are at the heart of the Government's economic agenda. That was a central theme of our White Paper on competitiveness, "Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy". As the new E-Commerce Minister, I have a role in ensuring, right across government, that we seize and exploit the potential of information and communication technologies, and the convergences between them, in the interests of our economic strength and social well-being. In a wide variety of ways, engineers are creating the backbone and devising the applications that allow full exploitation of those convergent technologies.
As the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps the biggest challenge that we will face in the new century is that of sustainable development. We know that our continued prosperity and quality of life—not only here in the developed world, but across the planet—will depend on our ability to understand, analyse and confront the issues of resources and pollution. We must find new solutions to ensure that growth is sustainable as we raise the living standards of millions of people all over the world who are now living in poverty and destitution. The challenges of environmental degradation which we face will be solved by scientists and, within that group, engineers. In practice, combating global warming and developing efficient renewable energy will be achieved only by the real advances in engineering.
In its widest sense, the engineering community includes hundreds of thousands of people who do not fall within the traditional definition of a professional engineer. The hon. Gentleman referred to definitions by this Department—and presumably the Office for National Statistics—which he regarded as being unsatisfactory in terms of the contribution that engineering makes to GDP. In fact, our definition of engineering goes well beyond the traditional heavy metal-bashing sectors to which he referred. Indeed, the definition of engineering that we use for the purposes of the national accounts is a sensible definition that has been agreed with the Engineering Employers Federation. It is no more helpful for the hon. Gentleman
108WH
to argue that engineering is the sole support and focus of most of the country's GDP than it would be if I were to argue that information and communications technology is responsible for all our wealth creation—although I could make an equally eloquent case to that effect.
The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke of engineers as practical people. I am a practical politician, and I am interested in what the Government can do in practice to raise the status of engineering. We must ensure that it is promoted as a training option and a career, and fully exploit the contribution that engineers can make. That is why the Government have asked Dr. Robert Hawley, the chairman of the Engineering Council, to review the contribution that the council can make to add value to the activities of the broad engineering community. That will be achieved by promoting engineering and standards in engineering more effectively, building on existing synergies with existing organisations and, more generally, positioning the engineering community within the new knowledge-driven economy. The first part of that work, the definition of strategic objectives, will be completed by the end of January. I will encourage Dr. Hawley to discuss the review team's work with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, both of whom will have excellent contributions to make to its work.
I turn to the issue of education. Following the action for engineering initiative, the previous Government established SETNET, the science, engineering, technology and maths network. That is now doing exciting work in schools to raise the quality and improve the coherence of a rather fragmented picture of activities that are aimed at promoting science, engineering, technology and mathematics to school pupils.
Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Do I take it, then, that the Government will be appointing a chief engineering adviser to the Cabinet?
Ms Hewitt: I was about to come to that. I regret that I have not had time to deal with every interesting point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
We are very happy with our chief scientific adviser. Sir Robert May is an eminent and distinguished man with a background in chemical engineering. Some former chief scientific advisers to the Government have been engineers. My understanding is that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, most other countries have a chief scientific adviser who embraces engineering.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up for this debate.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
1.30 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: It is somewhat poignant that, following the Government's welcome decision yesterday on beef on the bone, we should today be considering the impact of bovine spongiform encephalopathy on the human food chain, which, alas, will be with us for some time to come. It is in that spirit that I called for today's debate.
My interest in the tragic subject of victims of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease first arose as a result of the case of my constituent, Donna Marie McGivern. Donna Marie died in September this year aged 17 years. Tragically, she was one of the youngest victims of new variant CJD. Prior to her illness, Donna Marie was a caring, intelligent child with a quiet, easy-going nature. She loved music and was an extremely talented Irish dancer. The living room in her home still displays her trophies for dancing and athletics.
In the summer of 1996, aged just 14 years old, Donna Marie began to complain of double vision. By December of that year, she had developed headaches and pains in her legs. Her personality began to change, with uncharacteristic rages, violent outbursts and other evidence of a brain disorder. Before she died, she received what can be described only as heroic care and support from her parents, Marie and James, who coped in the most trying of circumstances. Our hearts and minds as a community stood still, reflecting our seeming helplessness. I know, too, that the family received invaluable support from David Body at Irwin Mitchell, who has provided help for many families in all the constituencies throughout Great Britain. His efforts are greatly appreciated by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
We now know that the new variant CJD is a new and devastating condition. According to the CJD surveillance unit, the United Kingdom organisation established to look into the many difficult and complex issues surrounding new variant CJD, the virus has an incidence in the country of approximately one case per million of the population in one year. So far, 52 people have died of suspected new variant CJD, of whom 48 have been confirmed as having had that disease. A further five patients are still alive. It is conceivable that there are others as yet unidentified, the families of whom, I regret to say, face a distressing future. Deterioration in the patients' condition means that they display initial problems of balance and slurred speech. Many deteriorate quickly to a point at which they have to rely on a wheelchair, and latterly, are confined to their beds, with all the implications of nursing support that that raises.
Only this week, many of us read in the press about the latest United Kingdom victim—Steven McMurry aged just 17 years, from Glasgow, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar). It was typical of Donna Marie's parents who, having read the article, immediately contacted Steven's family and met them only last night. Steven, too, is displaying all of the horrific symptoms of new variant CJD that I have described. His family are going through
110WH
a traumatic time, coming to terms not just with his illness, but with the huge array of care responsibilities. Our thoughts are with them.
Mr. Ben Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Clarke: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I am unable to give way because of pressure of time. I apologise to him.
I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to the many difficulties that arise from such a situation. The problems of the victims' families, including those of Donna Marie and Steven, cannot be underestimated. Many families face financial difficulties and problems with transport to and from hosptial. They face logistical problems in arranging child care, and managing ordinary activities, such as shopping and housework—with the minimum of sleep—while caring also for their relative. It is, of course, particularly difficult to deal with such practical problems at a time of enormous emotional strain. Again and again, perhaps because much of this situation is relativley new to society, families have to fight for the care that is needed and lack of funding has sometimes prevented them from receiving the best care. Such families often feel that they understand their relatives' needs and the best way in which to care for them, but they have to wait for professional assessments and often have to argue vigorously for help.
Let us take Donna Marie's experience as an example. In May 1997, her parents asked their general practitioner for a wheelchair. He said that there was a waiting list for such equipment, but that he would make an application on her behalf. Eventually a chair had to be borrowed from the Red Cross. Unfortunately, it was too small. Donna Marie's parents then had to obtain one from the local school for children with learning difficulties. However, that chair fell apart because it was wholly unsuitable for people who suffered sporadic movements of their limbs. By the time an appropriate wheelchair was found, Donna Marie's illness was too advanced and she was confined to her bed. It is hard for any of us to appreciate the frustration that that one aspect of her case must have caused.
It is not only the families who have to go through such distress; it is difficult for professionals, too. They need emotional support when looking after patients and their families. The intensity of their involvement means that they are deeply affected by it. They often lack information and find it difficult to manage a condition with which they are unfamiliar. Too often, families are left to cope with such problems themselves, thus compounding matters further. It is difficult to define patients' needs. Professionals, patients and carers all have different perspectives and values when trying to identify needs or even agreeing on a solution.
The fundamental problem for the families of patients, when diagnosis has taken place, is the lack of a coordinated, consistent response to the patients' needs. Even now, 13 years after the first CJD case, there is virtually no consistency of approach by local authorities or community health care services throughout the United Kingdom. The necessary co-ordination simply does not exist. It is clear to all who have had the

111WH
misfortune to have had to deal with this deadly virus that the care provision throughout the country, while variable, is uniformly limited. In addition, the support provided by the various bodies that have been set up to offer care and other services to those suffering from new variant CJD is, frankly, wholly inadequate.
The problem can be explained simply. People who know little about the huge range of difficulties are asked to provide informed solutions. Those who know little about the virus, such as local authorities, social services and even GPs, are expected to offer informed care advice. That is not fair on the professionals, nor is it effective when considering that the most important issue of all is the needs of the patient. At one end of the spectrum, there have been several cases in which care support has been incomparably good. In other cases, the absence of effective timely care provision has been a source of bitter grievance, accentuating the grave sense of injustice that is already felt. Because of the broad-based nature of the problem, I believe strongly that a national approach is vital to provide the consistency of provision that is so clearly needed.
The proposal that we should consider—it was recommended by the CJD surveillance unit—involves the establishment of a central fund for sole use by new variant CJD patients and their carers. Those resources could fund a team comprising, for instance, a case manager and a counsellor. It could assess the actual and prospective care needs of the patient, determine the equipment required and suggest alterations that might be needed to make care at home more effective. Crucially, it could also assess the needs of the family and provide support when people have to come to terms with the eventual death of a family member.
We should also bear in mind the possibility that there may be cases in which a person has neither family nor close friends. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the proposal is a limited-cost project, which is predicted to involve less than £750,000 a year, but it could bring consistency of care to a group of people whose illnesses all hon. Members wish had never happened. I know that my hon. Friend received details of the proposal, and I look forward to hearing his response to the suggestion.
Marie and James, the parents of Donna Marie, had to give up their jobs to look after their child. My hon. Friend the Minister, who will reply with expertise on behalf of the Department of Health, will accept that greater co-ordination is needed between Departments, including the Department of Social Security, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the various United Kingdom Assemblies and the European Union. Has any progress been made in the consideration of compensatory payments—subject, of course to the BSE inquiry?
New variant CJD is a fatal disease. In almost every case, diagnosis of the disease is not possible until after the patient has died. As things stand, there is little prospect of any medical treatment emerging in the foreseeable future. What measures have the Government taken to support further research into finding a cure for new variant CJD?
112WH
I accept that the pharmaceutical industry has little to gain in this regard, but a contribution to the funds that are used to respond to this dreadful disease would enhance the industry's standing and I appeal to it to make such a contribution.
Mr. Ben Chapman: One of my constituents, who recently lost a loved one to new variant CJD, is particularly concerned about consistency of care. Does my right hon Friend agree that it is important for such care to be given to all victims of CJD throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who spoke on behalf of one of his constituents and of the many people who are closely following our debate.
If we redouble our research efforts, provide a consistent package of care when and where it is needed, ease the financial worries of those who are involved, respond quickly on a cross-departmental basis and share whatever knowledge there is about this dreadful condition, we would at least be able to claim that progress has been made.
Little Donna Marie McGivern has left us, her potential unfulfilled. If this tragic experience helps to establish a more professional and timely response in similar circumstances, her leaving us, and the passing of so many others, will not have been in vain.
1.44 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate on care provision for new variant CJD patients, and on his speech, in which he gave moving descriptions of the life and death of Donna Marie McGivern. Our sympathies go to her family and to the other families who have been affected by the disease.
I must admit at the outset that we still have many lessons to learn about how to deal with this dreadful new disease. It was only as recently as March 1996 that the first cases of variant CJD were confirmed. Since then, 48 people have died from the disease. Each case has brought its own harrowing tale—a story that only the families and carers who have been closely involved can possibly fully appreciate. We know that variant CJD is invariably fatal, and as the course of the disease follows its grim path of neurological deterioration, it brings with it enormous suffering, and not only for the patients. Perhaps the suffering is felt most keenly by those who have the responsibility for looking after their loved ones and at the same time have to watch them go downhill.
Unlike many other serious diseases, there is still no proven validated test available for a living person that would enable variant CJD to be diagnosed with certainty. The Spongifom Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—the independent committee that advises the Government on BSE and CJD issues—said at its September meeting that the need to develop a diagnostic test should be seen as paramount. The Government understand that requirement absolutely. The Department of Health is funding some £3 million a year into vital research.

113WH
My right hon. Friend asked a wide question about research. The priority for Government research is treatment. We currently spend about £17 million per annum on research into this related set of diseases. I offer to write to my right hon. Friend setting out the details of the various studies that are covered by that research programme.
Variant CJD, in its early stages, often produces symptoms of anxiety or depression which can mimic the pattern of any number of other psychotic disorders. It is only when the disease moves into its later phase, when profound physical and neurological symptoms reveal themselves, that variant CJD can realistically begin to be seen as a possible suspect. Forty-eight tragic cases is of course 48 too many, but it is still only a tiny proportion of the whole population.
I should like to turn to the needs of variant CJD patients. The course of the disease is unpredictable, which means that needs will not remain static but will change over time. We know that those changes can occur very quickly.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Denham: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not at this stage. If I have time at the end of the debate I shall give way, but I want to reply to my right hon. Friend's speech.
The fact that changes occur quickly means that the management of the condition needs to be rapid and flexible and to be reviewed frequently. Health care will necessarily be provided by a range of different health care professionals. At different times or in combination, patients will require support from a range of clinicians, including neurologists, psychiatrists, specialist nurses and therapists, including physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. For many patients and families their GP and community team will also provide vital care and support.
The national CJD surveillance unit at Edinburgh, which is funded by the Government—it discovered the first cases of variant CJD—is undertaking important work investigating possible cases. Staff at the unit have worked to develop relationships with other neurologists and clinicians with whom patients are likely to have early contact. Building on their experience of dealing with the disease, they are able to provide advice to clinicians and families. To help the unit to develop its role further, the Government decided to fund the provision of a new care co-ordinator post, and the unit is currently advertising for a suitable candidate.
The NHS services needed by patients with variant CJD are in place across the country. It is essential that the care provided by the different professions is co-ordinated, that it is discussed with the patients and their families and carers and that it is frequently reviewed.
The need for such arrangements is not unique to variant CJD. Other rapidly deteriorating neurological conditions, such as motor neurone disease, also require a speedy and co-ordinated approach to health care. According to the surveillance unit, and taking account of all the difficulties that I have explained, there are
114WH
perhaps six patients who are highly suspected of having CJD and about 3,500 sufferers of motor neurone disease. In that context, we have declined the call to establish a central fund specifically for variant CJD sufferers. All those people will need consistent quality services, and we must work to deliver those services to them as we work to deliver services to others in need.
That co-ordination needs to happen in two ways. First, services need to be co-ordinated for individuals, so that patients receive integrated care packages, which may involve health and social care professions. Secondly, health and social services staff need to work together to ensure that their services are planned and delivered in partnership. I acknowledge that there have been regrettable instances when that arrangement has failed. As my right hon. Friend said, those experiences have not been uniformly bad, but we are trying to make things better.
Provisions in the Health Act 1999 will allow the NHS and social services to overcome the barriers to joint working. For example, pooled budgets for individuals could be set up to provide responsive packages of care that can change quickly when needed. Local managers would need to identify when that might be required, agree to pool funds to provide a future care package and agree in advance who should manage the pool budget. However, as my right hon. Friend said, local service providers will need help to deal with the particular difficulties of caring for CJD patients. Because of the present rate of incidence of variant CJD, most people who work in the medical profession will not come across a case during their working lifetimes, so those who need to tackle it will need appropriate support.
As well as the new post at the CJD surveillance unit, the Department is giving its backing to the CJD support network for the case co-ordination initiative, which aims to improve the co-ordination of care for patients suffering from all kinds of CJD. As a result, more cost-effective care should be provided that is effectively tailored to the changing needs of patients and carers.
Last year, the CJD support network, in collaboration with the Association of Directors of Social Services, produced new guidance on best practice for social care workers. The Department is producing complementary guidance on health care, which we aim to publish shortly. That will focus on the role to be played by key workers, whose job will be to ensure that all the needs of patients and carers are regularly assessed and put into place rapidly. My right hon. Friend spoke of the knowledge and experience of the families and carers of sufferers, and I assure him that voluntary groups representing families of sufferers were involved in preparing that document, and we are confident that it will make a difference.
The Department also supports the Human BSE Foundation, an organisation run by the families of variant CJD victims, which aims to help relatives, friends and carers by providing support, information and practical advice.
The debate has emphasised one of the alarming features of variant CJD, which is that it can target young people. As part of our research programme, the British paediatric surveillance unit of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is working with the Edinburgh CJD surveillance unit and Addenbrooke's

115WH
hospital in Cambridge to look into all cases of progressive intellectual and neurological deterioration occurring in children in the UK.
That project, which has been under way since May 1997, has monitored the incidence of such deterioration and, as far as possible, has determined its cause. Further investigation is encouraged in those cases that do not have a readily identifiable cause, so that we can detect those children who may potentially be suffering from any form of CJD. Results of the unit's work were published earlier this year. Of the 489 cases investigated, no positive results were revealed, although one has since turned out to be a suspect case. I mention the study to reassure my right hon. Friend that we are doing what we can to look out for the development of variant CJD in the young.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I shall be brief, because I hope that he may have time to give way also to my hon. Friend the Member for Govan. I thank the Minister for his tremendous courtesy in replying to the debate at such length. I also take this opportunity to join him in paying tribute to the CJD surveillance unit at Edinburgh, which serves the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Denham: I shall say a little about the organisation for community care—but less than I would like, so that I can give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Govan. However, I shall rest for a moment on the care of the young.
Children and young people often prefer to be at home in familiar surroundings, which means that they must have adequate support from all the local agencies. I have already emphasised that that requires good co-ordination between the various services. In future, care for children and young people with chronic illnesses such as variant CJD is increasingly likely to be provided in a community setting. That will be achieved by outreach teams that will support the parents, use collaborative care pathways that are agreed by primary care and specialist teams, and work with local authority social services and education departments.
116WH
The Government's national strategy for carers, published in February, shows that giving support to carers can also help the people whom they care for. A programme of work is under way to implement the strategy throughout the NHS. It includes raising the awareness of carers' issues when planning, delivering and evaluating services, identifying carers and their own health needs in primary care, and providing information that they need on the health status and the medication of the person whom they are caring for.
Mr. Sarwar: A constituent of mine, Steven McCurry, fell over two years ago, when he was 20 years old. He complained of headaches, slurred speech and difficulty in walking, yet it took 18 months for doctors to diagnose the fact that he was suffering from the new variant CJD. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the increased incidence of CJD, a much more co-ordinated approach is needed from local authorities and health workers, which should be backed up by the Government with greater resources that are specifically directed to dealings with that problem?
Mr. Denham: I am delighted to have the opportunity to reiterate some of the key points of my response.
First, I recognise the difficulties faced by health professionals owing to the fact that we do not yet have a reliable diagnostic test that can be used on a living person to establish the existence of variant CJD beyond doubt. That is a priority for research. Secondly, services must be properly co-ordinated to cope with the needs of individuals so as to ensure that their changing needs—sometimes rapidly changing needs—are reflected in the change of provision. We seek to achieve that through the various initiatives that I have mentioned, including the forthcoming publication of guidance and the funding of the surveillance unit in Edinburgh and elsewhere. For sufferers of variant CJD and a number of other distressing conditions such as motor neurone disease, the challenge is to co-ordinate existing services. That is the key challenge on which we must work, rather than targeting separate or additional funding.
It being Two o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the sitting, without Question put.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department has spent on civil servants' transport in each of the last two years. [98704]

  Mr. Ingram
  All travel undertaken by civil servants complies with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code (Home Civil Service) or the Northern Ireland Civil Service Staff Handbook.

  Spend for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments was £15.512 million in 1997–98 and £17.029 million in 1998–99.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what motor mileage allowance rates his Department offers to(a) ministers and (b) civil servants using their own vehicles for official business; and what has been the cost of each in each of the last five years. [98705]

  Mr. Ingram
  When travelling on official business, Ministers may use a private car instead of an official car, and claim mileage allowance in the same circumstances and on the same terms as civil servants in the Department.

  For the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments the information is as follows:

  Motor mileage rate with effect from 6 April 1997

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Over 4,000 miles

  Cars with engine capacity:

  Up to 1,500 cc pence per mile

  35

  20 (19)1

  1,501–2,000 cc pence per mile

  45

  25 (23)1

  over 2,000 cc pence per mile

  53

  36 (32)1

  1 Northern Ireland Office rate

  Expenditure

  £000

  (a) Ministers

  0

  (b) Civil servants

  1994–95

  110,084

  1995–96

  210,482

  1996–97

  10,760

  1997–98

  10,435

  1998–99

  10,909

  1 Includes a pro rata figure of £2.727 million for the Department of Agriculture based on records for 9 months, and excludes a figure for the Department of Finance and Personnel, who could provide information only at disproportionate cost.

  2 Includes an estimated figure of £829,971 for the Department of Economic Development.

  RUC (Sovereign Awards)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RUC Officers who have held the position of(a) Divisional Commander of Traffic Branch, (b) Head of Traffic Branch and (c) Head of Traffic Policy Branch since 1969 (i) have and (ii) have not been given Sovereign Awards. [100272]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1969, eight officers have held the position of Divisional Commander Traffic, six have received sovereign awards. Three officers have served as Head of Traffic Policy, one has received an award. Eleven Officers have been Head of Traffic Regions, two have received an award. It should be noted that not all of the officers received their sovereign awards while holding positions in Traffic Branch.

  Mr. David Adams
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what cost was incurred by Strathclyde Police when investigating the treatment of Mr. David Adams in Castlereagh. [100110]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost was £52,850.08.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor received the report of Sir Len Peach on procedures for appointing judges; and when he proposes to publish it. [100299]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave him on 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 63W.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many asylum and immigration appeals were heard without the Home Office case being presented in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to date; and if he will make a statement. [100489]

  Jane Kennedy
  These statistics are not collected.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to require the Public Trust Office to charge patients only for work actually carried out on that patient's behalf; and if he will make a statement. [100709]

  Jane Kennedy
  The issue of fees and charges for the services provided by the Public Trust Office was one of a number of points considered by Ann Chant CB as part of her Quinquennial Review of the Agency. She recommended the abolition of the current system of cross-subsidy between the wealthier and less well-off clients. The Lord Chancellor wishes to explore all of the Review's recommendations in detail before deciding how best to proceed, and will be making a statement in February.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bishops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, pursuant to his answer of 23 November 1999,Official Report, column 59W, on how many occasions since 1 May 1997, the Commissioners have been informed of instances where paid commitments involved time which would otherwise have been spent on episcopal responsibilities; and on how many of these occasions a sum was deducted from the stipend. [100505]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners have not been informed of any instances where a Bishop has undertaken paid commitments involving time which would otherwise have been spent on episcopal responsibilities. Bishops are not required to inform the Commissioners of paid commitments undertaken during their own time.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Golf Courses
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many golf courses have been completed in the UK in each of the last 10 years; what proportion of those are courses offering open access to the public; what financial support was given to assist the provision of such facilities; and if he will make a statement. [99637]

  Kate Hoey
  Information on the number of golf courses which have been completed in the last 10 years is not held centrally.

  However, since the National Lottery began in 1995, Sport England's Lottery fund has made 34 capital awards for golf totalling £8,232,056, contributing towards total project costs of £21,140,875. It is a condition of Lottery awards for sports facilities that they must have open access to the public.

  Freehold land and buildings

  Long/short leasehold property

  Other

  Total

  Crafts Council (as at 31 March 1999)

  0

  980,398

  502,016

  1,482,414

  British Film Institute (31 March 1999)

  20,800,000

  22,887,000

  1,664,000

  45,351,000

  NFTS (as at 31 December 1998)

  2,954,977

  0

  6,083,311

  9,043,288

  The only body which has assets held in Scotland is the National Lottery Charities Board to the value of £0.2 million.

  All other assets are held by the bodies are in England with the exception of the following:

  (i) The British Tourist Authority which holds assets with a net book value of £314,000 overseas which comprises land and buildings of £25,000 and other assets of £289,000.

  (ii) Sport England (formerly the English Sports Council) which holds land and buildings to the value of £3.1 million in Wales.

  Corporate Assets
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what his estimate is of the value of land and property (i) in Scotland, (ii) in England and (iii) in total within the responsibility of(a) the British Museum (including assets in course of construction), (b) the Wallace Collection and (c) the Horniman Public Museum and Public Park Trust; and what is the total value of other assets held by these bodies; [99830]

  (2) what his estimate is of the value of land and property (a) in Scotland, (b) in England and (c) in total held by (i) the Imperial War Museum, (ii) the Museum of London, (iii) the Museum of Science and Industry, (iv) the National Gallery, (v) the National Maritime Museum, (vi) National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, (vii) the Science Museum, (viii) the National Portrait Gallery, (ix) the Natural History Museum, (x) the Museums and Galleries Commission, (xi) the Tate Gallery, (xii) the Victoria and Albert Museum, (xiii) the British Tourist Authority, (xiv) the English Tourist Board, (xv) the British Library, (xvi) the English Sports Council, (xvii) the UK Sports Council, (xviii) the Arts Council of England, (xix) the Crafts Council, (xx) the British Film Institute, (xxi) the National Film and Television School, (xxii) the Millennium Commission, (xxiii) the National Lotteries Charity Board, (xxiv) English Heritage, (xxv) the Royal Armouries and (xxvi) the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England; and what is the value of other assets held by these bodies. [99825]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: All 29 sponsored bodies include in the notes to their annual accounts the estimated net book value of the fixed assets they hold which is broken down into separate categories, i.e. land and buildings, fixtures and fittings, motor vehicles, etc where applicable. The annual accounts for most of these bodies are laid before Parliament and the information is available in the Libraries of the House. There are three exceptions which are (i) the Crafts Council, (ii) the British Film Institute and (iii) the National Film and Television School.

  The net book value of total assets held by these bodies is as follows:

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refurbishment Costs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will estimate the total cost of the new kitchens in the Parliamentary Estate during(a) the past two years and (b) the next year. [100033]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  This is a matter for the Director of Parliamentary Works; I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Theft
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many cases of theft have been reported to the police and security services in the Commons and the Lords for each of the past five years; how many prosecutions have been made; and what proportion of these reports were from staff. [101037]

  Mrs. Roe
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms; I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

DEFENCE

  Recruitment (Fiji)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he estimates the cost of the British Army recruitment programme in Fiji was in the last financial year. [100754]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost in the current financial year of the Army selection visit to Fiji currently under way is estimated to be some £104,000.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the second round of interviews for Fijian applicants to the British Army will take place. [100755]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently no plans to repeat the Army selection visit to Fiji once the current backlog of applications is dealt with.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many interviews for Fijian applicants to the British Army have taken place in the last three weeks; and if he will make a statement. [100753]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 26 November, a total of 400 Fijian nationals had been through the selection process in Fiji. Of these, 200 were successful and will be called forward to the UK over the next three months to undergo the final stages in the process before starting training. A further 78 applications have been deferred for various reasons, but the applicants have the opportunity to resolve the cause of their deferment before the end of the selection visit.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will recruit more Gurkhas into the British Army to bring the force up to operational strength. [100429]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is already planned that to alleviate under-manning we have extended the Gurkha Reinforcement Companies and are introducing a second Gurkha Engineer Squadron and a second Gurkha Signals Squadron. There are 3,500 Gurkhas serving with the British Army and this represents the optimum to alleviate under-manning in the short term while taking account of excess manpower when we revert to full manning.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in selecting a contractor to manage and operate the Atomic Weapons Establishment from 1 April 2000. [101282]
  192W
  Mr. Hoon
  I am pleased to announce that following the completion of negotiations a contract will be awarded today to AWE Management Ltd. (comprising SERCo Defence Support, British Nuclear Fuels plc and Lockheed Martin Corporation). The two unsuccessful consortiums have been informed. The AWE workforce and trade unions will be told of the outcome today.

  The principal features of the contract are:
  The contract, commencing on 1 April 2000, is for an initial period of 10 years with an option to extend to a 25 year term with an injection of private capital. The value of the initial contract is some £2.2 billion.
  The delivery of the UK's nuclear warhead programme, as outlined in the Strategic Defence Review, will not be affected by the change in contractor.
  The AWE sites and all assets remain in Government ownership. Appropriate safeguards have been established to protect sensitive UK information and to maintain the UK's independence in nuclear matters.

  The safety of the public, the AWE workforce and the environment remain of paramount importance. Aldermaston and Burghfield will continue as nuclear licensed sites and subject to independent regulation by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and the Environment Agency (EA). The MOD Compliance Officer will also retain the authority and responsibility to cancel the contract and to instruct the contractor to cease operations if there is a serious breach of the MOD's requirements.

  Notice Periods (Navy)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to alter the current notice periods for Officers, RN Ratings and RM Other Ranks applying to leave the Naval Service. [101313]

  Mr. Spellar
  A common notice period of 12 months will be introduced for Officers, RN Ratings and RM Other Ranks who wish to leave the Naval Service from 1 June 2000. This will represent a significant improvement to the terms of service of personnel in the Naval Service. Currently, Officers who apply to retire voluntarily must wait for up to 15 months to leave the Service. RN Ratings and RM Other Ranks are required to provide 18 month's notice.

  As a consequence of this change, the minimum period of service on the trained strength by RN Ratings and RM Other Ranks, following completion of initial training, will be reduced from 4 years to 31/2 years from 1 June 2000.

  Officers, RN Ratings and RM Other Ranks who submit notice applications on or before 31 May 2000 will remain subject to existing notice periods. However, personnel may apply on an individual basis for these to be adjusted so that no more than 12 months are served from 1 June 2000.

  Administration of Oaths
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the rules governing the conduct of officers who take, or administer to other officers,(a) religious, (b) sectarian and (c) other oaths while serving in HM armed forces. [100174]
  193W
  Mr. Spellar
  The regulations governing the conduct of officers who take, or administer oaths to other officers are as follows:

  (a) Religious
  Service Chaplains do not take an oath specifically for the Chaplain's Branch. No oath is taken if a Serviceman converts to a different religion while in service.
  (b) Sectarian
  Sectarian oaths form no part of Service life and would not be tolerated.
  (c) Other

  Courts Martial
  Members of a court-martial shall take an oath or affirm. In addition, evidence given by witnesses before a court martial shall be given after an oath of affirmation in accordance with the following regulations:

  (i)Naval Court Martial Rules—Section 60 of the Naval Discipline Act (NDA) 1957.

  (ii)Section 93 of the Army Act (AA) 1955.

  (iii)Section 93 of the Air Force Act (AFA) 1955.

  Summary Dealing

  (i)Evidence on oath or affirmation—Naval Summary Discipline Regulations 1997, Regulation 12, written under sections 43, 52E and 52 of the NDA 57.

  (ii)This does not apply to officers in the Army.

  (iii)Under Rule 17 of The Investigation and Summary Dealing (RAF) Regulations 1997, evidence heard before a Commanding Officer is taken on oath.

  Boards of Inquiry

  (i)No oath is taken by members of the RN or RM when subject to the NDA. However, an individual may be warned, and if thought to be lying, then this would constitute an offence under the NDA 57.

  (ii) Under Section 135 of the AA 55, the Board of Inquiry (Army) Rules 1956, evidence before a Board of Inquiry is taken on oath.

  (iii) Under Section 135 of the AFA 55 and the Board of Inquiry Rules, evidence before a Board of Inquiry is taken on oath.

  Affidavits

  (i)In the case of RN officers and RM officers when subject to the NDA, the Book of Regulations 11, App 3—Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1953 "An Act to empower certain persons subject to the Naval Discipline Act to take affidavits and declarations outside the UK" covers affidavits taken outside of the UK.

  (ii)Under Section 204 of the AA 55, when serving overseas, officers above the rank of Major and Army Legal Services officers above Captain, may take affidavits and declarations.

  (iii) Under Section 204 of the AFA 55, when serving overseas, officers above certain rank, and officers in the Legal Branch of the RAF May take affidavits and declarations.

  Attestation

  (i)Officers in the RN or RM when subject to the NDA do not swear an oath.

  (ii)Entrants to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) who are enlisted as officer cadets, are attested into the Army in the same way as soldiers and use the same oath. The procedures for this are included in the AA 55 (Part 1)(Regular Army) Regulations 1992.

  (iii) Non-graduate officer entrants to Initial Officer Training are enlisted as officer cadets and are attested into the RAF in the same way as airmen, and use the same oath, under Section 2 of the AFA 55. Graduate officer entrants are invited to make a voluntary oath of allegiance in the same form as the oath of attestation.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce the possibility of requiring people to re-take driving tests as a way of improving driving standards. [98599]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government do not consider that the regular retesting of all drivers would deliver significant road safety benefits. In the case of drivers who are found guilty of driving offences, courts already have powers to require those drivers who offend to undergo a retest, which for serious offences involves an extended length test. The Road Safety Strategy will address the adequacy of these powers.

  EU Environmental Directives
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of EU environmental directives in(a) Southampton, (b) Newcastle, (c) Hull, (d) Sheffield, (e) Manchester, (f) Rotherham, (g) Dover, (h) Bristol, (i) Bath, (j) Sunderland, (k) Birmingham and (l) Leicester. [98576]

  Mr. Mullin
  The majority of Environmental Directives are implemented on a national basis and have objectives which go beyond local authority, regional and even national boundaries. Information is not collated in such a manner as to yield a measure of impact of EU environmental Directives on specific towns and cities. The environmental benefits will however be felt in these localities in terms of improved air and water quality and other environmental improvements.

  Regulatory impact assessments are carried out from the earliest stages of development of a proposal within the European Commission, through to the adoption of all Directives. This includes a review of the costs and benefits of various options for giving effect to EC legislation including those which do not involve UK legislation. This involves full public consultation where appropriate. The review continues, when necessary, during the process of transposition.

  Seaham Regeneration Scheme
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in respect of the funding application for the Seaham Regeneration Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [99207]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My officials met with English Partnerships and One North East on 3 and 22 November to discuss their proposal for the regeneration of Seaham Town Centre. Discussions on the funding application are continuing.

  A404(M)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his Department's decision on the funding of noise mitigation measures along the A404(M). [99233]
  195W
  Mr. Hill
  The A404(M) meets the initial sift criteria for noise mitigation measures announced by the former Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), on 22 March 1999,Official Report, columns 50–51W. Along with a number of other qualifying sites, it is being examined in further detail to establish whether additional mitigation measures can be justified.

  Although our investigations into the A404(M) are almost complete, noise mitigation will need to await the outcome of the detailed studies into the other sites that met the sift criteria to ensure that priority is given to the most deserving cases.

  Ruddy Duck
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the population of ruddy duck in the United Kingdom. [99599]

  Mr. Meacher
  The latest Wetland Bird Survey 1997–98, estimates the United Kingdom ruddy duck population at 3,585.

  Source:

  June 1999—"The Wetland Bird Survey 1997–98, Wildfowl and Wader counts". Peter Cranswick, Mark Pollitt, Andy Musgrove, Becky Hughes—Published by BTO, WWT, RSPB, JNCC.

  Waste Management
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Government's strategy for waste management. [99611]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government published for consultation their draft waste strategy for England and Wales, "A Way With Waste", on 30 June 1999. Similar draft strategies have been produced in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  The Government intend to publish the waste strategy for England early next year as a Command Paper. Responsibility for taking this matter forward in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly. It has yet to be decided whether a separate strategy will be produced for Wales, or whether a joint strategy is preferred.

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the outcome, by region, of the review of the General Needs Index for Housing Investment, indicating what percentage increase each region will receive in 2000–01; and if he will make a statement on the impact on(a) the constituency of Heywood and Middleton and (b) Rochdale Metropolitan Borough. [99861]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Generalised Needs Index (GNI) used in the allocation of housing capital resources to local authorities reflects the relative need for housing capital expenditure in each local authority. The index was the subject of a review this year; details of the outcome of the review, which was conducted in conjunction with the Local Authority Associations, the National Housing Federation and the Housing Corporation, are available in 196W
  the Library of the House. The regional shares of the revised index to be used in the allocation of 2000–01 resources are set out in the table, alongside the 1999–2000 index shares.

  Region

  2000–01 (percentage)

  1999–2000 (percentage)

  Difference (+/-)

  North East

  6.4

  6.4

  —

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  9.9

  10.1

  -0.2

  East Midlands

  6.8

  6.1

  +0.7

  Eastern

  7.1

  6.6

  +0.5

  London

  30.0

  30.5

  -0.5

  South East

  8.8

  8.4

  +0.3

  South West

  5.6

  5.8

  -0.1

  West Midlands

  11.2

  10.7

  +0.6

  North West

  14.1

  15.5

  -1.4

  England

  100.0

  100.0

  —

  The index shares for the two years are not directly comparable because there were separate Capital Receipts Initiative and private sector renovation grant allocations for 1999–2000 which were allocated using different indices. These allocations are being combined with the main housing allocation from 2000–01 (the "single housing capital pot") to provide local authorities with more freedom in planning the composition of their capital programme.

  The resources available for allocation for 2000–01 (just over £2 billion) are around 50 per cent. up on 1999–2000. The introduction of the single housing capital pot and the changes to the GNI mean that the regional increases vary between around 40 per cent. and 65 per cent. Allocations for individual local authorities, which are based 50 per cent. on the GNI and 50 per cent. on authorities' performance on housing, will be announced in the first half of December.

  Rochdale's 2000–01 GNI share (0.46 per cent. of England) has fallen by slightly more (13 per cent.) than the region as a whole (down 9 per cent.); corresponding figures for parliamentary constituencies are not available. The main reasons for the fall in Rochdale's index share, like those for the region as a whole, are the updating of the private sector stock condition indicator from 1991 to 1996 English House Conditions Survey data (which shows a significant improvement in the general condition of occupied private sector stock and a reduction in the number of households eligible for a renovation grant); the extension of this indicator to cover dwellings that are in substantial disrepair as well as those which are unfit; the continuing reduction in the numbers of overcrowded and sharing households in the region; and the inclusion in the index of a measure based on homeless households in temporary accommodation.

  Railway Maintenance Staff
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what technology(a) exists and (b) is under development to warn maintenance staff on the railway network of the approach of trains; and if he will make a statement on the train approach warning system. [100059]

  Mr. Hill
  Existing technology to warn staff working on or about the railway includes the "PEE WEE" system (a portable system which gives a special warning tone on
  197W
  the approach of a train), the Train Operated Warning System (TOWS), a permanent warning device in some locations where visibility is poor and "Minimel 90" (a portable automatic track warning system). A number of similar systems are undergoing UK approval.

  Proven automatic warning systems should reduce the risk of an accident to train workers considerably below the risk from systems which rely on human observation of approaching trains.

  Transport (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has assessed the level of dependence of people living in rural areas on the use of(a) the car and (b) public transport. [99900]

  Mr. Hill
  The National Travel Survey is used to assess the travel patterns of people living in rural areas. In 1996–98, 69 per cent. of journeys by people living in rural areas were by car, and 4 per cent. by public transport. Bus is the most widely used public transport alternative to the car, 59 per cent. of rural households lived within 13 minutes walk of a bus service with a frequency of at least once an hour.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the research data he has received to date on the horizontal spread of marker genes and other transgenic DNA via pollen and dust; and what assessment he has made of this research. [100166]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are various reports of research into the possibility of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified (GM) plants. These are publicly available in the scientific literature. The predominant scientific view is that, although a theoretical possibility, any horizontal transfer of transgenes from GM plants in the field would be an exceedingly rare event, and its success will depend greatly on the selective pressure acting on the outcome.

  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) considers horizontal gene transfer in the environmental risk assessment that is conducted before any GM plants can be released. ACRE does not limit itself to considering horizontal gene transfer only from pollen and dust. ACRE concentrates on the likely consequences of such transfers, not on whether or not it could happen. If horizontal gene transfer from a particular GM plant is judged to be harmful to the environment, then the release would not be allowed.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on using his powers, following the farm-scale evaluations, to revoke consents(a) deliberately to release or (b) to market GM crops. [100002]

  Mr. Mullin
  If the farm-scale evaluations provide evidence that there is an adverse effect on human health or the environment as a result of the management of the herbicide tolerant GM crops, then the Government will act upon this evidence, and, if necessary, use the full extent 198W
  of the powers available to protect human health and the environment, including revoking consents where appropriate.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if consent holders will be able to seek direct commercial benefit from the cultivation of GM crops in field-scale and other plantings, other than the farm-scale evaluations. [99905]

  Mr. Mullin
  The renewed agreement with industry on the conduct of the farm-scale evaluations announced on 5 November makes clear that none of the produce from GM crop plantings in the UK will be used in a way which is of direct commercial benefit to the consent holders during the farm-scale evaluation period. Any proposals for field-scale plantings other than those for the farm-scale evaluations must be agreed by the independent Scientific Steering Committee, in the light of their relevance to biodiversity research. Smaller than field-scale plantings, including those necessary for statutory UK and EU requirements, are not covered by the agreement.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if commercial benefits may accrue to any affiliated or associated companies of consent holders in relation to commercial growing of GM crops; [99918]

  (2) if consent holders will be entitled to seek direct commercial benefit after the farm-scale evaluation period in respect of the cultivation of and the produce from GM crops during the evaluation period; [99906]

  (3) if he will list the commercial benefits to which the voluntary agreement announced on 5 November on the commercial growing of GM crops does not apply; [99917]

  (4) which persons will be entitled to seek commercial benefit from the growing of GM crops before 2003. [99919]

  Mr. Mullin
  The renewed agreement with industry announced on 5 November covers the conduct of the farm-scale evaluations for the next three years, through until the Scientific Steering Committee's review and recommendations following collection of data from the 2002 crop plantings. The agreement states that no direct commercial benefit will be sought from the plantings or obtained from use of the crops during the farm-scale evaluation period. This is to protect the integrity of the farm-scale evaluations as wholly concerned with biodiversity research. Subsequent use of produce is not covered by the agreement.

  Examples of indirect commercial benefits that might accrue to the consent holders from the farm-scale evaluations could include results from the farm-scale evaluations that aided consent holders' other research work, or a change in share price if a crop was perceived to be proceeding satisfactorily through the evaluation process.

  In the Government's view, the renewed agreement with industry does extend to affiliated or associated companies of consent holders. Our understanding is that the farmers growing the crops in the farm-scale evaluations are likely to be compensated by the consent holders; that would be a matter for them. If consents allow, farmers may be able to use produce on-farm as animal feed.

  Council House Sale Receipts
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate how many additional council houses have been built as a result of his decision to release for use by local authorities, part of the capital receipts from previous council house sales. [100021]

  Mr. Mullin
  The available information relates to new build or purchase of existing dwellings by local authorities. Information provided by authorities on their plans for the use of Capital Receipts Initiative resources for 1997–98 and 1998–99 indicated that around 100 council houses would be built or purchased over the two years. Most of the resources have been used to carry out improvement and renovation work on existing local authority stock.

  Elephants
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to(a) oppose any change to the status of elephants at the next Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species which would allow any further international trade in elephant ivory and hides and (b) to consult with EU partners with a view to adopting a common EU position along such lines; if he will inform Parliament of the result of such consultations with EU partners in advance of the conference; and if he will make a statement. [100298]

  Mr. Mullin
  The 1997 Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) agreed an experimental one-off transhipment of ivory to Japan from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe. This took place in July 1999, under stringent safeguards agreed by the Conference and CITES Standing Committee. Proceeds from the sales are being directed back into elephant conservation and community programmes. There can be no further trade in ivory unless the next CITES Conference, to be held in Nairobi in April 2000, agrees a specific proposal to permit this.

  A key element of the 1997 decision was the setting up of new pan-African and Asian systems to Monitor Illegal Killing of Elephants (known as MIKE), together with an Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS). The MIKE system in particular is new and has not yet progressed to the state where Parties can expect it to produce reliable data in time for the CITES Conference next April.

  The UK is Chair of the CITES Standing Committee and we were closely involved in devising and implementing the safeguards under which the 1997 experiment is being carried out. We regret that several Parties have submitted proposals to the next Conference without waiting for the full effects of the experiment to be monitored by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the UNEP CITES Secretariat. The Government believe that any change to the status of elephants at the next CITES Conference would be premature at present. We have made this known to the European Commission and our European partners. A meeting of the EC CITES Committee has been brought forward to 14 January 2000 at the request of the UK and we will seek a common EU position as soon as possible after that meeting takes place. I will inform Parliament of the outcome.

  Railway Carriages
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what checks are made before a railway carriage that has been involved in an accident is put back into service; [100223]

  (2) what percentage of railway carriages previously involved in accidents were put back into service in each of the last five years; [100224]

  (3) what percentage of railway carriages currently in service have previously been in an accident. [100225]

  Mr. Hill
  This information is not available as it is not reportable to the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate.

  Repairs and maintenance of rolling stock following an accident is a matter for the vehicle owner.

  If, however, the vehicle or carriage is substantially altered during repairs, approval will need to be obtained from HM Railway Inspectorate under the Railways and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994 before the vehicle or carriage can be put back into operation.

  HMRI have enforcement powers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 which they would use if there was any reason to believe that safety had been compromised either as a result of repair work or for any other reason.

  Road Traffic (Pollution)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) at what level, compared to 1990, road traffic levels would have to be kept to ensure air quality targets for 2010 are met; [100468]

  (2) to what level road traffic would need to be kept to ensure that carbon dioxide emissions from road traffic were 20 per cent. lower than those in 1990 by 2010; [100467]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of Government transport policies on traffic levels; what were traffic levels in 1990; and what are the projected levels for 2010. [100469]

  Mr. Hill
  No estimate has been made of the level of traffic in 2010 which would be consistent with road traffic emissions in that year being 20 per cent. below the 1990 level. Such an estimate would depend on the assumptions made in respect of a number of other factors, including the fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet, the mix of traffic between vehicle types, and the speeds at which traffic moved. This means that there will be a range of 2010 traffic totals which would be consistent with any given level of road traffic CO2 emissions.

  Similar arguments apply to emissions of relevance to the National Air Quality Strategy, although here such an assessment would also need to take into account both significant variations in air quality at the local level, and emissions from non-transport sources, which can be just as important in addressing air quality objectives.

  Motorised vehicle traffic on English roads in 1990 is estimated to have been some 353 billion vehicle kilometres. Revised assessments of future traffic levels,

  201W
  taking into account the potential impact of the Integrated Transport White Paper, are being prepared to inform the Government's first report under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, which will be published shortly.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he plans to assess the impact of road traffic in relation to(a) the emission of gases which contribute to climate change, (b) air quality, (c) health, (d) traffic congestion, (e) land and biodiversity, (f) danger to other road users and (g) society in accordance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. [100466]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government will shortly be publishing their first report under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 on the issue of whether to set a national road traffic reduction target. In preparation for that report, we are assessing how our policies can reduce each of these adverse impacts of road traffic.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase competition in the water industry. [100439]

  Mr. Mullin
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his pre-Budget report on 9 November 1999,Official Report, columns 883–906, the Government are carrying out a comprehensive review of competition in the water industry and aim to publish a consultation document on options for reform early in the new year.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of outsourcing activities previously performed directly by water companies on quality and service standards. [100457]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Director General of Water Services publishes an annual "Report on levels of service for the water industry in England and Wales", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what allowance is made for regional variations and priorities in OFWAT's Water Companies Price Review. [100458]

  Mr. Mullin
  The price review is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. The Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State for Wales issued guidance to the Director General on the environmental and quality objectives to be achieved by the water industry between 2000 and 2005. These reflected local environmental priorities, but were defined to avoid unacceptable impacts on water prices in different parts of England and Wales.

  In the case of Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) and Dee Valley Water, the Secretary of State's functions in this matter transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July 1999.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information and communications with the water companies are used in the price review process and not reported in OFWAT's price determination document. [100454]
  202W
  Mr. Mullin
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. His report "Final Determinations: Future water and sewerage charges 2000–05" includes a full account of the price review process.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consideration OFWAT is required to give to(a) environmental, (b) health and safety and (c) local economic factors during a water company price review. [100453]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales issued guidance to the Director General of Water Services on the environmental and quality objectives to be achieved by the water industry in England and Wales between 2000 and 2005. This guidance was published under the title "Raising the Quality" in September 1998, and was supported by more detailed announcements of company programmes on 1 March 1999.

  In the case of Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) and Dee Valley Water, the Secretary of State's functions transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July 1999. In respect of the remaining companies, the Secretary of State confirmed the environment and quality programme on 24 November.

  The Director has a statutory duty to ensure that companies can finance the proper carrying of their functions. This includes obligations enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. The handling of the price review is a matter for the Director. I understand that he received representations on a wide range of issues, including factors such as local economic considerations.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy following the case of London Borough of Southwark v. Mills, in relation to the problem of noise pollution. [100436]

  Mr. Hill
  We have noted with interest this clarification of the law in relation to domestic noise activity.

  Westminster Underground
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's estimate of the opening date for Westminster Underground Station on the Jubilee Line. [100262]

  Mr. Hill
  London Transport aim to open the Jubilee Line station at Westminster shortly before Christmas. It is, however, a very deep and highly complex station, being constructed on an extremely constricted site. LT cannot therefore guarantee the opening date at present.

  Bridstow Primary School
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment has been made of the provision of school crossing signs or signals on the A49 to ensure safer access to Bridstow Primary School; and if he will make a statement. [99852]
  203W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ginny Clarke to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 1 December 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the assessment for the provision of school crossing signs or signals on the A49 trunk road to ensure safer access to Bridstow Primary School.
  There are school warning signs located on the approaches to this school to alert motorists to the presence of schoolchildren but there are no signals. The Highways Agency has not undertaken an assessment for signals in this location, but Herefordshire Council, who have responsibility for deciding on the need for a crossing patrol, has advised that the school does not meet the criteria for a patrol. In these circumstances, flashing amber signals would not be appropriate.
  If a crossing patrol were to be operated at the school, the Highways Agency would, of course, give serious consideration to the provision of flashing amber signals.
  If you would like to discuss the matter further, Tom Barry, the Highways Agency's Area 9 Manager, would be pleased to help. Tom is based at the Birmingham office at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL and can contacted by telephone on 0121 678 8366.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Waste Edible Oils
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tonnes per annum of waste edible oils are produced in the UK from the UK's food manufacturing base and catering establishments; and if he will make a statement. [100221]

  Mr. Mullin
  The exact amount of waste of this type is not known. However, the Feed Fat Association estimate that some 90,000 tonnes of waste edible oils are recycled each year from UK food establishments.

  Road Tolls
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by how much he estimates a road toll of(a) £1, (b) £5 and (c) £10 per private car would reduce road traffic; and what is the basis of his estimate. [99924]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The Government are providing powers for local authorities to put forward road user charging schemes if they think these are appropriate to deal with traffic management locally. The Secretary of State will not approve any congestion charging scheme unless: public transport has been improved first to offer motorists choice, before charging sets starts; local people have been consulted; it is clear that all proceeds will be put into improving local transport; and the appropriate technology will be in place to make it work.

  The impact of road user charges on road traffic will vary accordingly to a number of factors including location, prevailing road and traffic conditions and the complimentary traffic and wider transport measures introduced alongside charges.

  Water Directives
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what time 204W
  scale he has set for achieving the guide values in the Bathing Water, Shellfish Waters, Surface Water Abstraction and Freshwater Fish Directives; [100340]

  (2) if the guide value contained in the Bathing Water Directive, the Shellfish Waters Directive, the Surface Water Abstraction Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive are mandatory standards; and what directions he has given to the Environment Agency on enforcing them; [100401]

  (3) what plans he has to enforce the guide values contained in the Bathing Water, Shellfish Waters, Surface Water Abstraction and Freshwater Fish Directives; and if he will make a statement. [100342]

  Mr. Mullin
  The EC Directives on Bathing Waters, Shellfish Waters, Surface Water Abstraction and Freshwater Fish set guide values which are not mandatory values and which member states must endeavour to observe, in the case of the first two instruments, or respect, in the case of the remaining two. The obligations of each Directive, including on guide values, have been incorporated in the transposing legislation which places duties on the Environment Agency. The Government expect to see progress towards the guide values which have been set.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what standards of faecal coliforms in shellfish flesh or intervalvular liquid he has directed the Environment Agency to observe; and whether these standards are expressed in terms of shellfish flesh or shellfish liquid. [100339]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency is under a duty to endeavour to observe a guideline value of 300/100ml in shellfish flesh and intervalvular liquid as set out in the Surface Waters (Shellfish) Directions 1997.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he proposes to introduce to improve road safety and reduce road fatalities. [100656]

  Mr. Hill
  We will shortly be publishing a new road safety strategy which will include casualty reduction targets for the year 2010. The strategy will set out a range of measures for reducing road casualties and improving road safety.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to issue guidance on future funding criteria for Regional Development Agencies; and if he will make a statement. [100519]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to issue any such guidance. The funding arrangement is for the Public Expenditure Settlement, which covers a three-year period, to determine the overall provision for each RDA, taking
  205W
  account of their corporate plan. In making yearly allocations under the Settlement, the Government take account of any criteria relating to a particular programme and the RDAs current corporate plan, including matters such as the agency's effectiveness in carrying out its responsibilities.

  Rents
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evidence he has received to date, in respect of the forthcoming review of housing benefit, of the impact of fluctuations in standard reference rents on the ability of tenants to take up and retain tenancies. [100770]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have received representations from a number of organisations. My Department has, jointly with the Department of Social Security, commissioned and published research on housing benefit and the private rented sector, and is undertaking research on a range of related issues, including the work of rent officers.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy on determining regional boundaries for the local delivery of services funded by central Government departments; and if he will make a statement. [100627]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government's policy is set out in the White Paper"Modernising government". There is a presumption that Departments and other public bodies should adopt the boundaries used by the Government Offices in the Regions unless there are strong overriding considerations for not doing so. Progress will be reviewed in 2002.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will receive a letter from the Chair of the Health and Safety Commission concerning signals passed at danger. [100447]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: I understand that a letter was sent to the hon. Member on 29 November.

  London Social Services
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each London borough how many(a) people were registered homeless, (b) people were on local authority waiting lists, (c) local authority housing visits were completed, and (d) registered social visits were completed (i) in the financial year 1998–99 and (ii) in the present financial year. [100803]

  Mr. Mullin
  The latest available information is given in the table. Information on visits carried out by local authorities is not collected centrally.206W

  Homeless households accepted and in priority need

  1998–99

  19991—2000

  Number of households on the housing register at 1 April 1999

  Barking and Dagenham

  257

  39

  1,785

  Barnet

  1,048

  147

  5,004

  Bexley

  319

  54

  2,762

  Brent

  920

  2n/a

  11,703

  Bromley

  728

  2n/a

  3,202

  Camden

  1,555

  2n/a

  6,302

  City of London

  53

  14

  720

  Croydon

  882

  186

  6,389

  Ealing

  1,016

  2n/a

  7,261

  Enfield

  754

  217

  4,263

  Greenwich

  1,456

  334

  5,454

  Hackney

  705

  2n/a

  13,480

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  709

  175

  4,451

  Haringey

  975

  337

  7,409

  Harrow

  725

  160

  2,374

  Havering

  386

  105

  1,511

  Hillingdon

  1,083

  190

  7,655

  Hounslow

  1,056

  2n/a

  5,188

  Islington

  1,176

  2n/a

  12,428

  Kensington and Chelsea

  611

  149

  7,671

  Kingston upon Thames

  400

  2n/a

  2,846

  Lambeth

  1,039

  302

  13,050

  Lewisham

  1,085

  2n/a

  11,520

  Merton

  205

  53

  3,345

  Newham

  910

  2n/a

  11,000

  Redbridge

  302

  2n/a

  2,956

  Richmond upon Thames

  633

  140

  4,667

  Southwark

  1,204

  372

  4,645

  Sutton

  299

  46

  6,215

  Tower Hamlets

  1,070

  304

  7,172

  Waltham Forest

  1,048

  2n/a

  1,963

  Wandsworth

  613

  201

  2,916

  Westminster

  1,266

  267

  7,028

  1 April to June

  2 n/a denotes that the authority has not yet reported

  Source:

  Housing Investment Programme Returns 1999, Quarterly PIE (Homeless Activity) returns 1999 Q1

  Local authorities have different practices for compiling and managing housing register/waiting lists which mean that simple comparisons between authorities can be misleading.

  House Selling
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require energy audits and advice to be included in the information provided by house vendors(a) in the pilot schemes of his house selling proposals and (b) subsequently. [100801]

  Mr. Mullin
  A key proposal in our package of reforms to the home buying and selling process is a requirement for the seller or the seller's agent to put together a pack of standard documents and information for prospective buyers, before the property is put on the market. The pack should include a house condition report which contains an assessment of how energy efficient the property is. The pack, including a house condition report and energy efficiency assessment, will be tested in the Bristol Pilot scheme starting later this month.

  Common Land (Vehicle Access)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he
  207W
  has to amend the law relating to common land, with respect to vehicle access; and if he will make a statement. [100708]

  Mr. Mullin
  In addition to our proposals to give a statutory right of access on foot to registered common land, the Government are considering whether there should be any further changes to the legislation that affects common land. If so, there will be public consultation on what changes would be desirable.

  London Underground
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the proposals for integrating London Underground's sub-surface lines with the national railway network; and if he will make a statement. [101288]

  Mr. Prescott
  I announced in June that Railtrack and London Transport would be investigating the scope for taking forward two specific integration schemes, running East-West and North-South, and, on that basis, Railtrack would bid for the PPP contract to maintain and upgrade the Underground lines in question.

  Railtrack and London Transport have not found it possible to identify a practicable scheme to integrate the Tube and the national railway network on an East-West axis on the basis and timetable envisaged in June. All the options would have involved a connection through Paddington. This has highlighted a number of issues relating to constraints on capacity in the Paddington approaches, not least in the light of the Ladbroke Grove tragedy.

  Accordingly, the Government, Railtrack and London Transport have together agreed that there is no longer sufficient basis for an exclusive PPP negotiation between London Transport and Railtrack on the sub-surface lines and links with the national railway.

  Competitions for the two deep-tube PPPs are well underway and London Transport will now commence a competition for the sub-surface PPP structure so as to leave open the option of integration from the west of London at some point in the future.

  The work so far has confirmed the validity of an integration scheme on a North-South axis, based on extending the London Underground East London Line to North London from Whitechapel, and to south and south-west London from Canada Water and New Cross. I have asked Sir Alastair Morton and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to advise me as soon as possible on the best way of implementing North-South integration taking into account the parallels with Thameslink, and the need to obtain the necessary approvals.

  I have also asked Sir Alastair Morton and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to undertake a wide-ranging study of the capacity issues and potential for integration to the west of London. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority will be working closely with Railtrack and LT in undertaking these studies.

  Railtrack and Government will of course continue to work together on a range of initiatives based on our plans for a growing railway, which will mean Railtrack
  208W
  delivering a large programme of infrastructure projects to improve the capacity and quality of the network, not least in major works such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Minority Ethnic Groups
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for regular surveys of the police and other public services to monitor progress towards equal satisfaction with those services among black and other minority ethnic groups. [100027]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  So far as the police service is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set a Ministerial Priority in June to increase trust and confidence in policing among minority ethnic communities in line with Recommendation 1 of the Macpherson report. Recommendation 2 of that report proposed a range of performance indicators for assessing achievement of the Priority, which included achieving equal satisfaction levels across all ethnic groups in public satisfaction surveys. The Steering Group which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary chairs to oversee the implementation of the Action Plan published in March as the Government's response to the Macpherson report, approved at its October meeting proposals for the development of indicators in line with Recommendation 2 including satisfaction surveys. Further work is currently being undertaken on the development of this indicator.

  For other public services, the Home Office is committed to the establishment of government-wide and departmental performance indicators to measure improvements in race equality. Work is currently being undertaken on the development of these indicators which are likely to include measures of confidence in public services. The performance indicators will be announced in Spring 2000.

  Cremation
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bodies have been cremated in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years; and, in each year, what percentage cremations constituted of the number of deaths. [99915]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table sets out statistics from the Office for National Statistics and the Federation of British Cremation Authorities.

  Year

  Number of cremations

  Number of deaths

  Percentage of cremations

  1994

  434,223

  627,636

  69.2

  1995

  445,574

  645,493

  69

  1996

  445,934

  636,007

  70.1

  1997

  446,305

  629,746

  70.9

  1998

  439,145

  629,112

  69.8

  Defendant Statistics
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for each year since 1990, in what percentage of either-way cases that went to trial
  209W
  before a jury the defendant was found guilty; and what the percentage conviction rate was in such cases for (a) white defendants and (b) black and ethnic minority defendants; [100249]

  (2) in each year since 1990, what was the average length of sentence imposed on defendants found guilty in either-way cases that went to trial before a jury; and what was the average length sentence imposed in such cases on (a) white defendants and (b) black and ethnic minority defendants; [100251]

  (3) what was the conviction rate for (a) white defendants and (b) black and ethnic minority defendants appearing before magistrates' courts for each year since 1990. [100250]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office collected data on disposals at magistrates' courts by ethnicity of defendant in 1998 in 11 police force areas. These are pilot studies and work is required to address data quality problems. However, information from four of the areas (Lancashire, Leicestershire, Northumbria and West Yorkshire (Bradford and Keighley)) will be published in "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System" on 9 December 1999. The information will cover prosecutions and sentencing for indictable offences. It shows that for cases disposed of (other than by committal) at magistrates' courts, the conviction rate is 67 per cent. for white defendants and 57 per cent. for black defendants.

  Copies of the publication will be sent to the Library.

  No national information from the Crown Court is available by ethnic group although pilots are under way. Crown Court information from the Home Office Court proceedings Database is given in the table.

  Defendants pleading not guilty1 to triable either way offences at the Crown Court, England and Wales, 1995–98

  Year

  Percentage of found guilty

  Percentage of those found guilty given a custodial sentence

  Average custodial sentence length (months)

  19952

  43

  57

  24.7

  1996

  44

  61

  25.0

  1997

  41

  62

  27.6

  1998

  38

  62

  28.3

  1 Pleaded not guilty to principal offence; some of those found not guilty may not have been tried by a jury (eg the judge may have ordered or directed an acquittal).

  2 Plea data only available from July 1995

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women serving a life prison sentence in prisons in England and Wales on 1 November. [100444]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 October 1999. On that date, there were 4,175 male and 149 female life sentence prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Operation Care
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to Operation Care how many complaints have been received from how many complainants. [100232]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information on the number of claimants is not readily available. The number of complaints received reflects each separate complaint rather than the number of individuals who claim to have been abused. As of 8 July 1999, the number of separate complaints received was 759.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings his Department has held with members of the legal profession involved in Operation Care. [100235]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that there have been no meetings between Home Office officials and members of the legal profession involved in Operation Care.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many defence witnesses have been arrested as part of Operation Care. [100233]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no requirement in law for the defence to provide either the Crown Prosecution Service or the police with lists of defence witnesses at any stage of an investigation. I cannot say therefore whether any individual arrested as part of Operation Care might also be a defence witness.

  Local Authority Care Homes (Abuse)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department issues to police authorities relating to the conduct of investigations of cases of sexual abuse in local authority care homes. [100237]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In August, the Government issued draft new inter-agency guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children" which takes account of new research, experience and legislation concerning child abuse. It includes a section on children living away from home and provides guidance on investigating allegations of abuse committed by professionals, carers or volunteers. A final version of the document will be issued in the new year.

  Child Pornography
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government are taking to prevent child pornography being transmitted over the Internet; and what penalties exist to deter those responsible for publishing child pornography over the Internet. [100293]

  Mr. Boateng
  The criminal law applies equally to material on computer systems as to material in other forms. We have very strict legislation against child pornography which makes it an offence to produce, circulate or possess with a view to distribution any indecent photograph of a child under 16. These offences carry a maximum sentence of three years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. The simple possession of an indecent photograph of a child is also an offence and carries a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment.
  211W
  Section 84 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 updated these controls to include indecent computer-generated photographs of children and they have been successfully applied to child pornography transmitted over the Internet.

  We are determined to ensure that there are effective measures against child pornography. We support the work of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) which passes to the police details of potentially unlawful material brought to their attention by members of the public via a specially established hotline. If the originators of the material are abroad, the Foundation passes the report to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) who liaise with the enforcement agencies of the countries concerned. The IWF took action on 430 reports of alleged child pornography in 1998.

  The Government also fully support international initiatives in the Council of Europe and the G8 to combat criminal misuse of the Internet.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total change in England and Wales in the number of(a) all police officers, (b) police constables, (c) civilian police force staff and (d) special constables between May 1997 and the last date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [99793]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: Information is available in respect of numbers at March 1997 and March 1999. The information is set out in the table.

  Police service numbers for March 1997 and March 1999

  Police Service Numbers

  March 1997

  March 1999

  Total Change

  Total Police Officers1

  127,158

  126,096

  -1,062

  Police Constables1

  98,132

  97,520

  -612

  Civilian police force staff1

  53,011

  53,031

  +20

  Special Constables

  19,864

  16,484

  -3,390

  1 Full-time equivalent numbers

  The powers of the Home Secretary to set police establishment levels for each force were removed under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. It is for the chief officer to determine staffing requirements within the overall resources available.

  The drop in the number of special constables has resulted mainly from police forces applying higher standards when recruiting them. The use of higher standards for recruiting reflects the fact that special constables are now being deployed on duties very similar to those of regular officers.

  Asylum
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the aim of clearing all current cases by October 2000, stated by the permanent secretary in his letter of 13 October to the Public Accounts Committee, refers to all current asylum cases or to all asylum cases involving children. [100483]
  212W
  Mrs. Roche
  The aim mentioned in the letter of 13 October referred to all asylum cases. This aim is a milestone to delivery of the published targets in April 2001. It will be kept under review in the light of pressures created by the current high level of asylum applications.

  Computer-based Crime
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to develop a national fraud squad to tackle computer-based crime. [100404]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are proposals for the establishment of a Computer Crime Unit within the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but this would not constitute a national fraud squad.

  Integrated Casework Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the benchmark against which he plans to measure the four key performance indicators for the Integrated Casework Directorate listed by the permanent secretary in his letter of 13 October to the Clerk of the Public Accounts Committee. [100484]

  Mrs. Roche
  The benchmark figures for each of the four key performance indicators were compiled from statistics showing the output of the Asylum Directorate, the After Entry and Appeals Directorate and the European Directorate over a 13 week period between September and November 1998, divided by 13 to obtain an average weekly figure. The figures are as follows:

  Category

  Number of decisions

  Asylum casework

  650

  Asylum appeals

  250

  European casework

  250

  General/settlement casework

  4,100

  Total

  5,250

  Deportees
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been deported over the past 12 months; and on what grounds. [100614]

  Mrs. Roche
  The total number of people who have been removed or departed voluntarily from the United Kingdom between October 1998 and September 1999 is shown in the table. Regrettably, information about the grounds of removal could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Total number of persons1 removed or departed voluntarily under port or enforcement procedures, October 1998 to September 1999

  Number

  Port removals2

  30,710

  Illegal entry removals3

  5,320

  Deportation removals3

  1,220

  1 Does not include persons who may leave the United Kingdom without informing the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  2 Refused leave to enter and removed.

  3 Figures are provisional and include persons departing voluntarily after enforcement action had been initiated against them.

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to 10.

  30-year Rule
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent to which the 30 year rule is proposed to be relaxed in the Freedom of Information Bill; and(a) what kind of records will be released which would otherwise have been held for 30 years and (b) on what grounds records will continue to be held for the 30 year period. [100659]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Freedom of Information legislation will not affect the 30 year rule, as the principles governing the release of records at 30 years will remain broadly the same.

  However, under the proposals in the Freedom of Information Bill, many more records will be released earlier, and therefore, fewer records will fall to be released at 30 years.

  It is not possible to specify particular records which will be released under Freedom of Information, as earlier releases will be spread across a range of records which would otherwise have been held until 30 years.

  The Freedom of Information Bill contains certain exemptions which provide the grounds for withholding information beyond 30 years. These grounds are: information supplied by, or relating to, work of the security services; national Security; defence; international relations; the economy; information from confidential sources in the course of investigations and proceedings; law enforcement (until 100 years); honours (until 75 years); health and safety; personal information (for the lifetime of the individual concerned); information provided in confidence; and specific statutory bars on disclosure.

  However, even where an exemption in the Bill applies, the Public Record Office, or the authority holding the information, must consider on a case by case basis any discretion it may have to disclose the information, deciding whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs that of maintaining the exemption.

  Police (Conflict Resolution)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the conflict resolution manual, revised by ACPO's Self-defence and Restraint Committee, will contain information on dealing with a mental illness; if the revision has been completed; how beat officers will receive this information; and if the manual will be made available to members of the public. [100718]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Self-Defence, Arrest and Restraint sub-committee that work is continuing on revision of the manual, and that the inclusion of information on dealing with persons with a mental illness will be considered as this work progresses.

  The contents of the manual will be disseminated to officers through Personal Safety training. A decision on whether the manual can be made public will be made by the Association of Chief Police Officers once the drafting work is complete.

  Shotgun Licences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people living in England and Wales hold a shotgun licence. [100766]
  214W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of shot gun certificates on issue at the end of 1998 was 627,600.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him, dated 28 July, 10 September and 4 October, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, concerning Bulbur Begum. [100638]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to my right hon. Friend on 26 November.

  Hashman and Harrup
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policy changes the Government plans to implement following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hashman and Harrup. [100588]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government intend to review the powers to bind over once all the relevant cases before the European Court of Human Rights have been decided. The case of Steel and others established that the powers to bind over to keep the peace are sufficiently well established to comply with the Convention. Following the decision in Hashman and Harrup, we shall study the Court's judgment carefully and consider how best to advise the courts and the police on the use of the power to bind over to be of good behaviour.

  CS Spray
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department plans to take following the September publication of the reports by the Committee on Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment concerning the effects of CS spray. [100782]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Following the report by the independent Committees on Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated that there was no reason to consider withdrawing CS spray from police use.

  Operational guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers have been revised to take account of the report's findings concerning the use of CS with persons who are mentally ill and those who may have respiratory conditions. The guidelines include appropriate advice on aftercare and will be issued to chief officers shortly.

  The Home Office will be taking forward with the Department of Health the report's recommendation for follow up studies into persons who have received medical treatment following the use of CS spray. In addition, the Home Office's Police Scientific Development Branch is continuing work looking at alternative solvents and potential alternative incapacitants.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what name he intends the reformed Probation Service for England and Wales to be known. [101283]
  215W
  Mr. Boateng
  A Bill, to be introduced to this House, will reform and modernise the Probation Service within England and Wales. The modernised service will be known as The Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Service for England and Wales (CPRS). This Service has a key role to play in delivering the Government's aims on effective sentencing and punishment that:The public is protected from dangerous offenders;
  Offenders are properly punished and their sentences are rigorously enforced;
  Punishments are made to work better both in prison and outside; and
  Courts have available to them a flexible range of sentences.

  The Probation Service has not been well served in recent years by its name, with offenders and the general public alike unsure of its role. The new name encapsulates the Service's role as a law enforcement agency and sends out a clear message to offenders that punishment in the community is not a soft option but one that should work to reduce re-offending.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to projects at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, London, involving the artificial induction of arthritis in mice, what steps were taken to assess the validity of the proposed research and identify other potential sources of the information required before the licence was granted. [100707]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, project licences are issued only if the likely benefits (to man, animals or the environment) outweigh the costs to the animals involved and if there are no alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the experimental design to minimise suffering. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate advises on whether, and on what terms, licences and certificates should be granted or amended.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many transgenic pigs have been released since 1 January under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for export from the UK for use in(a) medical research and (b) breeding programmes; and to which countries they have been exported. [100702]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  49 pigs were exported in March and a further 40 in July. Both batches were exported to the United States of America for use in breeding programmes.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences have been issued during the current year for primates to be used in xenotransplantation procedures, broken down by(a) type of procedure, (b) severity banding of procedure, (c) number of primates used per procedure and (d) origin of primates used. [100701]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  One licence has been issued this year for kidney transplants from transgenic pigs to primates. The severity banding is moderate. 14 macaques were used in 14 procedures and all were obtained from the Philippines.
  216W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many procedures have taken place under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 whereby baboons have been given humanised pig hearts; how many baboons were involved; and how many days each survived. [100703]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since the commencement of baboon studies in 1966, a total of 44 baboons have received transgenic pig hearts, with the longest survival time reaching 99 days. In addition, five animals received non-transgenic hearts.

  Political Party Funding
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to regulate political party funding, donations and sponsorship for(a) events, (b) conferences and (c) elections. [100428]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Proposals for legislation on these matters, in response to the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the funding of political parties, were published on 27 July 1999 and a Bill will be introduced into Parliament later this session.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons are for the delay in the publication of his Department's recommendations following its review of strip search procedures; and if he will make a statement. [100173]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service has not yet submitted its recommendations to me. The report is being finalised. Its completion has been delayed because of competing pressures and the complexity of the Prison Service regulations concerned. I understand that I will receive the report and the recommendations shortly. As agreed by the then Minister of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 15 July 1997,Official Report, column 98W, a copy will be placed in the Library when it is completed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Lackenby to Shipton Pylon Line
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate his Department has made of the final total cost to public funds of improving the approach roads to the National Grid Company's Lackenby to Shipton transmission line. [100725]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), the Under-Secretary on 8 November 1999,Official Report, column 391W.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure legitimate concerns about health, environmental and animal welfare issues can be effectively accommodated with the rules of the World Trade Organisation. [100698]
  217W
  Mr. Caborn
  Existing WTO rules allow Governments wide scope to impose trade restrictions as a means of addressing concerns about health and many environmental issues. However, the Government, along with its EU partners, believe there is room for some improvements in the rules, particularly better to accommodate environmental and animal welfare concerns, and are pressing for these subjects to be included in the forthcoming negotiations.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is the business representative on the Government's delegation to the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle. [100697]

  Mr. Caborn
  The business representative is the Chairman of the CBI's Trade Policy Working Group.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what (i) discussions he has had with and (ii) communications have been received from industry and business associations in respect of the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle. [100700]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ministers and officials have had many discussions with and communications from industry and business associations in respect of the meeting in Seattle. Broadly, industry is very supportive of the launch of a new comprehensive round of trade negotiations, recognising the importance to the UK economy of open markets and removing barriers to trade.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what position the Government will be adopting at the World Trade Organisation ministerial meetings in Seattle in respect of the previously agreed end to the multi-fibre arrangement. [100699]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the Government's view, the terms of the phase-out of the multi-fibre arrangement set out in the GATT Uruguay round agreement on textiles and clothing (ATC) should not be reopened and all signatories should implement the agreement in full.

  Export Finance
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Government's discussions with the banks concerning their future remuneration under ECGD's fixed rate export finance scheme. [101287]

  Mr. Byers
  These discussions are now concluded. The previous arrangements expired on 30 November.

  A new scale of remuneration, which seeks an equitable balance between the interests of the banks, the taxpayer and the exporter, has been introduced with effect from 1 December.

  A copy of the memorandum which sets out the details of the new arrangements has been placed in the Library of the House for information.

  ECGD
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial support has been provided for the ECGD in each of the last five years from public funds. [100513]
  218W
  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD receives funds from three votes—administration, public expenditure and trading. The actual outturn as reported in the appropriation accounts for the last five years is outlined in the table.

  £000

  Year

  Administration Vote

  Public Expenditure Vote

  Trading Vote

  Total

  1994–95

  28,002

  (25,080)

  (17,295)

  (14,373)

  1995–96

  24,582

  15,789

  (264,105)

  (223,734)

  1996–97

  22,824

  17,771

  (122,197)

  (81,602)

  1997–98

  22,627

  40,077

  (53,152)

  9,552

  1998–99

  22,885

  1318,959

  (110,135)

  231,709

  1 The increase in the Public Expenditure Vote in 1998–99 is in respect of a loan from Treasury to enable the refinancing of outstanding export finance which will bring future financial benefits to the Exchequer.

  Notes:

  1. Figures in brackets indicate a net contribution to the exchequer

  2. Figures for 1998–99 have been certified by the NAO but not laid before Parliament

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role the ECGD plays in the securing of(a) military aircraft export orders and (b) overseas sales of commercial aircraft. [100512]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD's guarantees to exporters and banks help UK exporters to secure contracts including in the aerospace field.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those categories of commercial transactions which do not qualify for ECGD support. [100516]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD provides guarantees for finance products of two years or more. These finance products are applicable to exports of a capital or semi-capital nature plus related services. ECGD does not normally provide support for exports that only justify less than two year credit terms.

  ECGD also provides insurance-based products:

  1. to exporters who have cash or near cash contracts of a capital or project nature plus related services;

  2. as the provider of reinsurance to the commercial insurance market when required; and

  3. through its Overseas Investment Insurance scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which OECD countries have export insurance schemes providing the same categories of cover as are presently available via the ECGD. [100507]

  Mr. Caborn
  The majority of OECD countries have export credit insurance schemes which are broadly similar to that provided by the ECGD, although not all have privatised their short-term credit insurance operations. In respect of medium and long-term business (involving credit terms of two years or more) there is a common system to classify the sovereign and country credit risk of buyer/borrower countries under an agreement concluded through the OECD—the Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Civil Servants
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many civil servants were employed by his Department in(a) 1999, (b) 1998 and (c) 1997. [99052]

  Mr. Wills
  The number of civil servants employed by the Department for Education and Employment in 1999, 1998 and 1997 were as follows:

  1 April 1997

  1 April 1998

  1 April 1999

  Department for Education and Employment

  14,679

  4,061

  4,251

  Government Office

  1n/a

  673

  624

  Employment Service

  31,550

  30,796

  32,675

  Total

  36,229

  35,530

  37,550

  1 At 1 April 1997, the Government Office staff were included in the figures for DfEE.

  Note:

  The figures are based on full-time equivalents and include casual staff.

  The increase in staff shown by the Employment Service is a direct result of using more personal advisers and New Deal activities.

  Departmental running costs for the periods in question are as follows:

  Department for Education and Employment including Government Office

  £ million

  1996–97

  264.8

  1997–98

  237.2

  1998–99

  255.9

  These are the net running cost figures from the Treasury's Public Expenditure Survey database, as at September 1999.The apparent "dip" in running costs in 1997–98 is caused by the use of end year flexibilities in both 1996–97 and 1998–99 to meet staff restructuring costs within the Employment Service and DfEE.

  Employment Service

  £ million

  1996–97

  929.2

  1997–98

  1853.7

  1998–99

  1911.1

  1 Includes impact of the "Windfall Tax". This is the one-off receipt raised on the excess profits of the privatised utilities. The tax is being used to fund the Welfare to Work programme. The Welfare to Work programme incorporates all the "New Deal" activities and is designed to extend new work opportunities to people detached from the labour market.

  British Teachers (European Union Schools)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that British teachers working in the European Schools are eligible for the promotion on pay scales to which they are entitled under the European Schools Statute. [100065]
  220W
  Mr. Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 21 July 1999,Official Report, columns 538–39W.

  Target Setting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many targets have been agreed between his Department and (i) local authorities and (ii) other bodies apart from his own agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997. [99472]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: My Department has set out a number of Key Performance targets in its PSA and Strategic Framework to 2002, including the National Learning Targets for England for 2002. The Key Performance targets underpinned by targets set with local authorities and other bodies, excluding our own agencies and non-departmental bodies, since May 1997, are listed:

  DfEE target: a reduction by one third in school truancies (from 0.7 per cent. to 0.5 per cent. half days missed a year through unauthorised absence), and exclusions (from 12,500 to 8,400 permanent exclusions a year) by 2002.

  Local authorities have been required to set targets for reducing unauthorised absence and for reducing permanent exclusions for the three years commencing 1999–2000. These targets have been included in their Education Development Plans. Provisions under the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 also allow the Secretary of State to require governing bodies of maintained schools to set school-level targets for reducing unauthorised absence where their attendance is significantly below average. During 1999, 304 schools have been asked to set targets.

  DfEE target: an increase in the proportion of those aged 11 meeting the standard of literacy for that age (level 4 in the KS2 test) from 63 per cent. to 80 per cent. by 2002, and an increase in the proportion of those aged 11 meeting the standard of numeracy for that age (level 4 in the KS2 test) from 62 per cent. to 75 per cent. by 2002.

  Targets at local education authority level for the achievement of 11-year-olds in literacy and numeracy, as measured by the Key Stage 2 national curriculum tests in English and maths, have been agreed with the Department for 2000 and 2002. Local education authorities are also required to submit to the Department targets for their authority for 2001 by January 2000, as part of the process of revising their Education Development Plans.

  DJEE targets: an increase in the proportion of those aged 16 who achieve one or more GCSEs at grade G or equivalent, from 92 per cent. to 95 per cent. by 2002, and an increase in the proportion of those aged 16 who achieve five or more GCSEs grades A*-C from 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. by 2002.

  Each local authority has agreed with the Department three targets for achievement by pupils aged 16: the percentage gaining 5 or more GCSEs at A8-C; the percentage gaining at least 1 GCSE at A*-G (or equivalent); and the average points score per pupil. These targets are listed in the authority's Education Development Plan.
  221W
  DfEE target: 45 per cent. of medium sized or large organisations and 10,000 small organisations are recognised as Investors in People by 2002.

  The Department sets targets for Training Enterprise Councils each year which reflect their local contribution to the national target.

  The Department's Key Performance targets are also supported at operational level by numerous other targets to ensure delivery by individual units. Listing all of the Operational Targets the Department has agreed with local authorities and other bodies would be inappropriate and disproportionate in terms of resource. However, the DfEE annual Departmental Report and Annual Report of the Employment Service does include performance related information.

  Youth Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of the Youth Council held in Brussels on 23 November; and if he will make a statement. [99846]

  Mr. Wills
  The European Commission presented its future approach to youth affairs on which there was an exchange of views. The Commission also summarised progress on its proposal for Recommendations concerning the application of Community law in the field of mobility of students, trainees, young volunteers, teachers and instructors.

  The Presidency gave a progress report on the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Community action programme for youth. Following discussion, the Presidency concluded that conciliation would take place during the Portuguese Presidency. All the European Parliament's second reading amendments, including the budget for the programme, would be carefully considered.

  The Council agreed the text of its Resolution on the non-formal education dimension of sporting activities in the European Community Youth programmes. The Resolution is a mixed Resolution of the Council and Ministers of the member states meeting in the Council1, and will be adopted at a future Council of Ministers. The Commission's view that this should only be a Council Resolution would be noted.

  The draft conclusions on the implementation of measures to combat child sex tourism were presented by the Presidency which also summarised youth activities which it had organised during its Presidency.

  1The Resolution acknowledges that sport is one of way of working with young people. However, whilst the Community has competence for co-ordination in the field of youth, sports policy remains the competence of member states. The mixed Resolution therefore reflects this difference in competence.

  Departmental Estate
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his estimate is of land and property(a) in Scotland, (b) in the United Kingdom, (c) overseas and (d) in total for (i) his core Department and (ii) the Employment Service; and what is the total value of other assets held by each of these bodies. [99841]
  222W
  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: For the core Department, we are unable to provide value information because it is being developed as part of the implementation of resource accounting. The information is currently being audited. The first set of resource accounts will be published in respect of 1999–2000.

  Value information for the Employment Service (ES) is set out as follows. These values have been derived from accounting information used to produce the audited 1998–99 ES published accounts.

  As at 31 March 1999:

  £

  Total value of Land and Property in ES

  (a) In Scotland

  16,056,242

  (b) In the United Kingdom

  125,118,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  Total

  141,174,242

  Total value of all other assets held by ES

  (a) In Scotland

  1,714,746

  (b) In the United Kingdom

  77,070,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  Total

  78,784,746

  SSAs
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give the median and the semi-interquartile range for(a) SSA per primary pupil and (b) SSA per secondary pupil, adjusted for inflation, for all local education authorities in England and Wales for the 10 years from 1990–91 to 1999–2000. [100341]

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

  Median and interquartile ranges for real terms SSAs: 1990–91 to 1999–200

  £

  Median

  Semi-interquartile range

  1990–91

  Primary

  1,977.7

  149.3

  Secondary

  2,810.5

  216.1

  1991–92

  Primary

  2,131.8

  159.5

  Secondary

  3,088.1

  233.1

  1992–93

  Primary

  2,178.0

  173.6

  Secondary

  3,179.1

  256.5

  1993–94

  Primary

  2,187.2

  174.3

  Secondary

  3,170.9

  256.7

  1994–95

  Primary

  2,223.1

  176.0

  Secondary

  3,111.9

  247.7

  1995–96

  Primary

  2,158.0

  172.5

  Secondary

  2,899.3

  227.1

  1996–97

  Primary

  2,178.1

  138.5

  Secondary

  2,921.8

  188.4

  1997–98

  Primary

  2,194.8

  114.2

  Secondary

  2,873.9

  161.5

  223W

  Median and interquartile ranges for real terms SSAs: 1990–91 to 1999–200

  £

  Median

  Semi-interquartile range

  1998–99

  Primary

  2,257.1

  101.6

  Secondary

  2,936.2

  134.6

  1999–2000

  Primary

  2,333.7

  106.8

  Secondary

  2,985.9

  141.6

  Sexually Abused Victims
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department issues to local education authorities regarding compensation payments to victims of sexual abuse. [100239]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department does not issue guidance to local authorities on compensation payments to victims of sexual abuse. That is a matter for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the Courts.

  Undergraduates
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many students enrolled in their first year at universities in England for the academic years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1998–99; [100247]

  (2) how many students continued with their second year of study at English universities for the academic years (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1999–2000. [100246]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available information is shown in the following table.

  Full-time first degree students in higher education institutions in England

  Academic year

  Students in their first year of study

  Students in their second year of study

  1996–97

  259,647

  —

  1997–98

  —

  213,833

  1998–99

  261,433

  —

  1999–20001

  —

  n/a

  1 Data for 1999–2000 will not be available until April 2000.

  These figures cannot be used to calculate non-completion rates directly. Some students switch from full-time to part-time study, while others suspend studies for a year but return to qualify later. In addition the available figures will include those who are repeating the first year of their course and those who fail their first year examinations.

  The latest information on non-completion rates published by the Department relates to students beginning full-time and sandwich first degree courses in 1995–96, and shows that between 18–19 per cent. of these students failed to complete their course, a low figure compared to other countries. ("Non-completion" covers students who leave their course for various reasons, over the duration of their course.)Information on student progression for individual higher education institutions in the UK will be published on 3 December, in the Higher Education Funding Council for England's "Higher Education
  224W
  Performance Indicators". These calculations take into account the wider variety of patterns of attendance of students, including factors such as changing courses or institutions and repeating or intermitting years of study.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many classes of 30 and over for five to seven year olds were recorded for schools in Shropshire in(a) May 1997 and (b) the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [100592]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Figures relating to the size of Key Stage 1 classes are collected in January, and (from 1998) also in September. In January 1997, there were 109 Key Stage 1 classes in Shropshire LEA taught by one teacher with 31 or more pupils. In April 1998, following local government reorganisation, Shropshire LEA split into two: Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin LEAs. In January 1999, there was a combined total of 51 such classes in Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin. The corresponding figure for September 1999 was 10.

  Architecture Students
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will issue guidance to local authorities on advising architecture students to apply for funding for their entire course at the start of the course. [100629]

  Mr. Wicks
  Local education authorities recognise the distinctive two-part structure of the architecture course and the need to encourage eligible students to apply at the outset for support for all years of the course. Where students do not apply immediately, they can make a later application for support for Part II of the architecture course. LEAs have discretion to continue their eligibility for support for the whole of the course at any time before they complete Part 1. Nevertheless, we shall consider the case for additional guidance for the next academic year.

  Teaching Vacancies (Bolton)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teaching vacancies there are in(a) maintained schools and (b) colleges of further education in the Bolton Local Authority area; and into which categories of subject the vacancies fall. [100606]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There were two vacancies for full-time teachers in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special school sector in the Bolton local authority area in January 1999. Both posts were for classroom teachers in secondary schools, one in physics and the other in modern foreign languages.

  Information on the number of teaching vacancies in colleges of further education in the Bolton local authority area is not held centrally.

  Commonwealth Students
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Commonwealth students are studying in the United Kingdom; and which countries have received financial help from his Department in relation to them. [100767]
  225W
  Mr. Wicks
  The number of Commonwealth students studying in the UK in the 1997–98 academic year, the latest for which figures are available, were:

  Higher education

  Further education

  Full-time

  44,900

  2,100

  Part-time

  11,100

  2,100

  Total

  56,000

  4,200

  This Department offers scholarships through the Montserrat Emergency Award Scheme, established in 1998–99, to students from Montserrat wishing to study in higher education in the UK who left Montserrat as a direct result of the volcanic activity.

  There are also two schemes open solely to applicants from the Commonwealth; the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, funded jointly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department for International Development (DfID) and the Shared Scholarship Scheme, funded by the DfID. Commonwealth students may also apply for Government funded scholarships which are open to all international students, including the British Chevening Scholarships Scheme, funded by the FCO and the Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme, funded by this Department.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what arrangements he will put in place to ensure that local authorities' adult education services are funded by the local authorities in 2001 at or above the level of the relevant standard spending assessment sub-category; [100602]

  (2) how much each local education authority in England spent on adult education in the financial year 1998–99; [100612]

  (3) what is the level of adult education funding that will be transferred from the budgets of each English local education authority to the Learning and Skills Council in the financial year 2001–02. [100613]

  Mr. Wicks
  In "Learning to Succeed" we set out our intention to give the proposed Learning and Skills Council (LSC) responsibility for adult and community learning from April 2001. We made clear that provided local authorities meet the requirements to prepare and implement effective lifelong learning development plans they can expect to receive from the LSC a substantial part of its resource for adult and community learning.

  Following consideration of the comments received on our proposals we will be announcing shortly more detail of our plans for establishing the LSC, including arrangements for funding adult and community education through that body rather than local authorities.

  Information on local education authority expenditure, including that on adult education, will be available in the new year.

  EU Education Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of the Education Council held in Brussels on 26 November; and if he will make a statement. [100829]

  Mr. Wills
  The Council of EC Education Ministers, at which I represented the UK, adopted a resolution on"developing new working methods for European co-operation in the fields of education and vocational training".

  Ministers then held an open debate on the role of education and vocational training in the new millennium.

  The Council received information from the Presidency on the outcome of conciliation with the European Parliament on the proposal for a second phase of the Socrates education action programme. Information was received from the European Commission on: the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council to establish the European Year of Languages 2001; forthcoming proposals for European Parliament and Council Recommendations on the mobility of students, young trainees, young volunteers, teachers and trainers and on European co-operation in the evaluation of the quality of school education; the role of education and training in implementing the Stability Pact for South-East Europe; the implementation of the Council resolution of 6 May 1996 on educational multimedia in the fields of education and training; and indicators and benchmarks in the field of school quality.

  Ministers received a report from the European Schools High Council on the future of the European Schools and held an exchange of views. The Council also received information from the Portuguese delegation on plans for the Portuguese Presidency of the Council.

  A copy of the Council minutes will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Dance and Drama Awards
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the dance and drama awards for students on further education courses. [101314]

  Mr. Wicks
  Over 830 of the most talented students have been successful at auditions and are now benefiting from the awards while they train at some of the country's leading dance and drama schools. The latest information suggests that the awards have already succeeded in attracting unprecedented numbers of students from families with among the lowest levels of family income. Over 20 per cent. of students are from families with incomes of less than £10,000 per annum.

  The awards provide substantial help with tuition fees and a contribution towards living costs. However, we have recently announced that from next September the level of award paid to students on further education courses and living away from home will increase from a maximum of £2,025 to £4,025. Within these amounts the provision for students' living costs rises from £1,000 to £3,000 per annum (£2,550 outside London). The sums will be targeted in order to provide increased resources to students in greatest need. We have also raised the

  227W
  assessment threshold so that all students with residual family incomes below £17,369 will get the appropriate maximum funding available.

  Pending the introduction of the new rates next year, additional funding of up to £2,000 per student will be paid to students. This will be over and above their current funding for fees and living costs and will be allocated relative to their assessed needs. We plan to make the first additional payments in December.

  School Transport Review
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to announce the results of the review of school transport. [100328]

  Jacqui Smith
  The School Travel Advisory Group is looking into all aspects of school transport. We expect the Group to publish its report early in the new year.

  University Salaries
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the salary scales for university staff; and if he will make a statement. [100710]

  Mr. Wicks
  The pay and conditions of staff in higher education are a matter for the employers not the Government. The Bett Report into higher education pay and conditions, published in June, made a number of recommendations for restructuring the sector's terms and conditions. It will be for the higher education employers to consider how these recommendations can be implemented.

  Barnet Schools
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in each of the last five years, what have been the total number of pupils attending state primary and secondary schools in the Borough of Barnet; what proportion of them have been out-of-borough; and what were the numbers of full-time equivalent teachers. [100218]

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

  Pupils and teachers in Barnet LEA—January each year

  Maintained primary schools

  Maintained secondary schools

  Headcount of pupils

  Full-time equivalent number of teachers

  Headcount of pupils

  Full-time equivalent number of teachers

  1999

  26,441

  1,179.3

  20,437

  1,339.8

  1998

  26,177

  1,172.7

  20,106

  1,322.7

  1997

  25,981

  1,167.3

  19,783

  1,336.0

  1996

  24,809

  1,136.4

  19,437

  1,312.2

  1995

  24,443

  1,107.0

  19,158

  1,290.0

  Hendon-Barnet College Merge
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce his decision on the proposed merger of Hendon and Barnet Colleges. [100852]
  228W
  Mr. Wicks
  No proposal has been received at this stage by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Independent-State School Partnership Scheme
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) applications and (b) successful applications from each region have been made in respect of the Independent/State School Partnership Grant Scheme (1999–2000). [100331]

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

  Applications for independent/state school partnerships grant in 1999–2000

  Region

  Total number of applications1

  Number of successful applications

  Percentage of successful applications2

  North East

  12

  2

  17

  North West and Merseyside

  36

  6

  17

  Yorkshire and Humber

  17

  5

  29

  East Midlands

  13

  3

  23

  West Midlands

  41

  7

  17

  East of England

  31

  9

  29

  London

  31

  9

  29

  South East

  44

  8

  18

  South West

  39

  7

  18

  England

  264

  56

  21

  1 Applications were for one or two year grants, commencing in 1999–2000.

  2 Successful applications as a percentage of total applications in the region.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to extend the Independent/State School Partnership Scheme beyond 2001. [100330]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Independent evaluation of the first year of the scheme was recently carried out by Leeds University School of Education. Their report reinforces our belief that partnerships are contributing to raising standards and increasing educational opportunities for the pupils and staff involved. We therefore intend to encourage independent and maintained schools to work in partnership beyond 2001.

WALES

  Consultants
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money the Welsh Office spent on consultants in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99; and how much is planned to be spent by the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales during this current financial year. [98885]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following figures detail Welsh Office expenditure on consultants in the relevant financial years, running from 1 April to the following 31 March.

  £

  1996–97

  739,363

  1997–98

  1,311,459

  1998–99

  1,836,194

  I do not expect to incur any expenditure on consultants in the current financial year.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the First Secretary of the National Assembly to discuss the financing of the NHS in Wales. [98886]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I are in constant dialogue with the First Secretary and Assembly Secretaries about all important issues affecting Wales, including the funding of the NHS.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Agriculture Secretary about the ban on the sale of beef on the bone. [98888]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am in regular contact with my colleagues in the National Assembly and we discuss a range of issues including all matters relating to agriculture in Wales.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had about the lifting of the beef-on-the-bone ban in Wales. [98893]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have discussed this issue with a number of individuals and organisations.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has held with the First Minister of the National Assembly concerning the ban on beef on the bone. [98894]

  Mr. Hanson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his discussions with MAFF on the beef-on-the-bone ban. [98898]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am in regular contact with my colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales and Whitehall and we discuss a range of topics including matters relating to agriculture in Wales.

  Civil Service Numbers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants his Department employs currently; and if he will make a statement on trends relating to civil service numbers(a) since May 1997 and (b) projected over the next three years. [98889]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department currently employs 35 civil servants, with a further five vacancies. Questions relating to overall civil service numbers should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Children
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the child care and child protection elements of the Government's legislative programme and its impact on Wales. [98891]
  230W
  Mr. Hanson
  The Secretary of State will meet the First Secretary and appropriate officials to discuss these issues as necessary. I have already met the Assembly Secretary Jane Hutt to discuss proposed legislation, including childcare and child protection elements.

  Match Funding
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about including additional money in the block grant for Wales for objective 1 and 2 match funding. [98892]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly when we discuss a number of issues.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received about objective 1 and 2 funding since the beginning of May. [98901]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My predecessor and I have received many representations about Objectives 1 and 2, some of which have referred to funding.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to objective 1 match funding. [98903]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I hold regular meetings with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales. We have discussed a range of issues, including Structural Funds support in Wales, and I am aware of the importance of the issue.

  Special Advisers
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money is currently spent by his Department on special advisers; and how much was spent during(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [98895]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department is currently spending around £90,000 per annum on special advisers. The previous costs were:

  £

  1996/97

  30,964

  1997/98

  95,430

  1998/99

  101,786

  Electoral System
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the operation of the electoral system used in elections to the Welsh Assembly. [98896]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The electoral system used in elections to the Welsh Assembly is provided for in Section 4 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and combines the "first past the post" method for constituency Members with "proportional representation" for additional Members. This ensures that the National Assembly is representative of all parts and interests in Wales.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the impact of the national minimum wage on Wales. [98897]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I met the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last month and we discussed a range of issues. The Government fully recognise the importance of assessing the effect of the introduction of the national minimum wage and they asked the Low Pay Commission to monitor and evaluate the minimum wage's introduction and impact across the UK, with particular reference to the effect on pay and employment. The Commission is due to report later this month.

  Children (Leaving Care) Bill
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has scheduled with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the Children (Leaving Care) Bill outlined in the Queen's Speech. [98900]

  Mr. Hanson
  I will be having discussions with the First Secretary and appropriate officials as and when necessary.

  Transport
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the Government's legislative programme and its impact on transport in Wales. [98904]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly and we discuss a number of issues, including the impact on Wales of the Bills in the Government's legislative programme.

  Forestry
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the protection of forestry in Wales. [98905]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet weekly with the First Secretary of the National Assembly and we discuss a wide range of topics. However, Forestry matters in Wales are a matter for the Forestry Commission which reports direct to the Assembly.

  Block Grant
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the size of the block grant. [98890]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the Assembly First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues.

  Cabinet Committee on Agriculture
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which minister in his Department is a member of the Cabinet Committee on Agriculture. [100102]
  232W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: There is no Cabinet Committee exclusively concerned with agriculture matters. I assume the hon. Member refers to the Rural Affairs Committee (misc 8). This Committee was established to consider rural matters in England. However, I receive the Committee's papers and if these raise issues which are relevant to Wales I will attend the Committee's meetings.

  Farmers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last received a delegation of farmers from Wales. [98883]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  During October I received deputations from the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. On each occasion the meetings were productive and covered a wide range of topics. I am attending the CLA Wales dinner on 1 December.

  Education
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss assistance for education in Wales. [98902]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Secretary of State regularly meets the First Secretary to discuss various issues.

  I have met Tom Middlehurst to discuss aspects of education, and will continue to meet or talk to Mr. Middlehurst on a regular basis.

  Pre-Budget Statement
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the impact on Wales of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-Budget statement. [98887]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the Assembly First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have received from(a) UN organisations and (b) church organisations about continuing UN sanctions and military action against Iraq. [98916]

  The Prime Minister
  We continue to maintain close contacts with all the UN organisations operating in Iraq. There are also regular meetings between officials and representatives of church organisations at which the sanctions regime and our enforcement of the No Fly Zones can be discussed.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 December. [100329]
  233W
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further meetings later today.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the extra costs per pig imposed on pig breeders which arise from animal welfare arrangements in Britain which are not imposed in other EU countries; and if he will provide compensation for these costs. [99292]

  Ms Quin
  No recent estimates have been made but at the time the decision was taken to improve pig animal welfare standards in the UK, it was decided that the costs should not be compensated by the taxpayer. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I do, however, continue to urge purchasers of pigmeat to source to UK welfare and other standards.

  Sterling
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what money is currently available for compensating UK farmers for the problems caused to them by the strength of sterling. [99213]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply to my hon. Friend for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) on 25 November 1999,Official Report, column 740W.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has made to the suggestion by the European Commission representative in the UK that national fishing quotas could be abolished after 2002. [99752]

  Mr. Morley
  None. No member state or the Commission has put forward any such proposals.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed in the fish quota system from 2003, with particular reference to the replacement permit system; and if he will make a statement. [100448]

  Mr. Morley
  No changes have been proposed in the TACs and quotas system under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) nor do I expect any change as a result of the review of the CFP in 2002. The question of replacement permits does not therefore arise.

  Transgenic DNA
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what analysis has been made of the propensity of bacteria in the human mouth and respiratory tracts to take up antibiotic resistance marker genes and other transgenic DNA. [100168]

  Ms Quin
  This issue is carefully considered by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes as part of their rigorous safety assessment of genetically modified (GM) foods. The Committee has published two 234W
  reports on the use of antibiotic resistance markers in GM plants for human food (in July 1994 and July 1996), copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. In addition the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods funds a programme of R&D to underpin the safety assessment process which provides information on this and other issues related to GM foods.

TREASURY

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) in opposition to a reduction in the rate of VAT on energy saving materials in the last year. [100775]

  Mr. Timms
  Treasury and HM Customs and Excise have received a number of representations in favour of a reduced rate of VAT for energy savings materials. They have received none opposing it.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rates of VAT are charged in each of the other European Union countries on(a) energy saving materials and (b) domestic fuel. [100776]

  Mr. Timms
  The VAT rates given in the table apply to fuel put to both domestic and business use in other Member states. Only the UK has a different VAT rate for fuel put to domestic use.

  Percentage

  (a)

  (b)

  Member state

  Energy saving materials

  Fuel and power

  Austria

  20

  110, 20

  Belgium

  21

  212, 21

  Denmark

  25

  25

  Finland

  22

  22

  France

  20.6

  20.6

  Germany

  16

  16

  Greece

  18

  38, 18

  Ireland

  21

  12.5

  Italy

  20

  10

  Luxembourg

  15

  46, 12

  Netherlands

  17.5

  17.5

  Portugal

  17

  6,55,17

  Spain

  16

  16

  Sweden

  25

  25

  UK

  65, 17.5

  75, 17.5

  1 The reduced rate applies to supplies of wood.

  2 The reduced rate applies to supplies of coal and peat.

  3 The reduced rate applies to supplies of wood.

  4 The 6 per cent. rate applies to gas and electricity; wood, oil and coal are 12 per cent.

  5 5 per cent. applies to electricity and oil.

  6 For energy saving materials installed under a Government funded grant scheme.

  7 5 per cent. applies to supplies of fuel and power for domestic and charitable use.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken in the last year to pursue with other European Union countries a wider reduction in the rate of VAT charged on energy saving materials. [100773]

  Mr. Timms
  There have been no discussions within the last year.
  235W
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the employment implications of reducing the rate of VAT on energy saving materials. [100774]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which European Union countries which have varied the rate of VAT charged on energy saving materials since May 1997, indicating the change to the rate charged; and what representations he has made to(a) the European Commission and (b) other bodies on these changes. [100771]

  Mr. Timms
  No other EU Governments have varied the rate of VAT charged on energy saving materials since May 1997.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the European Commission regarding the reduction of VAT on energy saving materials in France. [100772]

  Mr. Timms
  None. The French reduced rate is for the renovation and repair of private dwellings, under a European Commission initiative permitting experimental reduced VAT rates. It does not cover DIY energy saving materials, since the experimental reduced rate may only be applied to services.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reduction of VAT on energy saving materials in(a) France and (b) Italy; and what plans he has for similar reductions in the United Kingdom. [100601]

  Mr. Timms
  There have been no reductions in VAT on energy saving materials in France or Italy. France has announced a reduced rate for the repair and renovation of private dwellings under the optional experimental scheme covered by Annex K of the EU's Sixth VAT Directive. Italy has made an application to the Commission to do the same.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce VAT on energy saving materials to 5 per cent. [100603]

  Mr. Timms
  This Government have already reduced to 5 per cent. the VAT rate applicable to grant-funded installation of energy saving materials in the homes of the less well off. EC VAT law does not allow the UK to apply a reduced VAT rate to sales of energy saving materials for DIY installation.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Inland Revenue of providing the support for small firms' payroll operations outlined in the Inland Revenue press release of 11 November. [100740]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The support announced on 11 November builds on existing extensive assistance for small firms and is estimated to cost up to £40 million over the next three years.

  EU Contributions
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the net and gross contributions by the United Kingdom to the EU in 1997 and 1998, indicating the source of the date. [100621]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested can be found in Table 3 of the Government's White Paper "European Community Finances" (Cm 4382).

  Registrars' Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what consultations he has had with representatives of the Muslim and Jewish communities about the provision of registrars' services between Christmas and the end of the Millennium holiday; [100584]

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure adequate provision of registrars' services during the period between Christmas and the end of the Millennium holiday. [100585]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The provision of special facilities such as for members of the Muslim and Jewish communities is a matter for the Proper Officer for Registration Matters in each local authority in agreement with the registrars.

  The Registrar General's standing instructions will apply as they do every Christmas and New Year period. If the Registrar's Office is shut for two or more consecutive days, or if special facilities such as those for the Jewish and Muslim communities are provided in the area, there will be a notice explaining what arrangements have been made to deal with urgent matters. Proper Officers have been asked to publicise the availability of the service over the Christmas and New Year period. The Registrar General has advised the Proper Officer for Registration Matters in each local authority that an emergency service will be needed for death informants on 30 December 1999 and 4 January 2000.

  Tax Havens
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of income lost to the Treasury as a result of the use of off-shore tax havens. [100851]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available.

  Personal Service Companies
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many personal service companies currently pay tax and national insurance; what was the yield of tax and national insurance from those companies; and what methodology was employed to calculate the current estimated shortfall of tax and national insurance receipts from personal service companies, in the current financial year. [100511]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available information is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill published in October 1999. Estimates of the yield from the proposed measure to stop avoidance of tax and National Insurance Contributions using personal service companies were included in the Financial Statement and Budget Report published on Budget Day in March 1999.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the quantifiable effect of tax changes made since May 1997 on(a) the UK economy, (b) business activity and (c) Treasury receipts and payments. [100515]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The revenue effects of the last three Budgets were published in table 2.2 of the July 1997 Financial Statement and Budget Report, and table 1.3 of the March 1998 and March 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Reports. Developments and prospects in the economy are shown in Chapter 3 of the July 1997 Financial Statement and Budget Report, and Annex A of the March 1998 and March 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Reports.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which changes to the tax system since May 1997(a) have required primary legislation, (b) have been achieved by secondary legislation and (c) have been required as a result of European or other international agreements. [100514]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The answer is as follows:

  (a) Tax changes requiring primary legislation since May 1997 were included in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 Finance Bills. In addition, changes to various taxes were included in the following Acts: Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, CDC Act 1999, Tax Credits Act 1999, Access to Justice Act 1999, Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions) Act 1999, Welfare Reform Act 1999, Employment Relations Act 1999 (NMW) and Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997.

  (b) A full list of tax changes made by secondary legislation is available in the House of Commons Library.

  (c) Changes to the tax system which have been required as a result of European or other international agreements are as follows:

  888/98/EC FISCALIS—Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing (and funding) a programme of Community action to improve indirect taxation systems of the internal market.

  98/80/EC Amending directive 77/388/EEC—A special scheme for investment in gold.

  99/49/EC Amending directive 77/388/EEC—Provides for continuation of the minimum standard rate of VAT throughout the EC.

  99/59/EC Amending directive 77/388/EEC—in respect of VAT arrangements for telecommunication services.

  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the instructions to Parliamentary Counsel to date for the drafting of the Financial Services and Markets Bill. [101133]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No. Drafting instructions represent only the beginning of the drafting process. The Government have published explanatory notes on the Bill, and Ministers explain the Government's policy in the course of Parliamentary proceedings.

  Tax Credit
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in(a) Shrewsbury and
  238W
  Atcham and (b) Shropshire will benefit from the new research and development tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [101127]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the status is of the recent letter from the Benefits Agency to weekly recipients of Child Benefit encouraging them to opt for payment by automated credit transfers; and if he will write to all those who opted for automated credit transfer as a result of this letter to remind them of their continued option of payment through a post office. [99565]

  Mr. Rooker
  Letters have been issued to some Child Benefit customers who are currently receiving their benefit on a weekly basis where it appears that they, in fact, should have been paid four weekly. We are obliged to pay people at the frequencies set out in relevant legislation and we must put this right when errors are discovered. Child Benefit is a four weekly benefit except in certain circumstances. It is not normally a weekly benefit.

  The letter explained that their Child Benefit would, when their current order book expired, be paid on a four weekly basis unless the customer contended that this would cause particular hardship.

  As with all Departmental literature which refers to methods of payment, the letter explains to customers that they can receive benefits directly into their bank account by automated credit transfer (ACT). The wording in the letter has been in use since 1994 and is consistent with the words used in claim packs for benefit and advice pages contained in benefit order books.

  The exercise that resulted in letters being issued to some Child Benefit customers has been completed. There are no plans to issue any further letters to these customers.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are(a) the annual costs of the production and distribution of order books and (b) his estimate of the annual running costs if printed order books are replaced by benefit payment cards. [99567]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The total annual cost of the production and distribution of order books and girocheques is £45,068,487. Order books will not be replaced by benefit payment cards pursuant to the answer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 24 May 1999, Official Report, column 21W.

  Post Office
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the principal activities of his Department and its agencies which provide business for(a) Crown post offices and (b) other post offices; if he will assess whether the level of business generated in each

  239W
  case is likely to increase or decrease over the next five years; and which new areas of business for post offices are likely to be developed by his Department and its agencies over the same period; [99555]

  (2) what the policy of the Benefits Agency is on encouraging the replacement of benefit payments to post offices by automated credit transfers prior to 2003. [99564]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our principal activity, which provides business for Post Office Counters Ltd. (POCL), is the encashment of pensions and allowances (together with supporting administration and accounting functions). This activity is fully available in both Crown and other post offices.

  Current trends indicate a decline in this activity between now and 2003. This is due to the reduction in the number of people generally depending on benefit and the steady growth in customer preference for payment direct to bank accounts. From 2003 ACT will become the normal way of paying benefits and, as a result, the rate of decline in current order book and girocheque activity on behalf of the Department will accelerate.

  It is envisaged that the migration of benefit recipients from paper based methods of payment to more efficient and secure payment direct to bank accounts will take place over a two year period from 2003 to 2005. Between now and 2003 the Department will work with POCL to ensure that a wide range of banking services are available over post office counters.

  Officials from the Department have already met with representatives from the Post Office to discuss the mutual development of strategies which will ensure that benefit recipients continue to have access to cash at post office counters.

  Currently order book and girocheque pay 65 per cent. of all benefit customers.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been spent by his Department on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) his Department's programme provision and (ii) his Department's running costs. [99492]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: The Department's programme provision funds benefit payments only.

  Information in respect of the Department's expenditure on consultants is in the table.

  Departmental expenditure on consultants

  £ million

  Financial year

  Expenditure on management consultants

  Expenditure on IT consultants

  Total expenditure

  April 1997 to March 1998

  11.6

  8.3

  19.9

  April 1998 to March 1999

  13.0

  14.2

  27.2

  April 1999 to October 1999

  13.1

  5.6

  18.7

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest 100,000.

  2. The expenditure has been incurred on a number of major IT and change initiatives.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of claimants expressed as a percentage of all claimants had their disability living allowance withdrawn in(a) the Vale of Glamorgan, (b) Wales and (c) the UK in (i) June, July and August 1998 and (ii) June, July and August 1999. [100164]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Norman Haighton to Mr. John Smith, dated 30 November 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. As he is unavailable I am replying on his behalf. You asked how many and what proportion of claimants, expressed as a percentage of all claimants, had their Disability Living Allowance withdrawn in (a) the Vale of Glamorgan, (b) Wales and (c) the UK in (i) June, July and August 1998 and (ii) June, July and August 1999.
  I should explain that we do not keep data specific to the Vale of Glamorgan, and to provide such information routinely would incur high costs.
  The Department of Social Security administers benefits for Great Britain only (i.e. England, Scotland, and Wales). Northern Ireland benefits are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The information that is available for Wales and Great Britain is set out in the attached table.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  June 1998

  July 1998

  August 1998

  Wales

  Entitlement withdrawn

  56

  60

  45

  Total decisions made in month

  1,881

  1,946

  1,710

  Percentage withdrawn against total decisions made

  2.98

  3.08

  2.63

  Great Britain

  Entitlement withdrawn

  4,298

  4,605

  3,406

  Total decisions made in month

  46,859

  47,566

  40,051

  Percentage withdrawn against total decisions made

  9.17

  9.68

  8.50

  June 1999

  July 1999

  August 1999

  Wales

  Entitlement withdrawn

  43

  47

  48

  Total decisions made in month

  2,129

  2,482

  1,905

  Percentage withdrawn against total decisions made

  2.02

  1.89

  2.52

  Great Britain

  Entitlement withdrawn

  3,733

  3,838

  3,750

  Total decisions made in month

  46,174

  49,870

  45,286

  Percentage withdrawn against total decisions made

  8.08

  7.70

  8.28

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the performance of CSL in relation to the administration of housing and council tax benefits. [100227]
  241W
  Angela Eagle
  Taunton Deane Borough Council has informed the Department about the level of CSL's performance in their area. The Authority is closely monitoring the situation and has established a clear path forward to secure improvements in the level of CSL's performance. The Authority will keep the Department informed of all significant developments.

HEALTH

  Nursing Statistics
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses, (b) community

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): All Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, per 1,000 population, by Health Authority, in England as at 30 September 1997

  whole-time equivalent per 1,000 population

  Total Nursing, midwifery and health visiting

  Total Nurses

  Registered Midwife

  Health Visitor

  District Nurse

  Community Psychiatric Nurse

  England Total

  6.91

  6.34

  0.37

  0.20

  0.23

  0.22

  Avon

  5.83

  5.29

  0.35

  0.17

  0.19

  0.12

  Barking and Havering

  6.67

  6.20

  0.29

  0.18

  0.13

  0.23

  Barnet

  5.52

  5.06

  0.31

  0.19

  0.22

  1.05

  Barnsley

  6.77

  6.11

  0.40

  0.26

  0.18

  0.18

  Bedfordshire

  5.18

  4.65

  0.33

  0.20

  0.20

  0.09

  Berkshire

  5.64

  5.12

  0.31

  0.21

  0.25

  0.11

  Bexley and Greenwich

  5.85

  5.18

  0.42

  0.26

  0.39

  0.21

  Birmingham

  10.06

  9.29

  0.58

  0.21

  0.35

  0.19

  Bradford

  6.98

  6.17

  0.54

  0.27

  0.21

  0.23

  Brent and Harrow

  5.30

  4.84

  0.28

  0.17

  0.13

  0.11

  Bromley

  6.75

  6.28

  0.27

  0.17

  0.17

  0.84

  Buckinghamshire

  5.15

  4.60

  0.31

  0.24

  0.21

  0.25

  Bury and Rochdale

  5.88

  5.16

  0.49

  0.21

  0.33

  0.13

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  6.25

  5.63

  0.40

  0.22

  0.19

  0.15

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  5.27

  4.92

  0.26

  0.09

  0.15

  0.15

  Camden and Islington

  17.63

  16.97

  0.38

  0.27

  0.11

  0.27

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5.89

  5.31

  0.37

  0.21

  0.12

  0.27

  County Durham

  6.10

  5.74

  0.28

  0.10

  0.12

  0.10

  Coventry

  7.82

  7.19

  0.46

  0.16

  0.16

  0.03

  Croydon

  5.66

  4.95

  0.42

  0.30

  0.15

  1—

  Doncaster

  7.68

  6.96

  0.45

  0.24

  0.17

  0.14

  Dorset

  7.64

  7.16

  0.26

  0.22

  0.19

  0.19

  Dudley

  5.81

  5.30

  0.39

  0.16

  0.19

  0.16

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  4.19

  3.74

  0.24

  0.23

  0.23

  0.12

  East and North Hertfordshire

  3.75

  3.27

  0.30

  0.18

  0.14

  0.12

  East Kent

  5.82

  5.45

  0.28

  0.08

  0.08

  1.02

  East Lancashire

  8.92

  8.16

  0.47

  0.29

  0.31

  0.16

  East London and The City

  8.01

  7.17

  0.58

  0.26

  0.28

  0.13

  East Norfolk

  6.63

  6.26

  0.24

  0.13

  0.21

  0.18

  East Riding

  6.68

  6.12

  0.38

  0.17

  0.17

  0.80

  East Surrey

  6.41

  5.98

  0.26

  0.17

  0.17

  0.17

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  6.33

  5.98

  0.15

  0.20

  0.28

  0.41

  Enfield and Haringey

  5.75

  5.20

  0.39

  0.14

  0.19

  0.21

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  6.95

  6.30

  0.39

  0.25

  0.34

  0.17

  Gloucestershire

  6.99

  6.42

  0.34

  0.21

  0.25

  0.20

  Herefordshire

  6.62

  6.08

  0.36

  0.18

  0.30

  0.18

  Hillingdon

  7.30

  6.45

  0.84

  1—

  1—

  0.16

  Isle of Wight

  7.39

  6.75

  0.40

  0.16

  0.32

  0.32

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  16.87

  15.81

  0.61

  0.45

  0.43

  0.43

  Kingston and Richmond

  1.55

  1.46

  1—

  0.12

  0.09

  0.06

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  8.25

  7.58

  0.43

  0.23

  0.31

  0.05

  Leeds

  7.95

  7.42

  0.32

  0.19

  0.14

  0.14

  Leicestershire

  6.87

  6.35

  0.32

  0.19

  0.14

  0.48

  Lincolnshire

  5.49

  5.10

  0.21

  0.18

  0.21

  0.18

  Liverpool

  9.90

  9.21

  0.41

  0.28

  0.28

  0.15

  242W
  psychiatric nurses, (c) district nurses, (d) health visitors and (e) midwives there are per capita in each health authority area; and what was the total health spending per capita in each area in (i) the last year for which figures are available and (ii) 1997. [99912]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 19 October 1999,Official Report, columns 473–75W on the health spending per capita per health authority area. Data on the numbers of nurses, community psychiatric nurses, district nurses, health visitors and midwives per capita in each health authority area are shown in the tables.
  243W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): All Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, per 1,000 population, by Health Authority, in England as at 30 September 1997

  whole-time equivalent per 1,000 population

  Total Nursing, midwifery and health visiting

  Total Nurses

  Registered Midwife

  Health Visitor

  District Nurse

  Community Psychiatric Nurse

  Manchester

  14.36

  13.26

  0.87

  0.21

  0.30

  0.28

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  9.91

  9.02

  0.58

  0.32

  0.32

  0.26

  Morecambe Bay

  8.06

  7.58

  0.29

  0.19

  0.39

  0.19

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  11.29

  10.53

  0.55

  0.21

  0.25

  0.15

  North and East Devon

  7.39

  6.85

  0.38

  0.17

  0.29

  0.21

  North and Mid Hampshire

  4.58

  4.13

  0.31

  0.14

  0.20

  0.13

  North Cheshire

  6.00

  5.26

  0.38

  0.32

  0.45

  0.22

  North Cumbria

  6.36

  5.86

  0.38

  0.16

  0.25

  0.13

  North Derbyshire

  6.29

  5.81

  0.27

  0.22

  0.19

  0.11

  North Essex

  6.80

  6.32

  0.31

  0.16

  0.28

  0.20

  North Nottinghamshire

  6.02

  5.56

  0.31

  0.18

  0.15

  0.33

  North Staffordshire

  7.61

  7.01

  0.38

  0.21

  0.38

  0.17

  North West Anglia

  9.11

  8.60

  0.29

  0.22

  0.32

  0.17

  North West Lancashire

  8.90

  8.06

  0.58

  0.28

  0.24

  0.24

  North Yorkshire

  5.48

  4.98

  0.33

  0.18

  0.28

  0.12

  Northamptonshire

  5.37

  4.82

  0.34

  0.21

  0.23

  0.13

  Northumberland

  8.65

  8.16

  0.23

  0.26

  0.26

  0.45

  Nottingham

  8.04

  7.37

  0.45

  0.22

  0.37

  0.36

  Oxfordshire

  7.42

  6.83

  0.36

  0.21

  0.16

  0.20

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  4.85

  4.28

  0.39

  0.18

  0.24

  0.24

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  5.98

  5.45

  0.42

  0.11

  0.27

  0.22

  Rotherham

  7.37

  6.82

  0.35

  0.24

  0.20

  0.16

  Salford and Trafford

  9.43

  8.74

  0.45

  0.25

  0.38

  0.22

  Sandwell

  5.15

  4.64

  0.31

  0.21

  0.21

  0.14

  Sefton

  8.48

  8.00

  0.48

  0.03

  0.07

  0.24

  Sheffield

  10.18

  9.56

  0.43

  0.19

  0.15

  0.13

  Shropshire

  5.16

  4.59

  0.35

  0.21

  0.38

  0.14

  Solihull

  1.90

  1.71

  1—

  0.20

  0.24

  0.15

  Somerset

  4.77

  4.34

  0.31

  0.12

  0.18

  1—

  South and West Devon

  7.16

  6.53

  0.41

  0.22

  0.22

  0.19

  South Cheshire

  4.49

  4.00

  0.37

  0.12

  0.25

  0.09

  South Derbyshire

  4.54

  4.18

  0.21

  0.16

  0.17

  0.11

  South Essex

  6.46

  5.95

  0.32

  0.20

  0.28

  0.16

  South Humber

  6.36

  5.68

  0.45

  0.23

  0.23

  0.13

  South Lancashire

  5.41

  4.83

  0.29

  0.29

  0.35

  0.23

  South Staffordshire

  5.00

  4.46

  0.31

  0.24

  0.08

  0.20

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  7.21

  6.71

  0.31

  0.19

  0.15

  0.11

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  5.65

  5.16

  0.27

  0.21

  0.18

  0.27

  Stockport

  12.55

  10.87

  1.03

  0.65

  0.72

  0.24

  Suffolk

  6.36

  5.88

  0.27

  0.21

  0.26

  0.20

  Sunderland

  8.06

  7.44

  0.38

  0.24

  0.34

  0.17

  Tees

  8.02

  7.38

  0.38

  0.25

  0.27

  0.14

  Wakefield

  8.10

  7.44

  0.44

  0.22

  0.22

  0.54

  Walsall

  5.73

  5.04

  0.46

  0.19

  0.34

  0.23

  Warwickshire

  4.57

  4.09

  0.34

  0.12

  0.18

  0.12

  West Hertfordshire

  4.22

  3.84

  0.19

  0.19

  0.11

  0.59

  West Kent

  5.86

  5.28

  0.39

  0.19

  0.21

  0.14

  West Pennine

  6.09

  5.50

  0.36

  0.25

  0.23

  0.19

  West Surrey

  6.17

  5.78

  0.17

  0.23

  0.23

  0.27

  West Sussex

  5.85

  5.37

  0.28

  0.20

  0.24

  0.13

  Wigan and Bolton

  3.18

  2.76

  0.31

  0.10

  0.09

  0.10

  Wiltshire

  9.03

  8.23

  0.55

  0.25

  0.23

  0.18

  Wirral

  8.69

  7.96

  0.46

  0.24

  0.21

  0.27

  Wolverhampton

  7.76

  7.14

  0.41

  0.25

  0.21

  0.17

  Worcester and District

  6.68

  6.01

  0.39

  0.26

  0.34

  0.24

  1 less than 0.01 per 1,000 population

  Notes:

  Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  Total Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff figure includes Practice nurses.

  Total Nurses figure include Practice nurses.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census
  244W 245W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): All Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, per 1,000 population, by Health Authority, in England as at 30 September 1998

  whole-time equivalent per 1,000 population

  Total Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Total Nurses

  Registered Midwife

  Health Visitor

  District Nurse

  Community Psychiatric Nurse

  England Total

  6.92

  6.35

  0.37

  0.20

  0.23

  0.23

  Avon

  5.91

  5.43

  0.32

  0.16

  0.18

  0.12

  Barking and Havering

  6.54

  6.04

  0.31

  0.18

  0.13

  0.36

  Barnet

  5.37

  4.92

  0.27

  0.15

  0.21

  0.87

  Barnsley

  6.88

  6.23

  0.35

  0.26

  0.18

  0.22

  Bedfordshire

  5.26

  4.71

  0.34

  0.22

  0.18

  0.13

  Berkshire

  5.64

  5.09

  0.35

  0.20

  0.22

  0.11

  Bexley and Greenwich

  5.89

  5.20

  0.46

  0.23

  0.35

  0.49

  Birmingham

  10.52

  9.65

  0.65

  0.22

  0.37

  0.21

  Bradford

  7.16

  6.35

  0.52

  0.27

  0.21

  0.25

  Brent and Harrow

  5.45

  4.95

  0.32

  0.17

  0.13

  0.11

  Bromley

  6.56

  6.06

  0.27

  0.24

  0.20

  0.81

  Buckinghamshire

  5.25

  4.74

  0.34

  0.19

  0.15

  0.21

  Bury and Rochdale

  5.98

  5.29

  0.49

  0.20

  0.36

  0.13

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  6.39

  5.79

  0.39

  0.22

  0.31

  0.22

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  5.24

  4.89

  0.26

  0.09

  0.13

  0.15

  Camden and Islington

  17.25

  16.65

  0.35

  0.24

  0.11

  0.24

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5.59

  5.02

  0.35

  0.20

  0.12

  0.35

  County Durham

  5.84

  5.40

  0.30

  0.15

  0.30

  0.07

  Coventry

  9.13

  8.48

  0.53

  0.16

  0.16

  0.03

  Croydon

  5.41

  5.03

  0.12

  0.27

  0.15

  1—

  Doncaster

  7.92

  7.20

  0.45

  0.24

  0.21

  0.14

  Dorset

  7.48

  7.00

  0.27

  0.20

  0.19

  0.19

  Dudley

  5.97

  5.46

  0.35

  0.16

  0.16

  0.19

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  4.53

  4.10

  0.22

  0.21

  0.25

  0.19

  East and North Hertfordshire

  3.90

  3.40

  0.30

  0.18

  0.14

  0.10

  East Kent

  5.99

  5.56

  0.25

  0.20

  0.37

  0.37

  East Lancashire

  8.65

  7.88

  0.47

  0.29

  0.29

  0.18

  East London and The City

  7.95

  7.20

  0.57

  0.20

  0.20

  0.11

  East Norfolk

  6.67

  6.29

  0.25

  0.13

  0.22

  0.19

  East Riding

  6.67

  6.13

  0.37

  0.17

  0.17

  0.82

  East Surrey

  7.83

  7.22

  0.38

  0.24

  0.21

  0.19

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  6.26

  5.93

  0.15

  0.17

  0.29

  0.54

  Enfield and Haringey

  5.67

  5.16

  0.39

  0.14

  0.19

  0.19

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  7.19

  6.54

  0.40

  0.25

  0.34

  0.34

  Gloucestershire

  7.14

  6.57

  0.36

  0.23

  0.22

  0.34

  Herefordshire

  6.43

  5.90

  0.30

  0.24

  0.30

  0.18

  Hillingdon

  5.73

  5.02

  0.72

  1—

  1—

  0.16

  Isle of Wight

  7.95

  7.40

  0.39

  0.16

  0.39

  0.39

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  16.30

  15.25

  0.64

  0.41

  0.38

  0.38

  Kingston and Richmond

  2.31

  2.19

  1—

  0.12

  0.09

  0.06

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  8.68

  7.85

  0.48

  0.36

  0.47

  0.25

  Leeds

  7.70

  7.18

  0.33

  0.19

  0.12

  0.14

  Leicestershire

  6.61

  6.12

  0.32

  0.17

  0.12

  0.33

  Lincolnshire

  5.81

  5.34

  0.29

  0.18

  0.22

  0.16

  Liverpool

  10.10

  9.43

  0.39

  0.28

  0.30

  0.15

  Manchester

  14.10

  13.08

  0.81

  0.23

  0.30

  0.28

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  8.48

  7.58

  0.59

  0.32

  0.19

  0.16

  Morecambe Bay

  8.54

  8.06

  0.29

  0.19

  0.35

  0.48

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  8.83

  8.40

  0.32

  0.11

  0.13

  0.11

  North and East Devon

  7.64

  7.07

  0.40

  0.17

  0.31

  0.23

  North and Mid Hampshire

  4.51

  4.09

  0.29

  0.13

  0.18

  0.20

  North Cheshire

  6.41

  5.64

  0.42

  0.35

  0.42

  0.22

  North Cumbria

  6.42

  5.92

  0.34

  0.16

  0.22

  0.13

  North Derbyshire

  6.24

  5.73

  0.27

  0.24

  0.24

  0.16

  North Essex

  6.84

  6.39

  0.30

  0.17

  0.29

  0.22

  North Nottinghamshire

  6.09

  5.63

  0.28

  0.18

  0.15

  0.33

  North Staffordshire

  7.89

  7.29

  0.38

  0.21

  0.43

  0.32

  North West Anglia

  9.32

  8.58

  0.48

  0.24

  0.29

  0.22

  North West Lancashire

  9.05

  8.19

  0.60

  0.28

  0.24

  0.24

  North Yorkshire

  4.93

  4.51

  0.28

  0.15

  0.24

  0.07

  Northamptonshire

  5.39

  4.84

  0.36

  0.19

  0.23

  0.13

  Northumberland

  12.11

  11.24

  0.45

  0.39

  0.42

  0.42

  Nottingham

  8.00

  7.33

  0.47

  0.20

  0.37

  0.26

  Oxfordshire

  7.10

  6.53

  0.36

  0.21

  0.16

  0.19

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  5.05

  4.48

  0.39

  0.17

  0.13

  0.24

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  5.78

  5.16

  0.44

  0.18

  0.20

  0.20

  246W 247W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): All Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, per 1,000 population, by Health Authority, in England as at 30 September 1998

  whole-time equivalent per 1,000 population

  Total Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Total Nurses

  Registered Midwife

  Health Visitor

  District Nurse

  Community Psychiatric Nurse

  Rotherham

  7.51

  6.92

  0.35

  0.24

  0.20

  0.16

  Salford and Trafford

  9.39

  8.67

  0.45

  0.25

  0.34

  0.25

  Sandwell

  5.40

  4.89

  0.31

  0.24

  0.24

  0.21

  Sefton

  8.62

  8.13

  0.45

  0.03

  0.07

  0.31

  Sheffield

  10.20

  9.56

  0.43

  0.21

  0.15

  0.15

  Shropshire

  5.32

  4.72

  0.37

  0.23

  0.37

  0.16

  Solihull

  1.85

  1.65

  1—

  0.19

  0.24

  0.39

  Somerset

  4.72

  4.27

  0.33

  0.12

  0.16

  1—

  South and West Devon

  7.30

  6.67

  0.41

  0.20

  0.17

  0.31

  South Cheshire

  4.49

  4.00

  0.37

  0.12

  0.27

  0.09

  South Derbyshire

  4.60

  4.23

  0.21

  0.16

  0.24

  0.11

  South Essex

  6.40

  5.94

  0.28

  0.18

  0.28

  0.14

  South Humber

  6.58

  5.93

  0.45

  0.19

  0.23

  0.13

  South Lancashire

  5.21

  4.64

  0.29

  0.29

  0.32

  0.22

  South Staffordshire

  5.13

  4.63

  0.29

  0.22

  0.10

  0.29

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  7.21

  6.73

  0.30

  0.18

  0.13

  0.13

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  5.59

  5.11

  0.24

  0.21

  0.15

  0.27

  Stockport

  12.77

  11.20

  0.89

  0.65

  0.72

  0.27

  Suffolk

  6.35

  5.89

  0.27

  0.19

  0.22

  0.19

  Sunderland

  8.28

  7.66

  0.41

  0.21

  0.31

  0.21

  Tees

  8.54

  7.89

  0.38

  0.27

  0.25

  0.23

  Wakefield

  8.31

  7.68

  0.41

  0.22

  0.19

  0.56

  Walsall

  5.93

  5.21

  0.50

  0.19

  0.34

  0.23

  Warwickshire

  3.79

  3.39

  0.30

  0.10

  0.14

  0.08

  West Hertfordshire

  4.14

  3.76

  0.17

  0.19

  0.13

  0.66

  West Kent

  5.70

  5.17

  0.35

  0.18

  0.24

  0.26

  West Pennine

  6.23

  5.66

  0.32

  0.25

  0.21

  0.19

  West Surrey

  6.28

  5.74

  0.31

  0.22

  0.22

  0.25

  West Sussex

  4.77

  4.40

  0.24

  0.15

  0.19

  0.09

  Wigan and Bolton

  3.18

  2.79

  0.28

  0.10

  0.09

  0.12

  Wiltshire

  8.75

  7.96

  0.54

  0.25

  0.21

  0.18

  Wirral

  8.80

  8.16

  0.46

  0.18

  0.18

  0.24

  Wolverhampton

  8.03

  7.16

  0.62

  0.25

  0.21

  0.17

  Worcester and District

  7.13

  6.43

  0.41

  0.30

  0.35

  0.32

  1 less than 0.01 per 1,000 population

  Notes:

  Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  Total Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff figure includes Practice nurses.

  Total Nurses figure includes Practice nurses.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of community pharmacies expected to close during the year 2000. [99882]

  Ms Stuart
  During 1998–99 (the last year for which figures are available), 46 pharmacies opened in England to dispense National Health Service prescriptions and 51 closed. No estimate has been made of the number likely to close during 2000.

  NHS Hospital Employees
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of nurses working in NHS hospitals on 2 November were(a) supplied by agencies and (b) employed on short-term fixed-length contracts. [99874]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were tracked for the purposes of charging to primary care group budgets during the first six months of operation of primary care groups; and how many invoices were issued by NHS trusts and health authorities to other NHS bodies during the last six months of the period in which the fundholding and extra-contractual referrals systems were in operation. [99896]

  Ms Stuart
  The Prescription Pricing Authority estimates that it will charge the cost of some 255 million prescriptions against Primary Care Group prescribing budgets for the six-month period April to September 1999.

  The Department does not hold information centrally on the number of invoices issued by National Health Service

  249W
  trusts and health authorities to other NHS bodies during the last six months of the period in which the fundholding and extra-contractual referrals systems were in operation.

  National Screening Committee
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the reports of the National Screening Committee inquiries into(a) diabetic screening, (b) pre-natal screening for cystic fibrosis and (c) neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis. [100013]

  Mr. Denham
  Copies of the National Screening Committee's workshop papers and the Health Technology Assessment report on screening for cystic fibrosis have been placed in the Library. The Library will also have copies of the National Screening Committee's workshop papers on diabetic retinopathy screening. These can also be viewed online at http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/screening/diabetic-retinopathy/. The National Screening Committee will consider proposals for screening for type II diabetes, which results from a relative deficiency of, or insensitivity to insulin, later next year.

  Intensive Care Units
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on increasing the recruitment of doctors as specialists in intensive care units to allow them to work consecutive days in the week, as recommended in the Audit Commission's report, "Critical to Success". [100195]

  Mr. Denham
  We are currently carrying out a national review of intensive care services, which will lead to the publication of national standards of care. The review will take account of the range of findings in the Audit Commission's report "Critical to Success", including their findings on the arrangement for medical staffing of intensive care units.

  It will be for National Health Service trusts and health authorities, who are responsible for the quality of the services they provide, to determine the number, grade and mix of staff they will require to provide those services. Intensive care medicine became a separate specialty from anaesthetics in June this year. At national level we have been reviewing the numbers of higher specialist training opportunities in both specialties together. We are satisfied that currently, there are enough trainees entering intensive care medicine, for there to be sufficient qualifying for consultant posts over the next few years. We will be reviewing the position in intensive care medicine again next year.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-patients not yet seen for a first outpatient appointment following GP written referral had been waiting(a) longer than 13 weeks and (b) longer than 26 weeks at the end of each quarter since June 1996 in the NHS London Region. [100282]
  250W
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is in the table:

  Outpatient figures for London Region

  Not yet seen:

  Year ending

  13–25 weeks

  26 weeks plus

  June 1996

  31,626

  12,585

  September 1996

  35,549

  12,279

  December 1996

  34,764

  13,744

  March 1997

  30,784

  15,057

  June 1997

  36,185

  15,054

  September 1997

  44,355

  15,819

  December 1997

  43,740

  18,101

  March 1998

  39,744

  25,954

  June 1998

  47,266

  16,759

  September 1998

  54,967

  19,383

  December 1998

  57,406

  24,267

  March 1999

  53,406

  27,949

  June 1999

  58,029

  24,315

  September 1999

  60,451

  21,857

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking in response to the report published by MIND in November into social exclusion among people with mental illness. [100642]

  Mr. Hutton
  We welcome the report as a contribution to the debate on social exclusion. The Government have a full programme for tackling the social exclusion of those with mental health problems. Many of the issues in the Inquiry's recommendations are being tackled through the work of the Government's Social Exclusion Unit; the Department's "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" revised guidance on the streamlined Care Programme Approach; Review of the Mental Health Act 1983; Impact Strategy to reduce stigma, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and Department for Education and Employment/ Department of Social Security initiatives on promoting employment and benefit reforms.

  Independent Healthcare Report
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the Health Committee's Fifth report of Session 1998–99 on Regulation of Private and Other Independent Healthcare (HC 281); and if he will make a statement. [101281]

  Ms Stuart
  On Friday 3 December the Government will publish their reply to this Report and will also publish "Regulating Private and Voluntary Healthcare: The Way Forward" which sets out the response to our consultation on this subject and our proposals for action. Copies of the documents will be available in the Library on 3 December.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications for xenotransplantation clinical trials have been received and from which companies; how many involve(a) transgenic tissue and (b) transgenic organs; from which animals these materials come; and for each category how many permissions have been granted. [100704]
  251W
  Mr. Denham
  To date, the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) has received one application which complies with the requirements set out in "Guidance on making proposals to conduct xenotransplantation on human subjects". Following initial consideration by the UKXIRA, the applicant subsequently advised the authority of their intention not to pursue the application. Two other applicants have been advised to re-submit their applications in accordance with the requirements described in the guidance.

  Details of applications submitted to the UKXIRA are supplied in confidence. An announcement will be made if an application is approved.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been committed to research and development of the use of organs from GM pigs. [100706]

  Mr. Denham
  The Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant in aid from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has funded two projects related to xenotransplantation:

  Between 1993 and 1998, £500,000 was allocated to: "Germ Line modification of pig organs for human transplantation" conducted by the BBSRC Babraham Institute.

  In 1998–99, £50,000 was allocated to: "Endogenous retroviruses of pigs and xenotransplantation" conducted by the Institute of Cancer Research and the MRC National Institute for Medical Research.

  The Department is directly funding a further project. In 1999–2000, £149,000 was allocated to: "An investigation into the ability of porcine endogenous retroviruses to infect animals other than pigs" being conducted by the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  Organ Donation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to investigate methods of addressing the shortage of human donor organs other than by the use of transgenic pigs; what his policy is on an opt-out donor card; and if he will make a statement. [100705]

  Mr. Denham
  The Organ Donor Publicity Campaign was launched in October 1998 and was reinforced in February by a campaign targeting the South Asian community. We shall continue to build on these campaigns to encourage people to join the National Health Service Organ Donor Register, to carry the Donor Card at all times and most importantly make their wishes known to their family and friends.

  We shall be developing a further campaign to inform the medical profession about best practice in requesting organ donation. Additionally, in line with the drive to improve the quality of care for all users of the NHS, we shall seek to ensure that best practice is adopted in all units involved in donation and transplantation. We shall also support best practice in live donation, which has increased significantly over the last few years.

  While there is some support for an opt-out system of donation, the medical profession is divided and there are still many people who are not in favour of it. A survey
  252W
  undertaken this year has shown that there is still significantly more public support for the current system of donation than for opt-out.

  We will continue to keep an open mind on all options for increasing donation rates. However, before introducing any measure aimed at increasing the supply of organs we would have to be sure that it commands public confidence.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the review of sections 17(2) and 18 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [100923]

  Mr. Hutton
  These provisions require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each year on the number of disabled people aged under 65 who received long-term care in a hospital (or a part of a hospital) vested in the Secretary of State and used wholly or mainly for the care of elderly people (section 17(2)); and were supported by their local authority in residential care used by people of 65 or over (section 18(3)).

  (By virtue of section 45 of the Government of Wales Act 1999, reports on the position in Wales are now for the National Assembly of Wales to publish, rather than for the Secretary of State to make to Parliament. In Scotland, this is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament).

  Reports to Parliament under section 17(2) ceased after 1995 because the establishment of National Health Service trusts meant that there were no longer any hospitals "vested in the Secretary of State". Reports to Parliament under section 18 continue but show a considerable drop in the number of under-65s accommodated with over-65s. The figures they report are no longer, if they ever were, an unambiguous indicator of "inappropriate placements". (For example, if the caring decision is taken to allow a person who has reached his 65 birthday to stay in a home where he may have lived for several years, all the residents in the home who are aged under 65 will be included in the figures).

  The Government therefore made clear, when making their report under section 18 last year, that they were minded to repeal these two provisions and would welcome any views on this proposal. Copies of the responses received have been placed in the Library. The majority support the proposal for repeal, some also noting that the system for registering care homes is a much more effective way of ensuring appropriate placements than statistical reports. Having considered all the responses, the Government have decided that repeal is the right option, and will pursue this when parliamentary time allows.

  Malnourishment
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the health problems caused by malnourishment. [100711]

  Ms Stuart
  Malnourishment includes undernourishment and obesity. Both of these are associated with ill health and mortality. Undernourishment can delay recovery from
  253W
  illness and increases susceptibility to osteoporosis and infection, whilst obesity is a risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, gall bladder disease, some cancers and arthritis.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what motor mileage allowance rates her Department offers to(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants using their own vehicles for official business; and what has been the cost of each in each of the last five years. [98724]

  Pence per mile

  Cabinet Office Ministers and civil servants (excluding civil servants in the Agencies)1

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Over 4,000 miles

  Motor car up to 1500cc

  34

  19

  Motor car over 1500cc

  43

  23

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations up to 125cc Third Party insurance

  14.6

  6.1

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations over 125cc Third Party insurance

  22.1

  9.0

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations up to 125cc Comprehensive insurance

  16.2

  6.1

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations over 125cc Comprehensive insurance

  25.3

  9.0

  Passenger supplement—first passenger

  2p per mile (flat rate)

  Passenger supplement—each additional passenger

  1p per mile (flat rate)

  Equipment supplement

  2p per mile (flat rate)

  Public transport rate2

  —

  —

  1 The above rates do not apply to Security Facilities Division. The motor mileage rates for Security Facilities Division are 36p per mile up to 10,000 miles and 28p per mile thereafter with a passenger allowance of 2p per mile (no equipment supplement).

  2 There is no public transport rate. The maximum payable would be the equivalent public transport costs.

  Pence per mile

  Civil servants in the Civil Service College

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Over 4,000 miles

  Motor car up to 1500cc

  35

  20

  Motor car over 1500cc

  45

  25

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations up to 125cc Third Party insurance

  14.6

  6.1

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations over 125cc Third Party insurance

  22.1

  9.0

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations up to 125cc Comprehensive insurance

  16.2

  6.1

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations over 125cc Comprehensive insurance

  25.3

  9.0

  Passenger supplement—first passenger

  2p per mile (flat rate)

  Passenger supplement—each additional passenger

  1p per mile (flat rate)

  Equipment supplement

  2p per mile (flat rate)

  Public transport rate

  26p (flat rate)

  Pence per mile

  Civil servants in the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Over 4,000 miles

  Motor car up to 1500cc

  35.7

  18

  Motor car 1501cc–2000cc

  42

  22

  Motor car over 2000cc

  46

  30

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations up to 125cc Third Party insurance

  14.6

  6.1

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations over 125cc Third Party insurance

  22.1

  9.0

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations up to 125cc Comprehensive insurance

  16.2

  6.1

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations over 125cc Comprehensive insurance

  25.3

  9.0

  Passenger supplement—first passenger

  2p per mile (flat rate)

  Passenger supplement—each additional passenger

  1p per mile (flat rate)

  Equipment supplement

  n/a

  Public transport rate

  23p (flat rate)

  254W
  Mr. Stringer
  The current motor mileage allowance rates offered by the Cabinet Office, its agencies and the Central Office of Information to Ministers and civil servants using their own vehicles for official business are as follows. Cabinet Office Ministers, when travelling on official business, may use a private car instead of an official car, and claim mileage allowance in the same circumstances and on the same terms as civil servants in the central department.

  There were no payments to Ministers in 1997–98 and 1998–99. Payments to civil servants in 1997–98 and 1998–99 totalled £368,000 and £412,000 respectively. The information for the previous three years is not available in the form requested and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  255W

  Pence per mile

  Civil servants in the Government Car and Despatch Agency

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Over 4,000 miles

  Motor car up to 1500cc

  34

  18

  Motor car 1501cc–2000cc

  43

  23

  Motor car over 2000cc

  47

  30

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations up to 125cc

  14.5

  6.2

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations over 125cc

  22.8

  9.0

  Passenger supplement—first passenger

  n/a

  Passenger supplement—each additional passenger

  n/a

  Equipment supplement

  n/a

  Public transport rate

  23.8p (flat rate)

  Pence per mile

  Civil servants or Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Over 4,000 miles

  Motor car up to 1500cc

  34

  19

  Motor car 1501cc–2000cc

  43

  23

  Motor car over 2000cc

  47

  30

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations up to 125cc Third Party insurance

  14.5

  6.2

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations over 125cc Third Party insurance

  22.8

  9.0

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations up to 125cc Comprehensive insurance

  16.2

  6.2

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations over 125cc Comprehensive insurance

  25.3

  9.0

  Passenger supplement—first passenger

  2p per mile (flat rate)

  Passenger supplement—each additional passenger

  1p per mile (flat rate)

  Equipment supplement

  2p per mile (flat rate)

  Public transport rate

  23.8

  Pence per mile

  Civil servants in the Central Office of Information

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Over 4,000 miles

  Motor cars

  40

  21

  Motor cycles and motor cycle combinations

  23.8p (flat rate)

  Passenger supplement—first passenger

  2p per mile (flat rate)

  Passenger supplement—each additional passenger

  1p per mile (flat rate)

  Equipment supplement

  n/a

  Public transport rate

  23.8p (flat rate)

  Civil Servants in the Buying Agency

  The Buying Agency pay a flat 30p per mile to all civil servants using their own vehicle for official business with a passenger supplement of 2p per passenger (no equipment supplement).

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how much her Department has spent on ministerial transport in each of the last two years; [98718]

  (2) on civil servants' transport in each of the last two years. [98719]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to my hon. Friend.

  The cost of private car services for Cabinet Office Ministers in 1997–98 was £3,050.77. The cost of private car services for Cabinet Office Ministers in 1998–99 was £1,694.56.

  The Cabinet Office (excluding Security Facilities Division) spent £3,786,000 on civil servants' transport in 1997–98 and £4,001,000 in 1998–99. This is mainly based
  256W
  on actual expenditure, but includes a small number of estimates where exact figures are not available. The figures for Security Facilities Division and Central Office of Information are not readily available, and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. All travel undertaken by civil servants complies with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated November 1999:
  The Minister of State has asked me in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to reply to your Parliamentary Question about how much has been spent on ministerial transport in each of the last two years.
  The total cost of providing the Government Car Service was £7.79 million in 1997/98 and £8.06 million in 1998/99. The total costs for allocated services to all ministers were £4.30 million in 1997/98 and £4.32 million in 1998/99. These costs also include non-ministerial use such as the movement of documents and for use by officials as directed by the ministerial private office. The total costs for allocated services to senior officials were £740,000 in 1997/98 and £950,000 in 1998/99. The remaining costs in both years covered other services provided by the Government Car Service.
  The Government Car and Despatch Agency charges customer departments for the services provided on a basis that recovers all costs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedure citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have to undertake in order to obtain a visa to visit the United Kingdom. [100322]

  Mr. Vaz
  Skopje offers only a limited service because of accommodation constraints. Applications are accepted from diplomats; those seeking urgent medical treatment; British Government and British Council sponsored visitors, and refugee cases accepted by either UNHCR or the Home Office. Other Macedonian nationals who wish to visit the UK may apply at any other visa issuing Post.

  Falklands
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to have further discussions with the Argentine Government regarding a common fisheries agreement for the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [100019]

  Mr. Battle
  The Falkland Islands Government regulates fishing in Falkland Islands waters. However, the British and Argentine Governments have agreed the need for longer-term measures to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks in the high seas of the South West Atlantic and that this should be achieved through the establishment of a multilateral fisheries regime. The European Commission has an on-going dialogue with the Argentine Government on proposals for such an arrangement. We actively support these discussions and we raised the issue at the recent South Atlantic Fisheries Commission in Buenos Aires on 25 and 26 November 1999.

  Turkey
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the security situation in Turkey following the announcement by the PKK of its withdrawal from armed struggle. [100009]

  Mr. Vaz
  We receive regular reporting from the British Embassy in Ankara on the security situation in Turkey. Following the recent declaration by the Kurdistan

  (a) Under-exploited and newly emerging markets for more experienced exporters

  Countries

  Promotional launch

  Strategies

  Brazil (in the context of Mercosur)

  November 1998

  Provide reliable and impartial information about opportunities and risks in the market;

  awareness raising events in the UK;

  improve exporters' market specific skills (eg languages, marketing)

  Central Europe

  Poland

  February 1999

  Under this two-year campaign, each country is the subject of an individual market initiative, this includes a London-based launch conference in partnership with the CBI, an in-market launch event and a series of UK regional seminars delivered in partnership with local business organisations, focusing on the detail of doing business in the market, both as an exporter and as an investor;

  Hungary

  October 1999

  Czech Republic

  February 2000

  the programme also includes a sector-based approach: main focus on automotive and electronic components, infrastructure projects, financial services, environment and consumer goods and retail

  258W
  Workers' Party (PKK) that it will end its armed struggle, the security situation has improved, but isolated clashes between PKK members and Turkish Armed Forces are still occurring.

  The British Government welcome the PKK's declaration. However, we believe that it is still too early to assess whether the armed struggle is in reality at an end.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the timetable for publication of the draft legislation on the International Criminal Court; and what consultation he will hold about this legislation; [100657]

  (2) what is the timetable for publication of the draft legislation on the International Criminal Court. [100653]

  Mr. Hain
  Draft legislation to enable ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be published in the course of this parliamentary session. After publication, all parliamentarians, organisations and individuals interested in the ICC will be given an opportunity to comment.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intends to ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty. [100652]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK requires legislation before we can ratify the International Criminal Court Statute. This legislation will be published in draft form in the current parliamentary session and introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

  British Trade International
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the markets which have been selected by British Trade International for special promotion; and what plans he has to develop British trade in each of these. [100654]

  Mr. Battle
  The following tables list those markets identified as Target Markets by British Trade International and gives details of the strategies which are being implemented for each market:
  259W

  (a) Under-exploited and newly emerging markets for more experienced exporters

  Countries

  Promotional launch

  Strategies

  China/Hong Kong

  China

  January 1998

  A 2-year programme of awareness raising events in every region of the UK; an intensive programme of sector-focused activity

  Hong Kong

  January 1998

  Promote Hong Kong's role as a gateway for British companies wanting to access the China market;

  focus on the expanding range of opportunities in IT and related sectors;

  promote the opportunities in Hong Kong's massive infrastructure plans promote Britain as a source for quality consumer goods including fashion

  Egypt

  November 1998

  Raise the profile of Egypt as a destination for UK services, products and investment;

  improve the flow and quality of market and sector information available, principally to SMEs;

  develop a viable Business Council (commercially-driven and led);

  encourage the formation of SME joint-ventures and other forms of partnership

  India

  January 1993

  Plans are in hand to widen the scope of the Indo-British Partnership which promotes exports and investment. The new programme will be announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he visits India in January 2000

  Japan

  April 1998

  Help British companies win business in Japan and with Japanese companies worldwide;

  cross-sectoral themes of high technology support for UK businesses setting up in Japan and assistance to companies to invest directly in Japan and set up facilities there

  Mexico

  November 1999 (in Mexico)

  Develop an SME partnership programme in priority sectors;

  January 2000 (in UK)

  special focus on the use of electronic media, with the development of a number of virtual trade promotion concepts;

  support for regional links between organisations and businesses in the UK and Mexico

  South Africa

  May 1998

  Close co-operation with the South African Department of Trade and Industry to promote trade and investment partnerships;

  major Partnership Week events in South Africa, focusing on PFI opportunities;

  UK/South African SME partnership programme, developing linkages with previously disadvantaged groups;

  'thinksouthafrica' gateway website

  Taiwan

  April 1999

  Focus on events in the UK and Taiwan (including inward and outward missions) across a small number of priority sectors

  Turkey

  June 1998

  Awareness raising activities and events in the UK;

  assist the promotion of the Turkish market through relationships between representative bodies in the UK and Turkey.

  (b) Markets for new and inexperienced exporters

  Countries

  Promotional launch

  Strategies

  United States of America

  November 1998

  Export USA aims to give small companies, particularly those with innovative products, services or processes, the confidence to tackle the market effectively. Firms pay £1,000 for: on-going contact with Commercial Officers; market assessment and advice; short marketing course at a university business school;

  visit to a trade fair or conference in the USA; and assistance with commercial publicity

  Canada

  December 1999

  Export Canada will be broadly similar to Export USA, but will place greater emphasis on new exporters

  Western Europe

  September 1998

  The Export Explorer scheme has been developed for new and inexperienced exporters aimed at Western Europe. It is delivered through Business Links and other intermediaries at a cost to the company of £99 plus travel. The package is delivered as: Market Explorer, offering companies the opportunity to visit one of the easy access starter markets of the Republic of Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries,; Trade Fair Explorer, which helps firms to visit one of the major trade exhibitions in Western Europe;

  a continuous programme of sector initiatives, using British Trade International's 18-strong team of Export Promoters for Western Europe

  260W

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with President Jiang Zemin during his recent visit regarding protecting the environment(a) nationally and (b) globally. [100635]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Jiang Zemin agreed that protecting the environment was one of a number of common challenges on which closer co-operation was desirable.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he discussed with President Jiang Zemin during his recent visit the situation in Hong Kong since its handover in 1997. [100639]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Hong Kong with the Chinese Foreign Minister and with the Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Office of the State Council who accompanied President Jiang Zemin on his State Visit, making clear our continued commitment to the values of the Joint Declaration. The two sides agreed that the concept of "One Country, Two Systems" was working in practice.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with President Jiang Zemin during his recent visit regarding China's role in the UN Security Council. [100634]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Jiang Zemin agreed on the need for close consultations on international issues, as Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, in their meeting on 21 October.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with President Jiang Zemin during his recent visit regarding China's role in South East Asian security. [100636]

  Mr. Battle
  South East Asian security was not discussed in any detail during the State Visit.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agreements he signed with President Jiang Zemin during his recent visit. [100633]

  Mr. Battle
  None.

  China
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the work of the British Council in China in the last 10 years. [100640]

  Mr. Battle
  The work of the British Council in China has consistently been of a very high standard and has performed an invaluable role in promoting British culture and education in China. The Council make a major contribution to promoting links between China and the United Kingdom in areas of reform including in law and governance and in supporting rapidly growing British 262W
  involvement in China's education and training markets. The Council's arts activities promote a positive image of Britain in China as demonstrated by the series of events staged during my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to China in October 1998.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to encourage further academic exchanges with China. [100637]

  Mr. Battle
  Academic and educational exchanges are an important part of our deepening relationship with China. A number of steps are being taken to encourage further academic links with China. These include:

  (a) As part of the Prime Minister's initiative we are planning to increase the number of Chinese students in this country from 5,000 to 20,000.

  (b) The British Council's Academic Links with China Scheme (funded by DFID) supports 33 active academic links. A recent visit to China of senior UK academics organised by the British Council has resulted in agreement with the Chinese Ministry of Education to establish a new framework for institutional collaboration.

  (c) The Chevening Scholarship Scheme will be expanded and used to support some 120 awards in China.

  (d) There are a number of projects devoted to professional development and training in China. These include: the BOND scheme (funded by BTI) which expects to make 25 industrial placements from China each year, the Financial Sector Training Scheme (funded by DFID) which aims to train 225 financial professionals in the UK over four years.

  The British Council will hold a number of high profile education events in China in 2000 including a British education festival in Beijing and Shanghai in February that will involve over 90 British institutions. Follow up to the Council's Lifelong Learning festival held in November this year in China will focus on academic co-operation and exchanges particularly for distance and vocational learning.

  Mrs. Leyla Zana
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the imprisonment of Mrs. Leyla Zana with the Turkish authorities. [100764]

  Mr. Vaz
  The British Embassy in Ankara has been following the case of Mrs. Zana closely since her arrest in 1994. In particular, we have noted that Mrs. Zana and those MPs convicted on similar charges were awarded compensation by the European Court of Human Rights for breaches of the Convention of Human Rights. These breaches related to detention length and legality of detention.

  We have made a number of representations to the Turkish authorities since she was first put on trial and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Abdullah Noun
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iranian authorities regarding the political trial of Abdullah Noun; and what assessment he has made of
  263W
  the implications of the trial for (a) United Kingdom-Iran relations and (b) the parliamentary elections promised for February. [100617]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners have been following closely the trial by the Court of the Clergy of Abdullah Nouri, for which sentence was passed on 28 November.

  How Mr. Nouri's sentencing to five years imprisonment will effect February's Majles elections is a matter for speculation. We hope that the elections will take place in as free and fair conditions as possible. It is too early to say what impact Mr. Nouri's conviction will have on UK/Iran relations.

  Bahrain
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues of human rights and democracy he raised with the Amir of Bahrain during his recent visit to Britain. [100666]

  Mr. Hain
  Human rights were raised with the Amir as part of our policy of constructive engagement on such issues. We welcomed the positive steps Shaikh Hamad has taken towards improving Bahrain's human rights situation since his accession and offered our assistance and advice.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what human rights abuses he raised with the Amir of Bahrain during his visit. [100805]

  Mr. Hain
  Human rights were raised as part of our policy of constructive engagement on such issues. We welcomed the positive steps the Amir has taken towards improving Bahrain's human rights situation since his accession and offered our assistance and advice.

  EU Council Business
  Mr. Dismore
  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(a) December and (b) the major European Union events for the next six months. [101185]

  Mr. Vaz
  The business is as follows:

  Monthly forecast of EU business: December 1999

  29 November-3 December—Seattle—WTO Ministerial Conference
  No formal agenda
  1–2 December—Brussels—European Parliament Plenary

  Consultation procedure
  (possible) Proposal for a Council regulation regarding the implementation of measures to intensify the EC-Turkey Customs Union
  (possible) Council Act establishing the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the member states of the European Union
  Proposal for a Council decision concerning the approval, on behalf of the Community, of the amendments to the Annexes to the Convention on the protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention)
  (possible) Proposal for a Council Directive on the marketing of forest reproductive material
  (possible) Proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2201/96 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products
  264W
  (possible) Proposal for a Council regulation on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products
  Proposal for a Council regulation amending for the third time Regulation (EC) No. 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms
  Proposals for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2596/97 extending the period provided for in Article 149(1) of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden
  Codecision procedure

  First reading
  (possible) Proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation regarding the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey
  (possible) Proposal for European Parliament and Council Directive relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air
  Codecision procedure

  Second reading
  (possible) Common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a scheme to monitor the average specific emissions of CO2 from new passenger cars
  Codecision procedure

  Third reading
  (possible) Joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European Parliament and Council Directive on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potential at risk from explosive atmospheres
  2 December—Brussels—Energy Council
  1. Adoption of the provisional agenda
  2. (possible) Approval of the list of "A" items
  3. Strategy for integrating environmental aspects and sustainable development into energy policy
  Report to the Helsinki European Council
  4. Directive 96/92/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity: State of implementation and harmonisation requirements
  Information from the Commission and adoption of Council Conclusions
  5. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on energy efficiency requirements for ballast for fluorescent lighting
  Orientation debate
  doc. 9564/99 ENER 81 ENV 242 CODEC 373
  6. Communication from the Commission: Strengthening the Northern dimension of European energy policy
  Presentation by the Commission and adoption of Council Conclusions
  doc. 12805/99 ENER 123 RELEX 44
  7. Access for electricity from renewables to the internal electricity market
  Information from the Commission
  8. Directive 98/30/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas: Harmonisation report
  Presentation by the Commission
  9. Communication from the Commission on security of EU gas supply
  Presentation by the Commission
  doc. 12896/99 ENER 124
  10. Energy Charter Treaty
  Progress report
  (possible) Adoption of Negotiating Directives on an Agreement on Transit (Item on which a vote may be requested)

  265W
  11. Any Other Business:
  (a) Millennium bug
  Information from the Commission
  (b) Community Energy efficiency action plan
  Information from the Commission
  Possible "A" items:
  1. European Parliament and Council Decision adopting a multiannual programme for the promotion of energy efficiency—SAVE programme
  Adoption
  2. European Parliament and Council Decision adopting a multiannual programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community—ALTENER programme
  Adoption
  2 December—Brussels—Research Council
  1. Adoption of the agenda
  2. (possible) Approval of the list of "A" items
  3. Implementation of the 4th and 5th research Framework Programmes
  (a) Overview of the 4th Framework Programme
  (b) Outcome of the initial calls for proposals under the 5th Framework Programme
  (c) Participation of the applicant CCEE and Cyprus in the 5th Framework Programme
  Commission reports and exchange of views
  4. Preparation for future research Framework Programmes

  (a) Information from the Commission

  (b) Information from the Presidency

  (c) Exchange of views

  (d) Approval of the Council conclusions

  12370/99 RECH 105 ATO 102 + COR 1 (d)
  5. European space strategy
  adoption of a Council Resolution
  9125/99 RECH 80 ECO 226 TRANS 144
  6. Waste management and decommissioning of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) installations
  approval of Council conclusions
  11269/99 RECH 98 ATO 93
  + COR 1 (fi)
  + COR 2 (s)
  7. Additional research programme for the high-flux reactor (HFR) at Petten (2000–03)
  8. Other business
  ASEM Ministerial Conference, 14 and 15 October 1999: information from the Presidency and the Commission
  Possible "A" items:
  Adoption of Council Decisions concerning:

  the conclusion of a scientific and technological co-operation agreement with Argentina

  the conclusion of a scientific and technological co-operation agreement with China

  the conclusion of a scientific and technological co-operation agreement with Russia

  2 December—Brussels—Justice and Home Affairs Council
  1. Adoption of the Agenda
  2. Approval of the list of "A" items
  3. Tampere follow-up:
  Information on the state of preparation of the 'Scoreboard'
  4. Draft Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the member states of the European Union
  doc. 13451/99 COPEN 60
  266W
  5. Draft Framework Decision on increasing protection by penal sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro
  doc. 13450/99 DROIPEN 21
  6. Initiative for a Council Regulation on insolvency proceedings
  doc. 13465/99 JUSTCIV 177 MI 120
  7. Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Service in the member states of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil or commercial matters
  docs
  13466/99 JUSTCIV 178
  8671/99 JUSTCIV 81
  8. Organised crime:

  (a) The Prevention and Control of Organised Crime: A European Union Strategy for the beginning of the new Millennium—oral report

  (b) 1998 EU Organised Crime Situation Report—oral report

  9. Eurodac—Regulation on comparison of fingerprints of asylum applicants and certain other aliens
  doc. 13408/99 EURODAC 24
  10. Draft negotiation mandate on Dublin parallel agreement with Norway and Iceland
  adoption1
  doc. 13407/99 ASILE 42
  11. Admission: Commission proposal on family reunification Presentation by the Commission
  12. Council Decision concerning the UK application to participate in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis1
  doc. 11177/4/99 SCHENGEN 74 REV 4
  13. Europol:
  Future activities of Europol after Tampere European Council
  Information from the Presidency
  14. Adoption of the decisions discussed in the Mixed Committee at Ministerial level (after the Mixed Committee meeting)1
  15. Proposal for a directive on electronic commerce—criminal law aspects:
  Information by the Swedish delegation
  doc. 13309/99 JAI 103 MI 119
  16. Measures to combat child sex tourism
  doc. 12629/99 JEUN 65 TOUR 10 JAI 96
  17. Any Other Business
  6–7 December—Brussels—General Affairs Council
  Adoption of the provisional agenda
  Approval of the list of "A" items
  Horizontal issues
  Resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament at its part-sessions in Brussels on 3–4 November 1999 and Strasbourg on 15–19 November 1999
  Preparation of the Helsinki European Council (10–11 December 1999)
  Overall co-ordination
  Common strategies
  European Security and Defence Policy: Presidency reports on military and non-military aspects of crisis management
  Enlargement
  Presidency report on the Intergovernmental Conference
  An effective Council for an enlarged Union
  Draft Statute for MEPs
  EP electoral procedure

  267W
  External relations
  Negotiations for a development partnership agreement with the ACP states
  = Financial allocation for the 9th European Development Fund
  = Trade co-operation
  Indonesia
  Transatlantic Relations
  Western Balkans
  Items likely to become "A" items
  Enlargement
  Adoption of EU common position with a view to the Accession Conferences with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia at Ministerial level on 7 December 1999
  Association with Hungary
  Establishment of the EU position for the 6th Association Council meeting on 7 December 1999
  Association with Poland
  Establishment of the EU position for the 6th Association Council meeting on 7 December 1999
  Association with the Czech Republic
  Establishment of the EU position for the 5th Association Council meeting on 7 December 1999
  Arms destruction: joint action (Russian Strategy)
  TACIS: adoption of new regulation
  6–7 December—Brussels—Internal Market Council
  Strategy for the Internal Market
  Presentation by the Commission—Exchange of views

  Joint Work Programme of the Three Presidencies (FIN, P, F)
  Progress report—Exchange of views
  Scoreboard (new version)
  Presentation by the Commission—Exchange of views
  SLIM Initiative—phase IV
  Presentation by the Commission—Exchange of views
  Mutual recognition of diplomas (SLIM Directive)—Political agreement
  Copyright in the information society—Progress report
  Directive on legal aspects of electronic commerce—Political agreement
  Resale right—Political agreement
  Take-over bids—Political agreement
  Community Customs Code—Political agreement
  Directive on distance selling of financial services—Political agreement
  Parallel imports/Exhaustion of trade mark rights—Oral report
  Public Procurement—Progress report by the Commission
  (possible) Buses and coaches—Political agreement
  Revision of chemical product policy—Presentation by the Commission
  Follow-up to the Council Resolution on Standardisation
  Vertical Directives on foodstuffs
  Sugars
  Preserved milk
  (possible) fruit juices—Political agreement
  (possible) Regulation on data protection within EU institutions
  Progress report
  Any Other Business
  7 December—Brussels—Accession Conferences with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia
  No formal agenda
  268W
  7 December—Brussels—Association Councils with the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland
  No agenda yet available
  7–8 December—Brussels—3rd EU-ACP Ministerial Conference
  No formal agenda
  9–10 December—Luxembourg—Transport Council

  1. Adoption of draft agenda

  2. Approval of "A" points

  Maritime transport
  3. Short Sea Shipping—Commission Communication Council Conclusions/Resolution
  Horizontal issues
  4. Intermodality and intermodal freight transport
  Commission Communication
  Council conclusions
  Land transport
  5. Railways
  (a) Rail infrastructure package1—Common position
  (b) Rail interoperability—Commission Communication and draft directive
  Debate
  (c) Alleviation of rail bottlenecks
  Commission presentation and exchange of views
  6. Working time in road transport
  Commission report and debate
  Air transport
  7. Aviation noise: short and long-term problems
  Briefing by Commission and/or (possible) draft regulation/Debate
  8. EASA—Debate
  9. (possible) Agreement with (CEECs)
  Exchange of views/progress report
  10. Agreement with Cyprus1—Adoption of negotiating mandate
  11. Air traffic delays—Commission Communication
  Commission presentation
  12. Galileo—negotiations with US and Russia
  Commission progress report
  13A. Ferry Manning: economic impact of draft directive
  Commission working paper—Commission presentation
  13B. Transport and Environment (TERM)—Commission report on indicators
  Commission presentation
  13C. Innovation forum—Commission presentation
  13D.Eurocontrol—Community accession
  Commission progress report
  13E. EU/US dialogue on aviation
  Commission information on Chicago Conference
  13F. Air transport and the environment—Commission
  Communication
  Commission presentation
  10–11 December—Helsinki—European Council
  No formal agenda
  13 December—Brussels—ECOFIN Council
  No agenda yet available
  13–14 December—Brussels—Environment Council
  1. Adoption of the agenda
  2. (possible) Approval of the "A" list items

  269W
  3. Proposal for a Council Recommendation providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the member states1 (Legal basis proposed by the Commission: Art. 175(1)) Common position
  5086/99 ENV 1 PRO-COOP 1
  4. Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 88/609/EEC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants1
  (Legal basis proposed by the Commission: Art. 175(1))
  Common position
  10916/98 ENV 364 PRO-COOP 144
  5. Amended proposal for a Council Directive on assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment1
  (Legal basis proposed by the Commission: Art. 175(1))
  Common position
  7093/97 ENV 104 PRO-COOP 32
  6333/99 ENV 59 PRO-COOP 40
  6. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air1
  (Legal basis proposed by the Commission: Art. 175(1))
  Common position
  5518/99 ENV 14 PRO-COOP 10
  7. International negotiations concerning the Protocol on biosafety
  Council conclusions
  8. Overall assessment of the Fifth Action Programme and environmental sectoral indicators
  Presentation by the Commission and exchange of views
  9. Proposal for a Directive of the European parliament and of the Council on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, and Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council relating to ozone in ambient air Progress report
  10232/99 ENV 262 CODEC 425
  10. The Commission's work programme for 2000
  Briefing by the Commission
  11. Community strategy on chemical products
  Progress report from the Commission
  12. Other business
  (a) Brominated flame retardants
  request by the Danish and Swedish delegations
  (b) "Car-free day" event
  briefing by the French delegation

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  December 1999

  29 November-3 December

  Seattle

  WTO Ministerial Conference

  1–2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  2

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  2

  Brussels

  Research Council

  2

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  6–7

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  6–7

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  7

  Brussels

  Accession Conferences with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia

  7

  Brussels

  Association Councils with the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland

  7–8

  Brussels

  3rd EU-ACP Ministerial Conference

  9–10

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  10–11

  Helsinki

  European Council

  13

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  13–17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  14–15

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  14–16

  Brussels

  Ministerial Conference on Follow-up of Progress on UN Beijing Platform for Action

  16–17

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  270W
  (c) (possible) Situation of the SAVE and ALTENER programmes
  statement by the Spanish delegation
  13–17 December—Strasbourg—European Parliament Plenary
  No agenda yet available
  14–15 December—Brussels—Agriculture Council
  No agenda yet available
  14–16 December—Brussels—Ministerial Conference on Follow-up of Progress on UN Beijing Platform for Action
  No formal agenda
  16–17 December—Brussels—Fisheries Council
  1. Adoption of the Agenda
  2. Approval of the list of "A" items
  3. Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in other waters where limitations in catch are required1
  Legal basis: Article 8(4) of Reg. (EEC) no. 3760/92 Adoption
  4. (possible) Morocco: future fisheries relations
  State of play by Commission
  5. Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down certain control measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on Future Multilateral Co-operation in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries1
  Legal basis: Article 37 of the Treaty
  Adoption
  Doc. 10074/99 PECHE 144
  6. (possible) Proposal for a Council Regulation amending for the fifth time Regulation (EC) no. 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (sandeels)
  7. Any other Business
  (possible) Regional meetings
  Presentation of the Communication by the Commission
  Organisation of future work
  1 Items on which a vote may be requested
  European Calendar: December 1999-May 2000
  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.
  271W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  January 2000

  14

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  17–21

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  18

  Brussels

  Budget Council (possible)

  24–25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  28–29

  Lisbon

  Development Ministers (Informal)

  31

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  February 2000

  2–3

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  11–12

  Lisbon

  Social Affairs Council (Informal)

  14–15

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  14–18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  21–22

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  21–22

  Vilamoura

  San Jose Meeting

  23–24

  Vilamoura

  Rio Group Meeting

  28

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  March 2000

  1–2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  3–1

  Lisbon

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  13

  Brussels

  Joint Social Affairs and ECOFIN Council

  13–17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23–24

  Lisbon

  Special European Council

  27

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  28

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  30

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  April 2000

  3

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  3–4

  Cairo

  EU-Africa Summit

  4

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  7–8

  Lisbon

  ECOFIN Council (Informal)

  10–11

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  10–14

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  13

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  15–16

  Oporto

  Environment Council (Informal)

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  May 2000

  2

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  2

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  3–4

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  5–7

  San Miguel, Azores

  Informal Meeting of Foreign Ministers

  11

  Brussels

  Health Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  15–19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  18

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  18

  Brussels

  Development Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  25

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  28–30

  Evora

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  29–30

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  30

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  272W

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

Identification of Disaster Victims
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether inquiries have been completed into the reason why the original estimate of casualties in the train crash at Ladbroke Grove proved to be exaggerated; and what actions are being taken to prevent such a situation arising in a future civil disaster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I think it is widely understood that, owing to the horrific destruction in same of the coaches, it was not possible to be confident that the number of deaths could be assessed solely from the remains which were found. Since there was no record of the number of people travelling on the train, police estimates had to take into account the rep arts they received of people who were missing and might have been travelling on it. Of course, it took a little time before the police could be sure that people who had been reported missing had turned up safely. They al ways made clear, however, that the estimates they produced were of the maximum possible number of casualties. Whether the media, in turn, always made that clear, I cannot say. There are no specific inquiries under way on the matter. Far from apportioning blame to anyone, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate those police officers, and indeed all those in the other emergency services, who were involved in coping with this appalling tragedy.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should like to associate myself with the sentiments he has expressed concerning the emergency services. It concerns me, however—and I shall happily be corrected—that the details of those who telephoned in, using the number advertised on television, were recorded on a card index system. I seek an assurance from the Government that, in any future emergency—whether on the railway or, God forbid, an air crash, terrorist incident or whatever—the Metropolitan Police will have access to the most up-to-date computer system possible in order to record accurately the name of the caller and the possible victims, and to be able to cross-reference the names quickly: for example, with the numberplates on vehicles in car parks and addresses on electoral registers. In that way, the hysteria that built up in the press could be avoided. Will the Minister give an assurance that the best efforts will be made to prevent any exaggeration of casualties by making use of the most up-to-date call system management available?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord seeks an assurance rather than an Answer. All I can do is offer the reassurance that the Metropolitan Police do have such a facility at present. I have been there and looked at the system. It seems to work perfectly well and adequately. The police were in a difficult position. They had to provide the best possible estimates. The figures that were given initially rapidly came down. After a few days we learnt more precisely the number of fatalities. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the police and all the emergency services on the way in which they dealt with the families affected and the careful and caring approach that they adopted. The services can take great credit from the way in which they worked during that very trying time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I strongly sympathise with the police in the dilemma they faced in publishing the figures. However, I hope that some thought will be given to this matter. I live in Reading, where the whole population were in mourning, believing that 50 people had been killed in the rail accident. There was a message from the Queen, and a memorial service was held for those who were believed to have died. Yet the only person killed who had lived in Reading was one of the train drivers. So the whole town was in mourning when 50 people had not in fact been killed. Members of the community are a little put out that they should have been placed in that position. I hope that the Government and the police will be able to do something about this. I, too, repeat and emphasise my admiration for the police and the community services.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. The police were careful to try to check and clear every name they could from being involved in the crash. Sadly, there was much public speculation which was beyond acceptable standards and well over the top. We live in a media goldfish bowl and can expect that that will happen when tragic events take place.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, sympathise with the police in those extremely difficult circumstances and pay tribute to them. At the same time, I was slightly surprised that the Minister seemed to say that no consideration was being given to the matter. It appeared to me that at least internally, if not in Lord Cullen's inquiry, some consideration should be given to whether methods of handling relatives in such a situation could be improved. There is always something to learn from every major incident and I hope and expect that the police will seek to do that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, again, the noble Lord makes a valid contribution to a continuing discussion and debate. From my knowledge, I am sure the police will review all their practices and procedures to find out whether they can improve the quality of their performance.

809
However, one area where they have made great strides in recent years is in the way in which they make contact with the families affected and deal with the distress, unhappiness and uncertainty that the families face. They should be congratulated on that work, a tremendous effort has been put in by them. On behalf of the Metropolitan Police, I extend an invitation to the noble Lord to visit the control centre which dealt with the difficult circumstances that they encountered on that tragic day.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, looking at the wider issues of preventing such disasters in future and dealing with the present one, and providing future deterrents, will my noble friend please tell the House whether prosecutions are likely to take place? Will they include individual directors and managers in accordance with the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the question. The Deputy Prime Minister announced that a public inquiry would be undertaken by Lord Cullen. The question of prosecutions and so on must be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. They properly deal with those difficult and complex issues and I am sure they will deal with them with great professionalism.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly deal with the second part of the Question:
"What actions are being taken to prevent such a situation?"
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought I had answered that point. There is to be a public inquiry. We know that Sir David Davies, the President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, is to report back by the end of the year with his initial assessment of the effectiveness, practicability and cost of train protection systems. The inquiries undertaken have been very thorough. One point that has impressed me particularly throughout is the way in which the Health and Safety Executive, in particular, has brought forward as much information as it could in an open and transparent way. It has put it firmly in the public domain so that we can all make judgments on how best to proceed in policy terms.

Lone Parents: New Deal Interviews
2.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to call young single mothers with children under four years old for interview under the New Deal, and, if so, whether pressure or inducements will be used to persuade them to go out to work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, letters inviting lone parents to contact a personal adviser are currently sent to those whose youngest child is over five. The Government have announced that invitation letters will also be sent to lone parents with three and four year-olds. The New Deal for Lone Parents is a voluntary programme. Lone parents are not pressured into looking for work, but many realise that measures introduced by the Government mean that work pays and offers the best route out of poverty for them and their children. Parents with younger children are knocking on our door to come into the New Deal. That is why we are responding as we are.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful Answer. Does she agree that many mothers will be relieved to hear that they will not be forced or encouraged to go out to work? Does she further agree that the interviews might form an appropriate point of contact at which young mothers could be given information about support services for parents and parenting which are available in their locality? Will she consider instructing her department and jobcentres to keep in close contact with the Government's new National Parenting Institute and with the Parenting Forum so that such information can be disseminated in that way?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. On the first part of the supplementary question, about 44 per cent of young lone parents who come forward and who come on to the New Deal have children under the age of five. We are responding to that pressure.
The noble Lord is right as regards the second part of the question. I was happy to be present at the launch of the National Parenting Institute yesterday. Research shows that one in two people thinks Britain does not encourage parenting skills. One in three parents would not know where to go for help with family problems. That is why we are launching the National Parenting Institute and following the path suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, what direct evidence do the Government have for their claim that the New Deal is responsible for helping lone parents to work rather than the strong economy inherited from the previous Conservative administration?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the lone parents on the New Deal tell us that the New Deal has turned their life around. Of those who come for interview, about 85 to 90 per cent join the programme. One quarter of those have already gone into unsubsidised jobs; others are on training programmes. New lone parents tell us that the New Deal matches their needs. I suggest to the noble Lord that his question is a bit rich, coming from a party which would apparently require lone parents, with children from the age of 11, to go into work or lose benefit, a party opposed to the New Deal, which offers training

811
support, opposed to the minimum wage, which offers a decent return, opposed to the working families' tax credit, which would make work pay, and opposed to the national children's strategy. Perhaps, in the light of that, the noble Lord would like to revise his question.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister take note of a scheme pioneered by voluntary bodies within the City of Westminster? Through it, unsupported mothers can bring their children to a crèche while they learn childcare skills which will make them employable. Could that scheme be multiplied throughout the country?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, any lone parent who conies into the New Deal not only has a personal adviser but access to training up to NVQ1 and NVQ2. NVQ2 is approximately equivalent to A-level. While they are in the New Deal and receive training across local government they are entitled to free child care and access to those courses. Therefore, the City of Westminster scheme is broadly replicated across the country.

Lone Parents: New Deal Interviews

  Working Time Regulations: Review
  2.49 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What they intend in regard to the Working Time Regulations review, announced at the conference of the Confederation of British Industry.
  The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, comments made by the Prime Minister at the CBI conference were in respect of the amendments to the regulations laid before Parliament on 19th October. The amendments address the requirement to keep records for workers who have opted out of the working time limit and extend the scope of the unmeasured working time exemption. The amendments have been approved by both Houses of Parliament and will come into force the day after they have been affirmed by the Secretary of State. At present there are no plans for a review or for any other changes to the Working Time Regulations.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Is my noble friend aware that many unions, including my own (the MSF)—I hereby declare an interest—believe that the Government's amendments weaken any impact that the regulatory authorities might have and place workers under pressure to volunteer for work, even where the employer has not sought prior agreement to exceed the 48-hour limit? Is my noble friend also aware that it is well within the powers of the Commission to insist on the amendment to the regulations in line with its policy?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that these two amendments in any way weaken the essential thrust of the legislation. The legislation gives workers clear rights and it is up to them to take advantage of them. The amendments apply only to those who freely work more hours than their employers require of them. Anyone can change his mind at any time and opt back into the directive. I do not believe that this weakens the legislation in any way.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it will come as a great surprise to people at the CBI conference who heard the Prime Minister speak that his speech about far too many regulations referred only to the rather paltry amendment which was being taken through the House at the time? Does the Minister agree that the audience at the CBI conference was rather led up the garden path by the Prime Minister who seemed to be making a much more robust attack on over-regulation than the picture which the noble Lord now attempts to paint?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it was quite clear that on that occasion the Prime Minister was referring to these amendments. Therefore, it is up to the members of the CBI to judge his remarks in that context.
  Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, although the many changes made continuously to the panoply of fairness-at-work regulations may well be desirable, there is a significant problem particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in knowing exactly the current state of regulation? What steps will the Government take in that regard?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it was part of the regulations that statutory guidance would be given following their introduction. We shall produce a new version of the booklet. The booklet is still factually correct, but in the light of comments that we have received we believe that we can make a better job of it.

Offshore Oil Industry: Jobs
2.53 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to save the 3,000 jobs threatened at Scottish offshore fabrication yards.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government have already taken action to support the industry by forming the Oil and Gas Task Force which carried out an unparalleled consultation exercise involving all parts of the industry, union and government, and reported recently. Already many recommendations have been implemented, including capital gains rollover relief on asset transfers. All of this is aimed at making the United Kingdom

813
Continental Shelf an attractive place for investment, which is the only way to secure long-term UK employment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, given that many of us recall the fuss made by the Labour Party in opposition when the smelter at Invergordon was closed, demanding that the Conservative government take their responsibilities seriously—as they did—will the present Government take their responsibilities seriously in relation to what are far greater job losses and do more than simply set up a task force? The Government are now presiding over the biggest ever clearance of workers in the Highlands.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it should be understood that there is more involved than the setting up of a task force. The task force has worked very closely with the industry and has produced a whole series of recommendations. Those recommendations include work on supply chain management, which may lead to savings of as much as £1 billion a year; help in improving exports; a new website to promote licensed trading; and a change to the tax regime. Those are very substantial measures which go to the heart of the problem; namely, that if this industry is to maintain its current level of operation it must do two things—deliver cost-effective facilities for smaller fields and look at overseas markets and build on its success in areas like exports. Last year it exported nearly 30 per cent of its output.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, while recognising that the task force can be extremely helpful, does my noble friend consider that the increase in oil prices in recent months may well stimulate the level of extraction that is required if the fields are to be properly harvested? Does my noble friend believe that the increase in prices together with the task force may lead the oil companies to reconsider their investment policies?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, obviously lower oil prices had a very adverse effect on investment plans. It is greatly to be hoped that with increased oil prices we shall see a return of confidence in the industry. It will take time for that confidence to return, but we hope that together with the oil price the measures we have taken will help.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that these yards have served well both the offshore industry and Scotland? I was the Secretary of State who in the early 1970s assisted in their creation by enabling accelerated planning permission to be given. That meant that the Forties field, the first in the British sector, was not delayed as might otherwise have been the case. Since then there have been lean periods with few orders but governments have been able to help. Will the present Government make a special effort now?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords. I hope I have made clear that the Government are taking all sensible steps to help the industry, which has been a great success story. The fact remains that as the North Sea matures geologically with the discovery of far fewer large fields, the industry will have to accept reduced demand for larger platforms, and action must be taken both to improve cost-effectiveness for smaller fields and to look for exports. That is the basic strategic thrust of what the industry must do. We shall give the industry all possible help to achieve that. I hope that I have indicated some of the many ways whereby, through working closely with the industry—a central part of the strategy—we seek to help the process.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been a good deal of criticism about the expansion of the North Sea oil industry from so-called environmental lobbies, including Greenpeace? Does he accept that any restrictions that may be imposed from that source will severely damage the facilities we are now discussing?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the court case initiated by Greenpeace means that there will be some delay while we consider the implications. That will not be helpful to the industry. However, we are looking at matters as speedily as we can.
Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the industry, particularly the construction sector, needs long-term stability, given the cycle of the offshore oil business? In that context, does he also agree that the protracted, and ultimately inconclusive, review of the tax regime undertaken by his right honourable friend the Chancellor has had an unsettling effect on the industry? It is a highly competitive industry with other parts of the world very keen to attract the construction sector and oil companies equally interested in investing, given the difficulties in the North Sea and west of Shetland. Against that background, will the noble Lord seek to persuade his colleagues in government to desist from interfering in the industry's long-term interests?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the tax review was undertaken at the express request of the industry, and, so far as I know, in a perfectly sensible time frame, with some changes made to the benefit of the industry, it is not entirely fair to say that the problems of the industry can be attributed to that. The problems can he attributed to a fundamentally changing situation to which the industry has to adapt. We have looked, I think very fairly, to see whether we can do anything as regards the tax situation to help the industry. We have made one significant change on the roll-over relief on licences which is of great importance to the industry.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked the Question, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked a supplementary question, we thought we would have to congratulate the Conservative Party on

815
its conversion to caring about those who work in the industry? Following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, it appears that it has reverted to type in blaming everything on taxation and trying to find ways for their friends to avoid paying tax.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can only refer back to the fundamental situation—a change in the nature of the challenge that the industry faces. It is up to the Government to work with the industry to help it as much as possible. As I clearly indicated, that is what we are doing.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, is this not a catastrophe for the Highlands? The workers who will lose their jobs will not be inspired by the establishment of a web site. Is my noble friend's point not correct? It is the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spell out precisely the long-term tax regime and the liabilities on the industry, both prospective and retrospective, which are leading to the lack of investment which results in these people losing their jobs. Will the Government take some responsibility for that and set out a programme to help secure future work in the North Sea for Scotland, or will they simply ignore the plight of people in the Highlands?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall deal, first, with the website. That was undertaken in conjunction with the industry. It is to enable the trading of licences, which is of great interest and importance to the industry. The production of a web site is not a negligible matter to be swept aside. It is a key part of licence trading which is important to the industry.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer spelt out clearly the tax position as regards the industry. That has been established. We have made some changes to it. The situation is not to do with the tax regime. The industry—it faces a changing environment—has cut back on investment at this stage.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the apparent conversion of the Tory Opposition to interventionist economic policies which they did not practise in office, with devastating consequences to these people?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I was recently provoked by another noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches to comment on the Opposition's policies. I can only say on this occasion that I should be interested to know what they are suggesting and whether it might come into the category of a subsidy.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the Minister does not seem to realise the urgency of the situation. The long-term policy of oil and the ideas he has floated in the Chamber today will not help 3,000 men and women who will be out of work in the very near future. Can the noble Lord make clear who is responsible? Is it the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Office in London, the alleged Cabinet committee looking after
816
Scotland, or the Department of Trade and Industry? There seem to be many wheels in the cog and none is turning correctly.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the situation is quite the reverse of what has been suggested. The problem has been known for some time. Far from having to be pushed into taking action, as I have clearly stated we have already taken action to a considerable extent. The DTI has a responsibility which it is exercising very properly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that people in the Highlands will notice in his contribution a considerable lack of urgency? They will also note that the Liberal Democrats do not seem to care very much despite the fact that their leader is the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which many of the jobs will go. Can the Minister not take on board that the Government should look urgently at how, whether by a new tax regime or other means, they can encourage new development in the new fields to the west of Shetland and in that way bring some work to these yards? If we do not gain a sense of urgency, I can tell the noble Lord that the yards will never build another item for the North Sea.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, these exchanges demonstrate that we are the party which cares about what is going on in the industry and which has already taken considerable action and that the other side is coming very late in the day without clear proposals. No proposals have been put forward. Many statements have been made about wanting to help. We have already taken steps which include a new and clear regime of bringing new exploration online.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has told us, does he agree that a forecast in September of this year stated that the loss of 3,000 jobs was the mere start to the loss of a further 7,000 jobs—that a total of 10,000 jobs would go? That is a quarter of the workforce.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we never sought to hide that if the industry is unable to take action to reorientate itself to the new demands upon it in terms of cost-effective facilities for smaller fields and overseas work, it will lead for certain to a loss of jobs. There is no denying that. Those are the economic facts. The industry, with the help of the Government, has to find new markets for its products. In the long term that is the only way that jobs can be kept secure.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.7 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

817
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl Ferrers set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Countryside
3.8 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to call attention to the countryside; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the outset, I should declare an interest. I live in the countryside and I am and always have been financially involved in agriculture and all that goes with it.
Perhaps I may also be allowed to express my gratitude to all those who, in this last curious election, cast their votes in such a way as to enable me to remain a Member of your Lordships' House: one of 42. I am deeply grateful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, fishing!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not fishing. I was paying a compliment of gratitude—which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not always do. However, I cannot resist commenting that those hereditary Peers who are here have more legitimacy—to use the horrible word which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House loved using—than anyone else. We have been elected. Everyone else has been appointed. I gave noble Lords the chance of being elected by putting down an amendment, but they said that they did not want it. They may have become frightened that they might not be elected. So others are appointed; we are elected. I know that noble Lords will not mind my referring to that. We were given such fearful stick in the past Session that I thought it right to get the matter of supremacy in the correct position.
I believe we all agree that, for whatever reason, we love and need the countryside. The countryside is facing the biggest crisis it has faced in the past 60 years. The prime mover for a successful countryside is a successful agriculture. When one has a successful, profitable agriculture, the countryside benefits too. The corn merchants, machinery manufacturers, suppliers to the industry and the village shops benefit. The countryside gets looked after. Hedges and woods are planted. Money is spent on the protection of the environment.
However, if one has an unprofitable agriculture, all those things tend to go. At present, every part of agriculture is under stress. During the past two years, the returns for the livestock sector are down by 60 per cent—that is the cash which farmers receive for their animals and out of which they have to pay the expenses of keeping them.
During the past four years, the price of wheat has fallen from £140 to £68 a tonne. The price of milk has fallen from 26p to 17p a litre. Yet in Ireland it is 25p a
818
litre; in Denmark it is 25p a litre; in Germany it is 23p a litre; and in Holland it is 22p a litre. But in the United Kingdom, it is only 17p. There is not much "common" about that aspect of the common market.
I have never understood how Milk Marque is supposed to be acting against the public interest when it purchases its milk at some of the lowest prices in Europe. I should have thought that it was the consumer who was benefiting and that it was the dairy producers who were being disadvantaged.
Sheep farmers are in despair. One told me the other day that he had sent 38 sheep to market and he got a bill—he got a bill!—for £2.40. A week later he sent another 38 sheep to market and received a cheque for £7. The third week he shot 30 sheep. But he still managed to smile and I admired him for that. The only amusing thing to come out of that incident was a Matt cartoon in the Daily Telegraph showing a farmer not shooting his sheep but shooting a jar of mint jelly.
Some of the worst hit people are the hill farmers and the small farmers. If the hill farmers are broken, a sector of our agricultural life and our national character will go. The net income of hill farmers—that is the money which, as it were, they can jangle in their pockets, use for living expenses and have available for re-investing in their business—has fallen disastrously. For hill farmers in England, it has fallen by 20 per cent this year to £4,500. In Wales, it has fallen by 37 per cent to £2,700. In Scotland, it has fallen by 48 per cent to £1,700—£1,700 for living and re-investment. It is a crippling state of affairs.
A similar story can be told about pigs. The price at which a farmer can sell his pigs now is 30 per cent less than it was two years ago. And so one can go on.
The BSE crisis may be nearly over, but it has devastated our fine herds. The one bright light is that the Government are going to remove the beef on the bone regulations. I congratulate them on that. Of course, they should never have been imposed in the first place. But we all do stupid things in our lives and Governments do stupid things, too. We must be glad that they have seen the light and changed their mind and I congratulate the noble Baroness on both those acts.
It is odd, though, is it not, that the purpose of devolution was to enable Scotland and Wales to look after their own affairs and England to look after its affairs, but when England's Ministers are advised that they can safely allow the regulations to be removed, they say that they must wait until Scotland and Wales can agree to do so too. Why, after devolution, should England have to wait for the agreement of Scotland and Wales when Scotland and Wales do not have to wait for England? That is a pretty absurd example of devolution.
A short time ago, an editorial in the Daily Telegraph was entitled "Farewell Farming". I thought that that was a hideous indictment of the agricultural situation; one which showed an attitude of total despair and which depicted a situation which I do not think will happen. Nor is it one which we should allow to happen.

819
In 1960 there were 3,000 million people in the world. There are now 6,000 million people. It is reckoned that in the next 25 years that number will rise to 12,000 million. For the population of the world to multiply four-fold in 65 years—with all the land which will have to be given up to houses, cities, factories, roads and so forth—there is no place for long-term despair about agriculture. Nor is there any wisdom in taking agriculture for granted. What there is a place for is short-term, very deep concern.
There is no use in the Government saying that the answer lies in the reform of the common agricultural policy. Of course, the CAP needs to be reformed for all kinds of reasons, but that is not the solution to the present situation. And, anyhow, I fancy that the Government will find that an uphill task. It has been going on for years with no very discernible results—for the simple reason that there are too many countries which like the position as it is and there are too many countries which need to agree to change but often do not wish to do so. But we have to keep on trying. Quite a lot of the problem stems from the high level of the pound. This is a common market where we are supposed to operate on a common level.
There is a mechanism which allows countries to have access to funds when they are being penalised by a distorted currency. Since 1997, in the region of £1,000 million of Community funds could have been made available to United Kingdom agriculture. But, because under the Fontainebleau formula the Government would have to pay a substantial contribution towards that payment, the Chancellor would not agree to it—other than for some £130 million. He would rather see the industry go to its knees and good people go bankrupt.
When so much is said about the cost of the European Community to this country—and especially the cost of the CAP—it is almost beyond belief that the Government will not make available that which is available.
On another tack, I hope that the noble Baroness will not say that the Government have already helped the industry to the tune of £150 million. What they have done has of course been very helpful, but all they have done is not impose charges upon the industry which they had proposed to impose. Indeed, the pig and meat industries are suffering crippling costs because of the high hygiene standards which are imposed upon them. We now have the toughest regime for meat quality in Europe. Yet meat hygiene costs are expenses which our industry has to meet, but which our continental competitors do not. So there is not much "common" about that, either!
Then we have the proposed pesticides tax. That would be an added penalty for an already distressed industry and it would be grossly unfair if it were to be imposed on United Kingdom agriculture but not on that of our competitors. It seems unbelievable that the Government could even consider that, and I hope that the noble Baroness will tell us that they have dropped the idea.
820
I hope that the Government will also be able to do something—and by "something" I mean quite a lot—to lessen the bureaucratic burden which is placed on agriculture and on the countryside. It is easy enough to add to red tape, but, as your Lordships well know, once there, it is fiendishly difficult to remove.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—in which I once had the happy privilege of being an ornament—loves organising and controlling everything. I had the dreadful privilege of moving the last business of the previous Parliament, which was the hedgerow regulations. I have told your Lordships previously that I simply hated it! The regulations were completely incomprehensible to me, even with the help of the officials who had drafted them. I tried to stop them, but, as usual, my views did not count for too much, and they were swept along in a tide of pre-election euphoria.
Now, I gather that the Government are considering controlling the planting of Cupressus Leylandii because they can grow too big and be offensive to one's neighbours. I hope that, on reflection, the Government will consider that to be absurd and will have none of it. If we are not careful, we will find ourselves having to get a licence to plant a daffodil and another licence to pick one! You really cannot impose such strictures on the countryside. And anyhow, it is not the Government's business to mess everyone else about.
Yet they do. Now they want to ban fur farming. Mr Elliot Morley says that this is justified on the grounds of public morality. I do not know from where he draws such weird ideas. I do not wish, for choice, to have my morals drafted for me by Mr Elliot Morley any more than I would wish, for choice, to have them drafted for me by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—nor indeed by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. Heaven knows where that would take us! It really is not the Government's business to talk about morals and then to take public action. What about the Canadians, the Muscovites, the French and the Swiss? Are they all morally beyond the pale because they wear furs? I have never understood why it is that to put the skin of an animal on one's back or on one's head is morally reprehensible, but to put the skin of an animal on one's feet, as everyone does, is perfectly acceptable. Perhaps it is simply a question of placement. Or perhaps it is simply the Government getting into one of their intellectual tangles.
And what about all those noble Lords who have been queuing up like people at a bus stop to come to your Lordships' House? What is the first thing which they do when they come in? They don their parliamentary robes, all covered with ermine, or, if that is too expensive, with rabbit. Is that wrong? Is that going to be stopped too? Or will it all be replaced with seersucker? Perhaps your Lordships do not know what seersucker is, but I have no doubt that the Minister knows all about it, and I fancy that she would not think much of it.
Then, the Government still want to ban fox-hunting. More bans. It is funny that all those bans are being proposed, and yet only three Members on the

821
Opposition Back Benches are taking part in this debate to stand up for those great bans. The Government are producing all those bans. The Prime Minister said that as long as he remains Prime Minister, shooting and fishing will be preserved. If I might respectfully say so, that is a remarkably naive attitude to take. First, he will not be Prime Minister for ever. Secondly, once the anti-blood sports lobby has achieved its objective of banning fox-hunting, it will then turn all its fire-power onto shooting and fishing and will try to whip up a frenzy about that too.
Why do the Government have to carry on this myopic crusade against the sports in which they do not happen to participate but which others are perfectly happy to enjoy? I wonder whether it is because the Labour Party has received financial support from the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Before the election they received £1 million from the Political Animal Lobby, which is a pressure group attached to the International Fund for Animal Welfare. The International Fund for Animal Welfare has an annual income of £32½ million. It is not, as one might expect, a charity. It is a private company. It raises money from all over the world and it dispenses it wherever it pleases for so-called animal welfare causes. Mr. Brian Davies, who founded the fund, is a Welshman who now lives in Canada. He was paid £1 million on parting company with the organisation.
That organisation, or its offshoot, has provided the Labour Party with £1 million and an additional £100,000 since the election. Perhaps that explains why the Government feel obliged to ban not only fox-hunting, but fur farming too. It looks rather like Formula 1 all over again, with cash for legislation.
However, I congratulate the Government on doing away with the fuel duty escalator which automatically increased annually the fuel duty by 6 per cent above the RPI. It was yet another example of how the United Kingdom put itself at a commercial disadvantage with our competitors in Europe. A 1,000 litre tank of diesel costs £610 in the United Kingdom, but only £325 in Belgium.
Another example of the absurd bureaucracy with which we are involved is the protection of cormorants and other such birds. Once a bird gets on to the list of protected species, no power on earth—not even a Minister, because I tried it—can remove it. "Research"—another fine-sounding word which is often a waste of money—must be undertaken to see whether the numbers of the birds have now recovered and whether it is therefore no longer justified to describe the species as endangered. That costs about £5 million and takes about five years, during which time the birds have, of course, increased even further in number and have meanwhile hoovered up all the fish from the rivers. Of course, the fish are not "endangered", only the predators. We really ought to be more careful about what we sign up to. The regulations are supposed to be a benefit.
When the Newbury by-pass was built, your Lordships may remember that a site of what is called Desmolina's Whorl was found. That is a form of snail,
822
which is only the size of a biscuit crumb. Everyone became terribly excited and said, "Change the route of the by-pass", or "Build a bridge over the snails". I said, "For goodness' sake, we can't be so absurd as to build a bridge over the snails". "Oh no, Minister", was the reply. "We wouldn't do that because the snail does not like shade"!
I mention that because we really are in danger of becoming absurd. There is a rabbit warren at Blaby in Leicestershire which has been designated by English Heritage as a scheduled monument. A rabbit warren! I really wonder sometimes whether we have not all gone completely mad. You cannot see it because it is all under-ground. You cannot dig into it because it is a scheduled monument. But what you can do is to have an archaeological dig—an archaeological dig on a rabbit warren. What happens if the residents expand their premises without planning permission? Do they get fined or sent to prison? The idea is absurd. But why should human beings be punished in a way in which you would not punish rabbits? Before long, someone will have the idea of designating a wasps' nest as an ancient monument.
I suggest to your Lordships that English Heritage is making a complete fool of itself by behaving in that way. The trouble is that, whichever party happens to be in power, there are those who feel that the more sites and objects which are protected indicates our dedication to the protection of the environment. I suppose that in some ways it does. I am afraid that I take the view that the increase of those regulations and restrictions indicates that we have distanced ourselves from reality and from common sense.
There are so many issues to be discussed under the subject of "the countryside". I wish to refer to only one other; that is, genetically modified crops. I believe that the way to deal with such issues, which can whip up such a fury and frenzy of anxiety, is to test them to see whether they are dangerous or safe. They can be tested only by growing them and putting them under scrutiny. It does no one any good to go, as Greenpeace has, under Lord Melchett, on the altar of publicity, to trespass on other people's land and to cut down their crops.
Agriculture and the countryside are important to all of us. The countryside is not merely a recreation ground for townsmen, a haven for wildlife or a haven for protected species of beetles and plants as well; nor is it merely a workplace for food production. It is of course all of those things. But, above all, it is a living, changing entity which is home to a wide cross-section of,
"all sorts and conditions of men",
and women, and birds and beasts and plants. But it depends on prosperity for those objectives to be achieved.
It is all too easy, wherever we go through life, to find that our lives are ones of complaint, of discontent or of envy. But there is more to life than that. Life is actually wonderful. It is full of good things too. If we are not careful, we spend our time dwelling on the things that have gone wrong and taking the things that have gone

823
right for granted. They might very well not have gone right. Fortunately, the beauty of nature and the serenity of the countryside should engender peace and contentment both to the visitor and to the resident. Despite our present dramas, we should never forget how lucky we are. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. The noble Earl claims to be more legitimate than he was when he attended the House before the recent State Opening. I wonder about that, because I wonder about the legitimacy of the electoral college which elected him.
I should like to respond to the point that the noble Earl made about Mr Brian Davies. I happen to know Mr Brian Davies quite well. The noble Earl is misinformed about him. As he is normally a fair person, I would have expected him to mention that Mr Brian Davies is also an ecologist of great distinction who has the interests of the countryside at heart in the work he carries out.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, paints a picture of farming as a declining industry in deep trouble. However, I am delighted to see that he is not downhearted—and I think that he is right. I suspect that if the noble Earl were 30 years younger he would look at the picture that he has drawn and see an industry deep in change, but full of the opportunities that change always brings: new products, new markets, new ways of doing things and new ways of satisfying changing customers.
However, I do not want to speak about farming. Nobody is more surprised that I am to find myself speaking in this debate. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I am a city dweller. I like being a city dweller. To me, the countryside is a wonderful place to explore on foot or, even better, by bicycle—in good weather, I hope—and to leave after a suitable period of time.
So I do not want to speak about farming, nor about fox hunting; I do not want to speak about BSE or the CAP or subsidies to the countryside. I want to speak about the people who live in the countryside. I was rather disappointed that the noble Earl had very little to say about them. Some weeks ago I attended a seminar on social exclusion in rural areas and that has encouraged me to speak about those who live in the countryside.
The seminar was organised by the Smith Institute; I declare an interest as chairman of trustees. The institute drew to our attention a most wonderful set of data. The data are based on 17,000 people born in one week in 1958, and 16,000 people born in one week in 1970. Ever since, those people have been visited periodically, and almost certainly will continue to be visited. The information is now kept at the Institute of Education, and researchers are still in touch with 11,000 people from the 1958 cohort, and some 9,000 from the 1970 cohort.
The data contain a wealth of information on people's lives, their families, their education, and their work. Particularly fascinating is the pattern of the
824
obstacles and opportunities that they have encountered in their lives from birth to middle age. During a discussion with a young woman MP, Yvette Cooper, the suggestion arose that those longitudinal studies would be particularly useful for looking at the pattern of life in rural areas.
Thanks to generous funding from the Country Landowners' Association, Professor Pynner and Professor Heather Joshi studied the data. Their task was to look at social exclusion, not poverty. Poverty is often associated with social exclusion, but social exclusion deals with the lack of participation in the normal activities of adult life. Yesterday we discussed that briefly at Question Time.
The results were very much as one would have expected. I make no apology for that because—perhaps for the first time—there is statistical data about social exclusion in the countryside. A particularly interesting point about the study was the social change between the 1959 cohort and the 1970 cohort. Of the first cohort, about two-thirds had left school at the age of 16, and in 1974, when they entered the labour market, almost every one of them moved into some kind of job. The 1970 cohort, who left school in 1986, entered a very different world. Many found themselves in training schemes, many of which never led to work. Some just lived on benefit until the 1988 Act restricted that possibility for young people.
The nature of their employment is also interesting. Of course, agriculture ceased to be the mainstay of rural employment some years ago. Very little farming is labour-intensive these days. The seasonal work that can be picked up may ameliorate social exclusion but will not actually end it. The studies showed, for example, that the south-west of England had the highest rate of self-employment in the country because the people there have multiple jobs—many of them casual. Children return to their family homes helping their families in the winter, sometimes after working in the seaside resorts or in other summer occupations.
All that indicates the very narrow and undemanding range of employment opportunities that are available. So perhaps it is not just a lack of dynamism that forces people into exclusion; it may also be due to a low sense of personal worth resulting from their surroundings.
Homelessness was shown to be a major problem in some rural areas. People who migrate to the countryside for retirement, pushing up house prices in rural areas, create difficulties. Transport is a major factor. The distance between the north and south coasts of Devon is the same as the distance from London to Birmingham. If there is work in another part of the county, the problems of transport become central. The vicious cycle of needing a car to get to work, but needing work to be able to afford a car became obvious from the data. I suppose that that explains why car ownership is greater among rural households is at 84 per cent whereas nationally the figure is 69 per cent.
The obstacles to participation are not simply isolation. I was interested to learn how in rural areas well-off people live in similar locations to excluded

825
people, so aid cannot be provided by geographical location. Needy individuals have to be served rather than needy areas. That is difficult because in a village of 100, those in need can be in single figures, whereas those in need in an urban area may be gathered together in a housing estate occupying a similar geographical area as a village but they can number hundreds, or even thousands.
The pattern of migration is also interesting. Migration does not occur from the small villages to the big cities, but from the small villages to small and medium-sized towns. The smallest settlements seem to lose populations while small towns are growing quite dramatically. That seems to be the pattern of movement. That drift from rural to urban areas leaves behind an ageing population in rural communities. Naturally they will be less economically active, less likely to be mobile and less likely to be picked up by those who look at the overall picture. Urban disadvantage is readily picked up in the national picture, but rural disadvantage less so.
If the Government are to ensure that the rural dimension is fully reflected in their policy-making, the Minister's work will have to take on a much broader dimension. The problems relating to social exclusion in rural areas spread across many departments, including those responsible for education and employment, for transport and housing, for agriculture, and the DTI. That is a real challenge for joined-up government.
An important responsibility is to co-ordinate all those aspects of rural affairs and to draw them all together. I suppose one joined-up way to look at the matter is the notion of rights, responsibilities and obligations: the rights of citizens to education, occupation, opportunity, family life, housing and health; the obligation of the Government to provide them and the responsibilities of citizens to use them.
The Government know that they cannot leave such matters to the market-place. The Government have declared war on social indifference with national policies, such as the New Deal and the national minimum wage. I am sure that those factors already help. The Government have made a good start with local policies by trying to improve rural transport with the increased sums announced in the Budget to provide new and enhanced rural bus services in England.
I hope that the Government will ensure that the rural dimension is fully reflected in wider policy-making, and that in the forthcoming White Paper we shall see a co-ordinated rural agenda that will make social exclusion in rural areas a thing of the past.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for introducing the debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that the body that elected the noble Earl perhaps was not exactly a democratic one, but they were persons who showed good choice. They put at the top of the list the
826
noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, which shows an electorate with very good sense. I did not care for some of the others, but the first choice was good.
I was interested in the noble Earl's criticism of the Milk Marketing Board, which was abolished by the Tory government. It held up the price of milk to a reasonable extent. Farmers prospered and the price of milk to the consumer was lower. But it was abolished. I wish the Government would think again about an organisation of that sort.
Again, one must congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on finding the £1 million given to the Labour Party from an unpopular source. That is a brilliant reaction to the terrible trouble the Tories are in at the moment. I enjoyed his speech greatly.
My only criticism is that the debate relates to "the countryside" and the noble Earl dwelt, as I will, rather too much on agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, treated agriculture with the normal contempt associated with the urban dwellers of this country. They have been urban dwellers for more generations than most of the urban dwellers of Europe and are therefore not very sympathetic to poor farmers like me and others.
As the Minister knows well—she will, however, understand why I must press the case—the countryside is in extremely poor shape at the moment. Agriculture and its associated industries are the mainstay of the countryside and the people in it. We must accept that. Of course, far fewer people are now directly employed in agriculture. But the countryside should be populated by people who have some interest in it rather than those who treat it purely as a place to stay while their money and leisure is taken in the city.
The countryside is inhabited and shaped by people. The environmentalists are keen on biodiversity, as am I. I practise it on my farm. But people are more important than peewits. The shape of agriculture is what matters. We look after biodiversity but we cannot shape a major industry in the interests of the lesser inhabitants; in other words, the peewit. It must be shaped for the economic benefits of the country. The noble Earl produced the figures relating to population; they will soon impact very hard on this country.
We view the countryside as a base and where our friends live. We must also consider the needs of our areas. We have an interesting situation in Angus. It is a beautiful county. We have all sorts of scenery and all sorts of biodiversity. But we have some extremely bad planners. And planning needs to be considered when we talk about the shape of the countryside. I can point to appalling private building sites which look like Toytown and cannot be pleasant to live in. I can point to nice houses—farmhouses—ruined by the taking out of beautiful astragal windows and the putting in throughout of one sort of double glazing.
Some of our planners are good. The planners in Fife, for example, have done good work. In Angus some good work has been done. But the best work in Angus was done at Dyke Head in the parish of Cortachy. Nine houses were built in a group. They were built in traditional style. They were spaced out and were

827
affordable by local people in the country who cannot pay second-house prices. At first it was said that they would not be let to local people; that terrible people would come in with the rents paid by the DSS. Sure enough, some of the houses were let and the rents paid by the DSS. But there has been no trouble. It is a delightful, rural group of houses. The people who live there like them, whether or not the rents are paid by the DSS. It is astonishing what a good community it is and how it has affected the people therein. How did all that happen? Because the Earl of Airlie insisted, when he sold the land, that the houses be built in traditional form and in good taste. So there are some good-hearted, traditional landlords after all.
Socially, we must look at what happens when people are not of the countryside but are living there. If they are not members of the local church and local community in some way or other, they cannot be good for the area. If we are going to make anything of the countryside, people must have the chance to make a living there. There are all kinds of examples of how to do it and how to spread it. But the Government must give encouragement and help with the establishment of small businesses in order that the people who live there will really be "of" the country.
The Government must also look properly at marketing. Denmark has a massive, competent co-op which has been running for years. It markets, manufactures and advertises with enormous success. It is an enormous organisation whereas Milk Marque in England is being broken up. The Danes are trying to form a giant co-op with the Swedes, which will be an enormously influential body able to help—not dictate—the price given to farmers. It is important that the Government realise that and give some encouragement. They must help to reverse the process of the break-up of Milk Marque or help the bodies into which it is to be split. Either way, marketing and exploiting the virtues are absolutely essential for the future prosperity of farming.
That is the lesson we want the Government to learn. At the same time they must give attention to the fact that people are leaving farming without a penny. In the north of Scotland, where the college of agriculture works with the financial accounts of farms, it is apparent that farmers are leaving the industry without a penny to take with them. A decent retirement scheme is essential. The countryside and farming will survive; it will prosper in an entirely different way. But there must be opportunities for the small farmer to survive, whether with outside employment or with niche employment on the farm. We cannot have an agricultural industry consisting wholly of large farms.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for initiating this important and timely debate. As always I greatly enjoyed his amusing and pertinent opening remarks.
In many ways I feel rather a fraud taking part today as I am a resident of Scotland, like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and, sadly, the Scottish
828
countryside is now a devolved matter. But I am doing so having been born and brought up in England. I live only 10 miles from the Scottish-English border and all our southerly views from home are of England's beautiful countryside.
As the noble Earl mentioned, the countryside is interlinked with the prosperity of agriculture. As the House was told in no uncertain terms by noble Lords last Monday, and, again, last Thursday, agriculture is going through the worst crisis in living memory. Figures released this week show that the situation is far worse than many of us feared. I believe that urgent action is required.
It must not be forgotten that the countryside suddenly did not happen; nor is it set is aspic. It is the result of centuries of careful management by farmers and landowners who over the generations have dedicated much time, effort and money into producing what we have today.
I turn to greater access to the countryside, which I am sure many other noble Lords will mention. I hope and pray that before any Bill is drafted Her Majesty's Government will consult fully—and here I really mean "fully"—with all the relevant bodies, most especially the CLA and the NFU, both of whose membership are the guardians of our rural environment. It must not be forgotten that, in order to have a healthy countryside, it is absolutely vital to have a profitable agricultural industry. At the moment, I fear that Her Majesty's Government seem oblivious to the fact that farming, forestry and field sports are vital to the prosperity of the countryside. This is a point that I beg and implore the Government to take on board before it is too late.
On the contentious issue of' hunting with hounds, I would like to place on record once again for the future that if a ban on hunting with hounds does become law, three things would happen. First, the life of not one single fox would be preserved. It must not be forgotten that foxes are vermin and have to be controlled. Secondly, many thousands of rural jobs would be lost; and, thirdly, the rural environment, the countryside that so many love, would not he conserved in the way it is today. Surely the Government have more important things to legislate on or, indeed, to give parliamentary time to. After the Hyde Park rally, I remember that there was the most wonderful editorial in the Daily Star—of all newspapers—which stated something along the lines of, "Let's have a Bill to ban banning". How very right that editorial was.
I have four questions to ask Her Majesty's Government, all I believe of equal importance, three of which I asked last week and to which I received no reply, despite giving the officials of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, a copy of my speech in advance of the debate on the gracious Speech. The first refers to renewable energy from agricultural crops. I make no excuse for raising this once again in your Lordships' House because I believe that North Sea oil will not last for ever. Will Her Majesty's Government give a firm commitment to spending more on research and development in this area? The amount spent at the moment is a pathetic, paltry £1.1 million per annum.

829
I also feel passionately about double green energy—biodiesel manufactured from waste edible oils. Europe produces half a million tonnes of biodiesel, America is also a tremendous manufacturer of biodiesel. But what about the United Kingdom? Well, it produces nothing at present. The UK could produce 90 million litres of this double green, recycled and renewable energy at a fraction of the cost of our European counterparts.
Biodiesel produced from waste edible oils offers one of the most unique packages for energy conservation in the United Kingdom. It is already extensively used within Europe and America. It is blended with low sulphur diesel to produce a cleaner renewable fuel that may be dispensed from garages without any modifications to existing equipment. Why is this environmentally-friendly fuel not being considered and promoted? If it were, we would have a serious competitive industry in the United Kingdom.
Who is going to listen? I just hope and pray that Her Majesty's Government will. I quote the late Lord Montague of Oxford in his final contribution to this House:
"I turn to a new area: the waste edible oil industry. It is stated that it has identified another interesting possibility: recovered oils and fats. Is that true? I do not know; but who jumps on it to have a look? Apparently no one has that responsibility. The Government need to have technologically specific policies to ensure that developments still in their infancy do not become overlooked".—[Official Report, 5/11/99; col. 1141.]
I really believe that the Government must do something and urgently.
Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government give a commitment that trials of GM crops can continue in safety for those growing them? Thirdly, will Her Majesty's Government agree to pay in full, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the agri-money compensation allowances to farmers and producers and to register well before the 31st March deadline with the Commission?
Finally, I want to make a further plea for the A1 to be dualled between Edinburgh and Newcastle. This would greatly improve access to the beautiful Border countryside. Many of us who have been campaigning for years for this dualling believe that it will save lives and that it will also save the ridiculous expense of advertising every few miles on this part of the A1 how many accidents have occurred, whether they were fatal or otherwise.
Her Majesty's Government have stated on numerous occasions that they wish to govern for the whole country. We must all hope and pray that in reality that also means the countryside. I think it would be true to say that all of us taking part in the debate today feel passionately about the countryside. We must develop a long-term strategy for the countryside, not one that will simply paper over the cracks. This strategy must involve landowners, farmers, growers, the entire food industry, all government agencies—I know that my noble friend Lord Carnarvon will mention this later—and the
830
Government, so that British agriculture and the British countryside can flourish once again. This great nation surely deserves nothing less.
3.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for initiating this debate. I should also like to thank the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing and holding to this note of urgency about the situation.
It so happens that my own diocese has a population of over 2.5 million people dispersed across a considerable area of the West Midlands. The countryside in this region is among the most diverse in Britain, with patterns of life created by mixed and varied farming over many generations. We can grow anything that can be grown in Britain. We have an equable climate; we have good rainfall; and we have a profusion of habitats for our native species of wildlife. In addition, and importantly, our countryside is a green lung for communities such as Stoke-on-Trent, Wolverhampton and the Black Country, which is also within our diocesan borders.
However, additionally and crucially, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, the economy of the countryside is an integral part of the West Midlands economy as a whole. The countryside accounts for a quarter of our population, while agriculture generates nearly 30 per cent of the region's gross domestic product and provides 30 per cent of its jobs. Our countryside matters to the future of the whole West Midlands region. And yet, and yet, in too many places I have to report a depressed rural economy and countryside population. Indeed, in some places, we may even be looking at the abandonment of farmland, such is the seriousness of the situation.
It is the opinion of one informed observer that this last year of the present century, 1999, could be a serious watershed for the agricultural industry in the West Midlands, for the shape of our landscape, and for our rural communities, particularly in the lowland areas of our western side of England. Staffordshire, for example, has 4,643 farm businesses and there are 4,733 farm businesses in Shropshire, mainly family farms. Only 24 per cent of those farms—this is important—are of over 50 hectares, and most of these are in the livestock business. But, critically, just one-third of these larger farms account for 80 per cent of the total farm production of the region. We surely hope that these larger farms will continue to expand into the 21st century, providing a bedrock of downstream employment and competing with world markets both in quality and production.
However, I must stress that for the other two-thirds farming is bleak and stress levels are at an all-time high. My own diocese, along with the NFU, has been active in setting up rural helplines to help people in our countryside who are in great distress. Farm incomes are plummeting. Families are staring at the following bleak possibilities: the possibility of loss of business and loss of income; the possibility of defaulting on

831
pension policies and insurance policies; the loss of the family home; the dispersal of magnificent herds and flocks bred with pride over many generations; and the necessity to move away, probably to a nearby town, because of the relentless planning system and big house prices which often conspire against any chance of a family staying within their own community.
I declare an interest here because many of the families I describe support, and are the backbone of, our rural churches. At the moment many families suffer a sense of deep failure through no fault of their own. If they stay in the community, this group of farmers will join the hidden poor of the countryside which, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, rightly emphasised, can lead ultimately to social exclusion.
It is critical that this Government take the lead and make an open and intellectual commitment to our farmers in order to restore pride, morale and confidence in this industry. How can the Government encourage young people to see agriculture and land-related industries as a good career? Why are our agricultural colleges having to fill their places with so many non-mainstream courses to survive? Why are so many fewer young people applying to such colleges in my region as Rodbastan, Walford and Harper Adams? Like many others I look forward to the forthcoming rural White Paper and to the new countryside Bill mentioned in the Queen's Speech. We watch with interest the submission this month to the European Community of the EC rural development plan.
I conclude with three questions to which I hope that the Minister may be able to respond. First, can the Government stake their claim with Europe to ensure that reformed CAP schemes for rural development will rechannel agri-environmental funding into the agricultural sector in order both to assist specialist markets and to manage the countryside? Can the Government co-fund any such funding from Europe?
Secondly, in the coming White Paper, can the Government focus on helping us to breathe new life into our historic market towns? For example, in east Shropshire a partnership of the Countryside Agency, of local and parish government and the chamber of commerce is co-operating to revitalise Wellington, Shifnal, Albrighton and Newport. The aim is to fulfil the real potential of these towns, to make them lived-in communities and hubs of the rural economy and to give them pride in themselves as places in which to live.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, can the Government's next Comprehensive Spending Review tackle the inequities resulting from the higher cost of delivering public services in rural areas? Can they do something about the distortion in the calculation of grant caused by inappropriate yardsticks of need and the lack of consideration of the kind of services, for example, recreation, which rural authorities want?
I must emphasise that these factors are having a serious impact in Shropshire and Staffordshire where police force budgets are the lowest in the country and where children in our rural schools receive hundreds of pounds less per child than any others in the United Kingdom as a result of the nonsensical formulas involved.
832
There are others in your Lordships' House who understand much better than I the mechanisms needed for the revitalisation of this vital part of our national life. However, may we please first put in place not only the Government's, but also the country's, firm and visible support for all those who live and work in the countryside, along with rightful pride in their contribution to our economy, to our environment and to our leisure?
4.6 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I begin by doing two things. First, I declare my interest as a farmer. Secondly, I add my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on introducing this timely debate and on his extremely fine opening speech. He frequently used a word which I had intended to use several times; namely, "despair". I believe that there is real despair in the countryside now which I have never seen before in my lifetime and have only heard about from my elders with regard to the years between the two world wars.
Yesterday the press published the annual forward "leak", as I believe it is known, with regard to farm income figures for the past year. We read in the press that the average net farm income in the less favoured areas in the United Kingdom—my noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned this—has now sunk to £2,000 a year. This is in spite of huge subsidies which are paid to the less favoured areas each year. There has been a worsening of the situation for many years whereby the subsidies paid to those in the hill areas amount to more than the income that is gained. These farmers now have an average net income of £2,000 per farm per year. Farming is not like any other business because in almost all cases income has to cover compensation for the effort of the farmer, the hours he has put in, and interest on his investment.
As I say, the situation is extremely bad in the hill areas, the less favoured areas, but I am also particularly concerned about those farmers in marginal areas. Their land is still poor but it is slightly too good to qualify for hill farming subsidies. Many of them are small, tenant businesses. The farmers do not have the value of the land to fall back on as a cushion. In the old phrase, they do not have much fat on their backs.
When I had responsibility for these matters years ago I was able to find a small amount of money for the marginal farms. But I suspect that the very alarming figures for the hill areas which we read about yesterday in the press shroud a much worse situation in the marginal areas which cause me so much concern. I have felt over the years that those farmers who did not receive hill subsidies had a harder prospect than their friends and colleagues who farmed a little further up the hill.
One of the most alarming things that we read yesterday in the press was that more than 20,000 farmers and workers have quit the industry over the past year. That is a highly worrying situation. We must hear from the Government what they intend to do about that.

833
What I am about to say has been said before in this debate, but it is important to keep saying it. Agriculture is the powerhouse of the countryside. If it is doing very badly indeed, its plight filters down to all the ancillary businesses which live off the farming industry. At the present rate of progress my fear is that we are only a year or two away from seeing derelict land in this country which no one wants to farm. I can remember only once in my life seeing derelict land in the United Kingdom and that was when I visited Northern Ireland many years ago. I do not know how many noble Lords have seen derelict land. It is not a pretty sight.
I am sure that many speakers in this debate will suggest matters which the Government could take up and actions which they could take to stem the decline, despair and bleak prospect which face the countryside at the moment.
I conclude by saying as strongly as I can to the Minister that there is one thing which the Government should not do and that is to dismantle MAFF at this time. I have been hearing persistent rumours in the recent past that on 1st April next year, when the Food Standards Agency begins its work, a very large chunk of MAFF's activities will be removed to that agency; and that the Prime Minister has it in mind to swallow MAFF into the Department of Trade and Industry. I warn the Government that if they were to do that they would be demonstrating in the clearest possible way their lack of interest in the countryside. Dismantling the department would add hugely to the despair and cause confidence to decline more steeply from its present low level.
If the Government want to boost the morale of country people, they should reorganise MAFF, bearing in mind that responsibilities for food standards are being taken away. It should be reorganised as a department covering all countryside matters as well as agriculture and fisheries. Responsibilities for the countryside now lie in other departments, particularly in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is much too big. The department could easily absorb those responsibilities. If MAFF were to be swallowed up into the DTI or some other department, it would put the Minister in charge of agriculture and fisheries on the level of the Minister of State. In my time in the Council of Agricultural Ministers I do not recall any agriculture Minister who was not in the Cabinet in his own right. I am sure that it would very much downgrade the influence of the United Kingdom in the Council of Agricultural Ministers if the United Kingdom were represented in those circumstances by only a Minister of State. Above all, I believe that the downgrading of the department—which I believe and understand to be a very real prospect at this time—would depress even further the current despair in the countryside.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I would very much like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield whose very human speech was a very special addition to this debate, so sincerely introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Like him, I have many interests to declare in this important debate—farming, strategic planning, houses open to the public and country sports. But today I am concentrating on one, the contribution made by country sports to the countryside.
Only last week I was chairing a meeting of the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports looking at the role of the agencies, three of which were presenting papers after Mr Michael Meacher, the Minister, had introduced the debate.
In discussing the forthcoming Bill on access, some of the fears of those who farm or who are involved in land management and forestry, were partly put to rest when we heard the Minister underline the position of woodlands which he said were not to be made accessible; and later on, when the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, expressed the need that all dogs would have to be kept on leads. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness is not in her place. She gave an excellent explanation of the work of English Nature, even though tempted by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, to get a touch of Langholme fever at odd times.
I have been a very keen supporter of access for many years, particularly when I became the first chairman of the Countryside Committee of Hampshire County Council. During those years in the early 1960s, the county council bought by agreement or leased over 5,000 acres of land of high landscape value to take the pressure off honeypot areas like the New Forest. That was a very successful exercise completed only with the help and co-operation of landowners only too willing to share their beauty spots with those who wished to visit them.
The success of this venture, which gave access to downland, waterside and hill tops, was due to a great extent to the way in which the landowners were approached by the local authority which accepted that certain areas of the estate were very sensitive to intrusion which would disturb both shooting and fishing.
Those who own and work the land are only too pleased to co-operate with statutory authorities if those authorities are understanding of the very severe difficulties that now face both farmers and landowners, large and small. Some give and take is very necessary if relationships in the countryside are not to reach breaking point. That could mean damage to the environment affecting those who live in the countryside and the visitors, and could also be detrimental to flora and fauna.
It was not clear to many of us during the standing conference discussions how closely the main agencies—English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency—work together. It would seem that there can be conflicts between them in the emphasis that they place on particular issues and

835
between concerns about the management of wildlife and landscape and those who manage the land. We now have yet another quango—the regional development agency—as a further bureaucratic layer.
Having listened to the presentations given by English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency, it seems essential that they should work together towards a common objective, the management of the countryside as a whole, rather than each one pursuing its own agenda. Those of us who have to manage the countryside for farming, for forestry, for country sports, for access and for amenity, need clear messages and soundly based guidance. I hope the Minister will take an interest in those last few words.
4.21 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, like others, I must first of all declare an interest as a farmer and as chairman of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. I also have other agricultural and countryside pursuits. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his invigorating introduction to the debate. I shall follow him in the observations that he made very trenchantly about the unerring ability we have in this country to make ourselves less competitive rather than more competitive. We shoot ourselves in the foot—and that is as close as I shall get to following the country sports' metaphor.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. Some years ago I served on Hampshire County Council with him. I can vouch that the number of initiatives he started when he was chairman of the planning committee and chairman of the county council are great beacons and examples for other local authorities.
Although it comprises a minority sector of the rural economy, agriculture still remains a highly important percentage of it. As the right reverend Prelate reminded us, it is something in the order of 30 per cent in many areas.
We still lack in this country a clear strategy of what the Government and society as a whole expect from United Kingdom agriculture. The Minister may think that that is a bit hard, but time and time again Ministers have told us their aspirations and what they expect from agriculture. For example, paragraph 5.6 of the discussion document published by the Government in February of this year, which paves the way for the White Paper that has been mentioned, states:
"The Government wants to see the farming industry adapting to meet the challenges of changing consumer demand, world trade liberalisation and new techniques in agriculture".
That is a very fair summary. I do not quarrel with any of it. However, I suggest to the Government that they should not worry about agriculture taking up new techniques. It is already an industry which is peerless in terms of following research and development and implementing it. A lot of the problems come from the
836
reluctance of the rest of society—and, indeed, the Government—sometimes to understand the implications of new technology.
If we want British agriculture to be competitive, it will have to move fast to compete with lower cost production systems around the world. There is an inability to realise that if we do not have a competitive agriculture system, the rural economy will ultimately suffer.
An example of this muddled thinking, the inability to think through what we mean by "competitive agriculture" in the face of world trade liberalisation, was demonstrated in a document from the Minister's agricultural advisory group, three members of which came from the Government Benches. The report is entitled Europe's Agriculture The Case for Change. On the whole, it is a wide-ranging and interesting discussion about the future of the common agricultural policy and it has a lot to say about rural development strategies. However, paragraph 4.3 shows where it falls into total confusion. It states:
"In so far as the CAP can be held responsible for stimulating intensive livestock production within a commercial culture which treats farm animals as tradable objects, disquiet over publicly funded support for such activities is itself a significant driver for change".
The report goes on to promote the case for the development of less intensive and alternative systems of production.
That is very much the fashion. Everyone seems to think that commercial, and therefore intensive—a word charged with meaning—production must inevitably have lower environmental benefits or greater environmental impacts. It is open to the implication of being less satisfactory in terms of animal welfare. That may or may not be the case. The size of the unit, the size of the scale, is irrelevant. Clearly what is important is the system of husbandry. If we had the evidence, I suspect it would show that the standard of husbandry has no correlation to the size of the unit. Rather charged words like "intensive systems" or, alternatively, "extensive systems" simply confuse us.
One can imagine the astonishment farmers must feel when they read that there is something discreditable about using animals as tradable objects. That is what agriculture is all about; agriculture exploits animals. One may not like the language, but that is what agriculture is all about. I do not know whether those shepherds who were watching their flocks by night 2,000 years ago would describe themselves as "intensive"—perhaps the right reverend Prelate will tell us—but I am absolutely sure that they were trading in their sheep. So let us not have any of this nonsense that there is something reprehensible about agriculture trying to trade, and to trade competitively. If one trades in livestock, that is the nature of one's agriculture.
The Government tell us that we need to be competitive. Let us not have any more muddled thinking about preferring intensive to extensive. Let us

837
make sure that we have environmentally sound agricultural systems in which the food can be marketed as the best of environmental produce.
I am absolutely sure that we have some of the best welfare standards in the world. It is one of the areas in which we have put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage. We have rightly imposed restrictions on the use of husbandry systems which are widely used on the Continent—for example, in pig meat production—and we are about to do the same with battery cages for hen production. But what has happened? We have already lost a considerable share of our pig meat market.
The consumer is delighted to hear that we have imposed those much stronger husbandry regulations—and any market research would confirm that the consumer would continue to like to have a say in this—but when it comes to making a choice in the shops, if the consumer is asked immediately after purchase, "What determined you to buy that produce?", the answer is, "Price". In other words, the connection simply is not made. That is not a criticism of the Government; it is a criticism of much of the meat industry, the agricultural sector as a whole and, by implication, the consumer. If we want to put in place systems which are environmentally benign, with strong animal welfare advantages, we shall have to carry the message through to the consumer.
I suspect that one of the reasons we do not do that is that we are rather ashamed of the fact that we are trading in livestock; that we are exploiting animals. Once we pull our punches on that, we go on to fail to draw attention to some of the fairly nasty practices adopted by other producers around the world who are in direct competition with us. We need to say so. We should simply say that we are going to go for these rather more expensive systems. If we are going to deliver these environmental benefits—which, I am absolutely clear, is part of agriculture's role—we shall have to say that our competitors are aborting their cows in order to keep a tight calving pattern; that they are using chemicals that we would not dream of using, but they do the job. They have a very tight calving pattern, which means that one can buy some very cheap butter in the market. That may be considered a dangerous practice, but we should know it.
It is not the job of British agriculture to rubbish the competition, but the Government should support consumer organisations. Let us take, for example, what happens with refrigerators. If one buys a refrigerator, one finds on the back some kind of code which tells one whether it is environmentally benign or whether it emits ozone-depleting chemicals and the like. We could do exactly the same with agriculture. We could have a code based on the agricultural regulations of our competitors which says, "This produce is likely to have been produced from an environmentally benign system" or, "a less environmentally benign system". If the country in question uses practices which we consider to be undesirable, clearly it would have a lower coding than ours.
838
We have one advantage in agricultural production in this country which, I believe, farmers like myself often do not acknowledge as a great advantage; that is, the sophistication of the buyers of the multiple retail outlets. They require us to have total traceability and to conform to protocols which are by no means like regulations; they are much tighter. We take that advantage, which has been forced on us, for very good reasons, and we should take it right through to the consumer. If we could label our produce in the multiple retail outlets so that the consumer is able to trace it back to a precise farm—not just to the region, but to the actual farm—I believe that we should gain a great advantage.
I should like to see consumers taking an equal interest in the provenance and quality of their food. They should point out, quite rightly, if they believe that our practices are perhaps too intensive or if there is some correlation which I do not know about between intensive production and poor environmental animal husbandry standards. By all means, they should point out those matters and agriculture should address the problems. We should be proud of the products of the British countryside. At the moment we sell ourselves short.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I believe it is wholly appropriate that this House should turn its mind to the countryside. After all, this is the traditional Chamber of county and country. However, I am astonished that the party opposite has instigated the debate. They, after all, should hang their heads in shame for what they have done to Britain's countryside, to the people who live and work there and to those of us who visit it recreationally.
During the last war and the period of the post-war Labour governments, the British people dug for victory. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that in the past two decades in rural Britain the Tories have dug for defeat. Their political interference in the countryside in the application of the free market economics of malign neglect and malevolent negligence has left our rural areas without direction and in disarray. The mad cow crisis was only the culmination—
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. There is some disquiet on our Benches about the opening of the noble Lord's speech. I believe that it was totally unjustified. Is he suggesting that my noble friend Lord Ferrers should hide his head in shame for introducing today an extremely important debate? Although it is not a political point which I would normally make, when I look at the lack of people sitting on the Benches opposite and at the list of speakers, I am taken aback by the tone of the opening of the noble Lord's speech.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. However, I shall go on to detail and substantiate why I make the points that I do. I return to the point which I was making.

839
The mad cow crisis was only the culmination of a bovine philosophy, inflicted on the land, which promoted estrangement at the expense of the community in our rural areas. In the 1980s, as chairman of Cheshire County Council's countryside committee and as a member of Cheshire Rural Voice, I witnessed the fraying of the ties that knit communities together. First, I saw the stamping out of rural post offices, then the early closing of small schools on financial, not educational or social, grounds. There followed the illiteracy of scaling down library services to our small towns and villages, and the derailing by privatisation of the trains and buses that might carry the people from field to town to obtain the services now expunged from the countryside. Even then, rural shops and pubs had their last orders called early by the then government, who claimed to be the farmer's friend. That was "rural vice", not "rural voice", perpetrated by the party opposite.
No wonder that in the countryside today people are living lives of quiet desperation because of those desperado deeds. And no wonder that it is now Labour, not the Tories, who are farming votes in Britain's countryside, as recently evidenced in the by-election in Eddisbury, which I proudly represented in Europe for 10 years. If William Cobbett were to retrace his steps in the countryside today, he would indeed assert that the British people had been taken for a "rural ride" by the previous administration.
I should like to say a word or two about who should speak for the countryside. I confess that I am a fully paid-up, brick-built townee. However, in my years on Cheshire County Council, and latterly as an MEP with a vast rural constituency, I hope that I made an effort to learn about the countryside. Indeed, I was most grateful to colleagues in the CLA and in particular in the NFU for taking me out on a regular basis to look, learn and listen to their countryside yarns of hopes and fears. Indeed, I have come to the view that there are advantages in being an outsider. Sometimes you see things more clearly with no mud on your shoes or boots and from the other side of the farm gate.
Similarly, I believe there is a danger that country people and those who represent them may believe that they have a unique and a decisive grasp of country lore and life. I was never more irritated as a county councillor than when some of my agricultural colleagues queried my right to speak and vote on country matters simply because I was a city dweller. Imagine the green wellie boot being on the other foot; imagine those of us who represent city constituencies debarring our country cousins from speaking on town matters on the ground that they lack urbanity on matters urban. Indeed, the lasting impression I have of those who live in Britain's rural areas is that they feel thrown together because of their isolation. They believe themselves to be misunderstood and mischaracterised. I think that they have a point. That
840
is why I am proud that since their inception this Labour Government have made strenuous efforts to respond to the changing needs of the countryside, not just in the area of fox hunting, although that debate has at its heart the refining sensibilities of the British people regarding animal welfare.
Incidentally, I am moved to remark on the unfortunate event that saw seven foxhounds crushed to death by a train in Hampshire last weekend. In the 1980s when I was responsible for leading the political pack on banning fox hunting on Cheshire County Council land, one of the arguments which persuaded me to vote in favour and to encourage drag hunting as a safe alternative was the evidence of a Cheshire train driver. He experienced the danger to trains and their passengers presented by unsupervised hounds recklessly crossing rail lines in pursuit of a fox, imperilling the lives of train passengers.
I ask the Minister to take into account two other aspects in formulating and developing the Government's modernising rural programmes and policy. After all, we must look to the future. The first concerns the European Union and small businesses. The Government have shown themselves a present and past master at negotiating within the single European market for the benefit of Britain, especially with regard to lifting the beef ban. No one will forget the shrill trumpeting on this issue of the party opposite when in government. When they were in charge of the mad cows, they demonstrated very ably how to lose friends and fail to influence people in Europe. As to the beef on the bone ban, they have gone from being bone idle to being bone headed.
Can the Government now build on the good work of adopting and adapting sensible European programmes like LEADER and PRISMA, which aim to help small firms—often high-tech ones—to take root in Britain's countryside? The wonder of the Internet and related technologies miraculously have made SMEs natural grazers in today's countryside. The opportunity to supply worthwhile jobs in our rural towns and villages through such schemes and technologies must be harvested with enthusiasm.
The second aspect, again related to the single market, concerns the single currency. Many traditional industries like agriculture, where many farmers have opened euro accounts with the enthusiastic support of the NFU, and many newer industries like tourism, where the foreign tourists of the future will bring the euro as well as the pound to spend in the countryside, require us to prepare for the eventuality of the euro in the lanes and villages of rural Britain. Will the Government give thought, perhaps in conjunction with the NFU or the Countryside Alliance, to preparing an impact assessment of the euro on our rural life. That is a piece of work which would never be wasted, whether Britain joins now, next year or never.

841
Such initiatives would be consonant with the Government's desire to prepare their people for the future. After all, however much we might regret it—pace to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who stated that agriculture was the powerhouse of the countryside—we have to recognise that farming is no longer the pre-eminent industry in the countryside.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, which industry is pre-eminent?
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I was about to make the point that, apart from the other industries that exist in the countryside, leisure and tourism are catching up fast.
Let me conclude by telling your Lordships that the largest public meeting I ever addressed concerned itself with leisure provision in the countryside in the form of the Conservative government's plans to privatise Delamere Forest in Eddisbury, to rob it from the people of Cheshire. Fortunately, the Robin Hoods of the party opposite were repulsed and today we celebrate the fact that the green lung of Cheshire, with which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield will be familiar, remains open to, for and used by the people in this part of England's green and pleasant land.
4.41 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not certain for which inner city election the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is standing. His speech was good tub-thumping stuff but I do not think it was very relevant to the debate or very accurate.
I commend my noble friend Lord Ferrers on introducing this important debate, which some of us will take seriously. If one flies over Britain today, one is often reminded of William Blake's words of "England's pleasant pastures", with its copses, hedges and stone walls. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was right to remind us that those were all created by human beings, who have manicured nature to produce the beautiful countryside that we can see from the air. The only mess that has been made of the countryside is that one state institution, the Forestry Commission.
When one comes down from the air to ground level, one finds, as we have heard today, a very different story. It is a story of a people who have been told how to run their lives by city people who have failed to run their own lives satisfactorily. My noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned farm incomes. Under the present Labour Government farm incomes have been cut by half. Under the previous Labour government farm incomes were cut by half. The only difference is that this Government have done it in half the time their predecessors took to do it. My noble friend Lord Jopling reminded us that farm incomes today are £2,000 per farm, which is not a very satisfactory state of affairs. But in Scotland last year farm incomes were £416 per farm. That contrasts with £4,615 per farm in
842
1997–98 and £20,546 in 1996–97. My noble friend Lord Jopling was right to take this to its logical conclusion. If farm incomes drop at the present rate, one will have job losses. The countryside cannot afford further job losses. Yet between June 1998 and June 1999 we lost more than 20,000 farming jobs, and those jobs, I hazard a guess, will never come back to the industry. They will never return. They have not historically and they will not in the future.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, mentioned a good deal of what I wanted to say about access to the countryside. I do not have his expertise and I therefore listened to him with great attention. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said how much he appreciates the countryside. He said that he could go there when he wants to and come away when he wants to. But where were the ramblers after last year's storms? Who cleared the footpaths after the gales blew down the trees? Who opened up the bridle ways? It was not the ramblers; it was the farmers; it was the people who earn their everyday crust out of farming. By the time the people from the towns decided that the weather was warm enough and that the footpaths would be dry enough to walk on again, the work had been done by those who live there. I wish to add only one point to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. What really worries me about the right to roam is that it has a higher priority for some of those who wish to do it than actually understanding the countryside and the people who live there and over whose land they want to walk.
I turn to an aspect of the subject that has not so far been mentioned. I know that my noble friend Lord Peel will say more about it. I refer to crime in the countryside. A survey of farmers for BBC1's "Countryfile" showed that 55 per cent had been burgled; 45 per cent had suffered vandalism; 33 per cent had suffered verbal abuse; 20 per cent had suffered arson; 10 per cent had suffered physical abuse; and 40 per cent thought that crime was on the increase. Those are horrifying statistics. Sue Rhodes, the wildlife crime analyst for Humberside Police, commenting on the gangs of hare poachers who cause havoc in her area, said:
"Nowadays if an officer sees a transit van parked down a dark lane he dare not open the door".
She went on:
"People in the area are frightened to death of them".
Those poachers will not pay any respect to a government Bill that seeks to outlaw the hunting of hares by hounds and dogs. They are beyond the law. Unless more resources can be given to the police in rural areas, crime will continue to increase and people's lives will be threatened on a regular basis.
I hoped that the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, would say something about houses because he is an acknowledged expert in the south east. The Government's proposed housing policy for the south east will lead to a trail of destruction. No wonder the press had to tell us that the Prime Minister has yet again had to come to the rescue of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment,

843
Transport and the Regions, Mr Prescott, when he suddenly realised that what Mr Prescott had said was in fact what he wanted to do. Mr Prescott had said:
"The green belt is a Labour achievement and we mean to build on it".
Where will the Government put these houses? Do they know how many houses they will put in the south east? How much of the green belt will be destroyed in the process? I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply will give me answers to those points.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I shall be delighted to try to cover all the points that have been made. Perhaps I may say that I accept that in a debate like this it is right that noble Lords should feel able to criticise in contentious terms aspects of the Government's policy. But I think that a little bit of what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. I wonder whether noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench wish to intervene in the noble Earl's speech because they seemed to find it desperately offensive when the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, made comments with which they did not agree on aspects of the previous government's policy.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, how policies are commented upon in this House is also important. At the moment, those living in the countryside feel under very severe threat. By and large, they are a resident, predominantly white, small and persecuted minority. It is one thing not to understand the problem, but it is a totally different thing not to try to tackle it and not to care. I believe that that is a charge of which this Government stand guilty.
For that reason, perhaps the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield will agree with me that, rather than the words of William Blake in "Jerusalem" that I mentioned earlier, a quote from Tennyson is more apposite. He described his parishioners as depressed people, many of whom wanted to abandon farming. In the poem "Maud" Lord Tennyson said:
"I am sick of the Hall and the hill,
I am sick of the moor and the main,
Why should I stay? Can sweeter chance ever come to me here?
O, having the nerves of motion as well as nerves of pain,
Were it not wise if I fled from the place and the pit and the fear".
4.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I am afraid that I must begin my contribution with an apology. It may be necessary for me to leave a little before the end of the debate in order to return to the north east before milking time. Of course I feel privileged to be sharing in the debate when so many experts and practitioners—those who live and work in the countryside—are taking part. So far it has been an inspiration.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for introducing such an informative debate. I was interested in the distinction he was attempting to draw between animal rights and human rights. I heard a tale the other day of a lady walking down the street
844
wearing a fur coat. She was accosted by animal rights protestors with the words, "What poor creature has had to die so that you can wear that coat?", to which she replied, "My mother-in-law". That may serve as a lesson to all of us in public speaking. We must ask the appropriate question if we want to get the appropriate answer.
It was heartwarming to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, especially when he referred to safety on the A.1. I am so glad that he did that. Some noble Lords will have heard of the tragedy we experienced in the diocese of Durham recently when three priests died in a road accident on the same stretch of road. I was also pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Prior, sitting in his place earlier in the debate. Many noble Lords will know that he chaired a famous commission that resulted in the Church of England report entitled Faith in the Countryside. Although that report is almost 10 years old, it still serves as a bible on countryside matters and sits on many of our shelves. Indeed, it has reinvigorated and inspired a good deal of activity by the Church in the countryside. We are planning to hold a special 10-year celebration within the next few months.
I should like to reaffirm the Church's continued commitment to the countryside at a time when we have seen the post office, the school and other community amenities closing down. The parish church and indeed the chapel are determined to maintain their presence in an increasingly ecumenical way. In spite of a reduction in the total number of the clergy, we are still committed to manning the countryside, and of course the vast majority of parish churches are still active. Church buildings continue to be widely used. That is a tribute to those loyal local people—readers, churchwardens and many other volunteers—who keep our churches open, presentable and beautiful places that evoke contemplation. The focus for those people is of course the Creator God, but their beacon is the parish church which is used by the whole village community and is admired and visited by so many from outside.
Those communities are not helped by the imposition of VAT on repairs to church buildings. Often a few church people bear the responsibility for maintaining a medieval historic building that stands at the heart of a rural community and to which the whole community—of any faith or none—looks to represent the very core of that community. However, to those few people who strive to maintain the church, it presents a dilemma of priorities: should they spend all their time raising money in order to maintain the building on behalf of all the rest, or should they spend some of their resources of time and money carrying out many other activities for the church—not least in service to the community and the provision of good worship? For the moment, the Church of England continues to maintain those churches and does so gladly, but it may not always be possible for it to do that as costs rise and rural populations decline. For that reason, I ask the Government once again whether they intend to retain VAT on historic church building repairs, or do they propose, at some point in the future,

845
to look at this again and perhaps seek to amend the law so that parish churches, which represent the heart of our countryside, may remain part of the glory of it?
The Church of England is in the countryside because it embraces a theology of creation which has at its heart the concept of a countryside that is living, is working and is responsible. It will be a living countryside by demonstrating life in all its diversity. In other words, it will continue to live if it remains a balanced community and is not distorted by age, wealth or skills. Much of our countryside is in danger of losing that balance because of the migration of young families. For example, fewer than 20 years ago the small and delightful village of St John's Chapel near the head of Weardale up in my part of the world had a population of 103 children. Now it has only 38.
That example underlines the importance of schools. I affirm again the Church of England's commitment to the continued provision of schools, many of which serve our rural communities. Twenty-five per cent of the nation's primary school children attend Church of England primary schools. However, the closing of village schools has a particularly disastrous effect on the provision for learning. For St John's Chapel a library of any kind is 22 miles away, while a swimming pool is 14 miles away. Public transport is at a premium for many young people. Family life in rural areas is under threat, as many clergy can testify from their pastoral work, and to which my noble friend the Bishop of Lichfield has already referred. We must seek to reverse the trend towards fragmentation. Families are held together when social relationships integrate them into the community. Buying, selling, growing, employing and enjoying social life together are essential elements of living. They provide the historic continuity and loyal mutual commitment which are of the essence in many village communities.
The Churches wish to continue playing their role in keeping living communities right at the heart of the countryside. If we fail, then much else of the living countryside will be under threat. However, to sustain such a living community, it must also be a working community. I cannot stress too strongly the plight of farmers in the north east, especially hill farmers in the Pennines. Other noble Lords have testified to similar concerns in other parts of the country. Today stories abound of farm sales and of the deeply sad personal circumstances of many farmers and the consequent effect on their families.
That has happened in the main because of the decline in sheep markets and pig farming. In 1955, 80 lambs would have purchased a tractor. In 1997, 80 lambs will purchase one-quarter of a tractor. A farmer told me recently that he had just had his hair cut. The cut cost him £4.50 and he thought that was good value. But he pointed out that he would have to cut the hair of 150 sheep to pay for his one haircut.
If hill farming collapses, not only a way of life but an environment will be under threat. That leads me to saying that a living and working countryside must also be a highly responsible one. Diversification and the welcoming of tourists are options that are taken up in
846
many areas. But tourism and second homes must not be allowed to develop at the expense of the living rural community, or indeed of ecological and other environmental balances. Those depend on sustaining good farming practices and a full-time resident population aware of, and in partnership with, the benefits that nature in creation has given us. Without that element of responsibility, there will be no recognisable countryside for visitors to enjoy.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, do bishops have a dispensation to ignore the customs of the House and excuse themselves from attending the rest of the debate? I have noted that it often happens.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I am not aware that we have any extra privileges. If it is the House's wish, I shall certainly stay and catch a later train. I am at such a distance from the north east and I have an appointment first thing in the morning. It presents some difficulties when that convention has to be obeyed. I promise that I shall try to avoid that kind of excuse in future.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, we on these Benches are very understanding, and Members on the Government Benches appear to be in agreement. We all try to observe the convention, but we are grateful for the contributions of noble Lords even if occasionally they are not able to be present for the conclusion of the debate. The Government may wish to comment.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not think that we should debate the general principle. A principle has been laid down and we should not undermine it. Equally, all of us appreciate the contribution of the right reverend Prelate. I do not think that any of us would want him to be unnecessarily delayed this evening.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, first, I declare an interest. I have been involved in agriculture practically all my life, among a number of other activities. As a farmer, I have always regarded myself as being among the custodians of the countryside. Perhaps in replying the Minister will comment on that. As a custodian of the countryside, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that leisure and tourism are certainly important; but will they be so important if we take the heart out of the countryside and neglect agriculture? We hear stories, as we did from the right reverend Prelate, about large numbers of people, particularly young people, moving away from the countryside. What will be left to interest those who visit it?
I rise in particular to support my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and I thank him for introducing the debate. It is particularly important at the present time. It is a pleasure and encouragement—indeed, it gives us great inspiration—to hear such fine comments from two right reverend Prelates. The right reverend Prelate the

847
Bishop of Lichfield represents a diocese that I know well. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham represents a totally different area, one that contains many small farms and farming families, who are in extreme difficulty at present. I hope that the important statements of the right reverend Prelates will be well presented throughout the country.
In a previous debate on this subject, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells reminded us of the necessity of a level playing field for farmers. He registered the importance of that idea for the archives of this great building. Many speakers have recognised the present crisis in agriculture and the inevitable pressures on the countryside as a whole.
Over the years, many of us in this Chamber have witnessed the struggle and progress of British agriculture and its different stages: its contribution to the economy; the growth in productivity; the elimination of so many plant and animal diseases; the high-quality products that are now being produced through the advantage of science and technology; and the healthy landscape—anyone who has not noticed that when travelling through our wonderful countryside is not very observant. My noble friend Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, said in opening the Royal Show that if the rest of industry in Britain was as efficient or productive as British agriculture, the economy would be in much better shape. An example has been set in the countryside by those involved in the agricultural industry.
As we move towards the end of this millennium and into the next, we are witnessing a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. Farming resilience is being tested to the limit and the future does not offer much cause for optimism. At present, many farmers would be grateful for the bone from the T-bone steak that they are attempting to sell.
Many of my noble friends have mentioned the possibilities, or lack of them, for the future of young farmers. There are young farmers present today, listening to the debate. They tell me that they have the courage to face the challenges ahead. They are prepared to cut costs and to diversify, as the countryside demands. They are prepared to work hard and efficiently to keep British agriculture afloat. They want to use their own slogan; they want to put the "young" back into "Young Farmers". I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply. She may comment on the possibilities or otherwise for their future.
Part of the crisis that we presently face is not of the Government's making. The cost of the BSE crisis may reach £5 billion overall by 2001. We have received government aid arid agri-monetary compensation from Brussels, which has helped, but it is too little, too late. It could have been paid earlier, and paid in full, as every other country in the European Union has done when its farmers have been in a similar position, through the strength of their currency against those of other countries. Competing in an unfair market is impossible and unnecessary when a mechanism is available to correct it through currency exchange.
848
Equally, we are faced with imports produced under less stringent animal welfare conditions and the high cost of the red tape affecting farmers and those who work in slaughterhouses, manufacturing, processing and so on. I am pleased that the Government have at least accepted the need to examine the position and that a committee is reviewing the whole question of red tape and bureaucracy.
I believe that consumers are getting the message, but do they understand that growth promoters in the form of hormones are accepted in the United States and elsewhere by those who buy them? The products can be marketed here. Do consumers realise that over 65 per cent of soya produced in the United States and elsewhere is genetically modified? Of course, there are methods of checking products coming in, but it is difficult to check every kilo of soya in a 2 million tonne product that comes into this country. Do consumers realise how much junk food we consume in this country? It is £2.7 billion worth, probably coming from imported products. We consume more than Italy, France and Spain together.
As we debate the issues, policy-makers are at this moment trying to discuss a move to globalisation of trade in Seattle. In the last round, the United States made it clear—this was supported by their own Farm Bill—that they wanted to remove all subsidies. Last week, Senator Glickman, the Secretary for Agriculture in Washington, announced an emergency package for struggling farmers of 22.5 billion dollars. He said with great pride, "This is the highest in history".
So much for free trade policies. This morning on television I saw the demand by President Clinton that Europe's common agricultural policy must remove all subsidies. Of course, the common agricultural policy is being reformed; it is moving in that direction. No one will mind that, so long as we can have fair play and the level playing field which is so important to it.
It is extremely difficult for farmers to understand why we restrict production with quotas and set-asides, while other exporters talk about expansion. We know that expansion is necessary in many parts of the world where half the population is starving. In her reply, perhaps the Minister could suggest a way of survival, when regulations drive people in one of the country's most efficient areas out of business. Chickens have not been mentioned, but I mention them now because the point applies to all other products too. One producer whom I know well has been driven out because of the regulations concerning his business. All it does is to export our industry and jobs overseas, where welfare, food safety, and global warming regulations are minuscule compared with our own.
So we must be protected from what we call "cheap" food policies—unfair policies and unfair imports coming from other countries. Does the Minister accept, or is she aware, that for countryside conservation to provide what the public wants, a viable agriculture is essential? There are no medals for going bust. Low level environmental payments are no substitute for profit.

849
I also ask what measures are in hand to enable efficient, hard-working farmer-businessmen to make a living. They know how to farm, but if they have to cut back on maintenance and the necessary nutrients, it would be like living off our seed corn. I hope that the Minister agrees that it would be disastrous to follow the woollen industry of 130 years ago.
Finally, will the Minister encourage the Government to act on the growing problem of TB in badgers and cattle? To country people, this is a far more intractable priority, and welfare, economic and health issue than fox-hunting. I shall accept the noble Baroness's answers in writing, if she prefers to send them to me.
5.13 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. I wish he could have continued for the next few minutes as well, because we all know of his great experience and personal interest in world agriculture. It is a privilege to speak in this debate and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the opportunity to have another beef!
That aside, the farming news is still grim. The economic weather forecast seems continually bleak and farmers are already looking ahead to the deficits of the coming season. Every year, I wonder whether my farming friends and neighbours in Dorset will still be there in 12 months' time. Every year I am relieved and delighted that somehow they have remained, and yet many of them are the marginal farmers whom the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, mentioned.
Destitution is never far away and there are already small signs of change: a downward rent review, sold off grass keep, a farm worker laid off or a new source of income off the farm, taking up the opportunities for change mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.
So why do things apparently stay the same? The first reason is the outstanding quality of our farmers. The second is the pride we all have and which has been described in preserving our countryside, including the churches, schools and fabric of village life.
As a nation which seriously expects a dwindling farm industry to pick itself up, look beyond the farm to alternative forms of income, welcome more visitors and become caretakers as well as tillers of the soil, we are asking a great deal. We are lucky to have farmers at all after those demands. It is an almost impossible task in a normal year, let alone another one of falling prices, incomes and investment. The NFU has reported a 20-year low in investment and a 62 per cent fall in real income over the last three years, as the noble Earl said. It is a crisis that would defeat most small businesses. Yet farmers are still being asked to carry heavier burdens as regards food standards, access and field sports and at the same time to care better for the countryside. They have not ceased to care for it. As the substantial employer, they already know that they have a wider duty to the community through their
850
management of the countryside. In fact, while they suffer hardship, they have made sure that hedges and fields and paths are looking as good as they ever have.
The take-up of environmental schemes like countryside stewardship and organic conversion has been impressive. I hope that, when the Minister confirms this, she will explain why there is so little money available for a myriad of small schemes and diversification schemes which the Government have rightly identified as inevitable and which yet seem to attract farmers into a maze of financial culs-de-sac. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned one important future source of income: renewable energy and biofuels. I hope that the Minister has prepared an answer for him.
Farmers well know that their future depends on wider and still unanswered questions like European Union enlargement and world trade. In my experience, they have a more developed global view than that of the general population. It was farmers in Britain, after all, who responded so quickly to the Africa famine appeals, and joined in the send-a-tonne and send-a-cow campaigns. It was not only East Anglian and Sussex farmers sitting back on their intervention prices who responded, it was all farmers, those in the West Country and Scotland. I know farmers who travelled to countries like Ethiopia and the Sudan when it was thought that our food surpluses were the solution. They turned out to be part of the problem. Those farmers now support longer term development projects and organisations like Farm Africa and SOS Sahel.
I believe that farmers, however conservative they are in their budgeting and accounting, still have this wider sense of responsibility. Many would like to contribute to a new world order. They would never demonstrate at Seattle, but they can see the way free trade winds are blowing in the World Trade Organisation. They would like to see fairer restructuring of world agriculture and agricultural trade, including more initiatives to reshape the common agricultural policy. They recognise the importance of the environment in today's world. They have demonstrated their eagerness to adapt to new environmental conditions. They do not accept the watery provisions of Agenda 2000, which, as the House of Lords Committee reported in May, seem only to postpone the inevitable decisions to restructure agricultural support and do away with the massive subsidies in preparation for the juggernaut of enlargement.
I take seriously the observation of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, about competitive agriculture and his suggestion last week about guaranteed average income instead of subsidies. These solutions should be given serious consideration. The Government are making the right noises and have made some minor improvements. I grant that rural transport is changing. In our part of the west of England we now have some bus services. But in my view the Government are not emphatically on the side of farmers. If they do not want to be judged in future as the Government who abandoned the industry to the free market—surprising

851
as it seems, that is a real possibility—they need to make significant proposals before the next election above all to convince the people of the countryside.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, as a countryman born and bred and living in a village, I very much welcome this debate and, like other noble Lords, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for introducing it. I also welcome the Countryside Alliance, which is successfully focusing people's attention—above all, the Government's—on the many problems that are faced in the countryside. It is not normal for country people to demonstrate. The fact that they are doing so shows that there is deep disquiet and that many believe that their way of life is threatened by an urban-minded government who do not understand or sympathise. It is true that this disquiet was triggered by the threat to hunting, but there are many other problems which have already been mentioned.
All noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned farming. Those of us who are familiar with that activity are aware of the traditional phrase "up horn, down corn"—or the other way round. That illustrates that there always have been, and always will be, ups and downs in farming, but the trouble is that at the moment particularly for agriculture they are virtually all "downs" and the situation is getting worse. As my noble friend Lord Jopling said, this affects a whole series of enterprises in the countryside: farm workers who are laid off; seed and feed merchants; the suppliers of agricultural machinery; shops; garages and vets. Only last weekend a leading expert told me of the troubles that we are laying in store in threats to animal health. We also have the bureaucratic nightmares that are closing down rural abattoirs. The response of the Government to the farming problems has been slow and inadequate. So often it has been too little and too late. The Government must do more to help farmers out of the trough in which they are sinking.
My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to law and order. It is an unhappy fact that rural crime is on the increase, particularly burglary and vandalism. In the country the cry continues to go up, "We never see a policeman". There is no substitute for the regular presence of a policeman who knows people and is known by them. We now have a number of community policemen and school policemen in various parts of the country, and that is a step in the right direction. In many villages there is Neighbourhood Watch, where local volunteers are prepared to help the police rather than pass by on the other side. While these developments are welcome, country people will not be reassured until there is a stronger local police presence.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham mentioned local schools and churches. In many of our villages the church is the pride and joy of the community, but the burden of maintenance must be borne by very small congregations. Expensive repairs are required. Those repairs are made more burdensome because of the imposition of VAT. I can assure the Government, as I did the previous one, that
852
we shall go on pressing for the exemption of church repairs until they stop making excuses and do something. Many of our local schools have closed under governments of both colours. That is a big loss to village life. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, many of these are Church schools. When such a school closes it breaks the link between the Church and education which is so important in this secular age. I welcome the Government's announcement that there will now be a presumption against the closure of village schools. That is good news, and I hope that the policy will be effective.
I turn to housing. The right to buy on favourable terms has converted many families in the countryside from council tenants to home owners, but that can be done only once. There is now an acute shortage of affordable housing. In many instances when young couples gets married they must either move away or live with their in-laws. In part that is because in-corners have forced up the price of houses in villages. I do not suggest that we need a new generation of council houses to deal with this problem. I believe that these days it is more appropriate to give additional help to housing associations and the like which can provide houses for rent that are within the means of country people.
Shops and post offices are vital to villages. They provide not only goods but a service. Those of us who live in the country are familiar with many conversations that take place in village shops. "Charlie hasn't been in this week for his ounce of tobacco. I wonder if he's all right. We must find out"—and they do so. That important service which the village shop provides is certainly not available at a supermarket. The Government have done something to relieve the burden on village shops. While that is very welcome, the fact remains that they are fighting a losing battle. So far as concern post offices, they may face a new threat. If payment of benefit is removed from them it is absolutely essential that they are given encouragement to diversify; otherwise, the closure of village post offices will be substantially accelerated.
There is a whole series of other problems related to health, transport and work, but I do not intend to bore your Lordships by going any further. I summarise the position by saying that these problems do not involve a vast increase in expenditure. Most problems need a change of atmosphere in which decisions are made, pump priming to encourage voluntary effort or a modest reallocation of resources to countryside projects. I hope that we shall have a favourable response from the noble Baroness when she comes to reply.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for introducing this debate on the countryside. When introducing the debate the noble Earl referred to the fur trade and fox-hunting. I understood him to say that there were only three noble Lords on these Benches who stood up for bans. He will be relieved to know that I have no intention of making any reference whatever to bans.

853
Perhaps not surprisingly, out of 14 speakers in the debate, 11 have emphasised agriculture. Therefore the debate could equally have been to call attention to agriculture. I am conscious of the difficulties that the agricultural industry is facing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the industry. But, as the debate is on the countryside, perhaps I shall be forgiven for dealing with countryside circumstances other than agriculture.
It is not my intention to speak for long, and essentially I shall be focusing on one specific point: that everyone, whether living in an urban or rural environment, should as far as possible be afforded the advantages provided by both nature and man. However, it seems to me that, when we debate the countryside, too often there is a tendency to drift away from the differences in urban and rural environments and somehow to conjure up perceived and often exaggerated differences between those who live in one area and those who live in another. If that is not always overtly expressed, it is certainly an underlying feeling.
Of course I concede that at one time, in particular during the Industrial Revolution, there would have been a greater difference between the two groups. Those living and working closely together in urban developments—for example, in areas of mines and mills—identified closely with one another in such communities. However, those living and working in the countryside, and spread out, identified more with the elements—the weather, the seasons and the land—than with one another.
But we have moved on. Ever increasing means of communication have seen to that. Trains, buses and, even more so, the motor car with a network of motorways, draw people and communities ever closer together. The radio, telephone, now mobiles, and the television, now satellite, bring instant experiences into every parlour, not only from this country but from the world over. So to talk in terms of two societies, one urban and one rural, defies the reality of our one integrated society. Of course there are differences. But those differences are not necessarily demonstrably greater between exclusively urban and exclusively countryside dwellers. No longer can we draw a clear distinction between urban and rural dwellers.
Some people work in our towns and cities and live in the countryside. Many people move from the countryside to urban areas and never return. Some who have been born and brought up in towns and cities move to the countryside to live and work. Many of those born and brought up in the countryside come to the cities for university education. Some return, and some do not. So when lines are drawn between one group and another, let us be cautious that those lines reflect reality.
The world in which we live is often called a global village. That being so, let us imagine what we in the United Kingdom are by comparison. Let us see how we compare geographically with countries in Africa, Asia and the Americas as well as some in Europe. We are one nation, one people, and, although we are all
854
different, those differences do not essentially stem from whether we live and work in the countryside or in our towns and cities.
We must not neglect the fact that the countryside itself is different. In East Anglia, where I lived for 10 years, we have a wide expanse of flat land and the uniqueness of the Norfolk Broads, whereas in Wales we have the mountains and the valleys; and in the north of Scotland we are inspired by its mystery and remoteness. We describe Kent as the garden of England and I was told a long time ago that Wiltshire was the pantry of England. So when we refer to the countryside we must remember that our countryside is not uniform but is itself different.
The Labour Government have a manifesto commitment to provide greater access to open countryside. This will give those who choose greater opportunity to enjoy the benefit of what nature has created. That is not to abuse or damage, but to enjoy the wide open spaces, the landscape and the wildlife that nature provides in our countryside. By the same token, those who live and work in the countryside must always be able to enjoy the benefits that man has created in our towns and cities, such as theatres, museums, art galleries and universities.
I welcome the countryside amenity and conservation Bill because it recognises that such measures improve the quality of life for all of us. It removes perceived and exaggerated differences between respective sections of our society, and it is another step towards drawing all our people together in a one nation society.
5.35 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for introducing the debate. I congratulate him on what I might call a typical Ferrers speech. It was factual, witty and poignant. I agree with everything he said about red tape. It is strangling the countryside. The issue must be addressed.
The Government can be under no illusions as to the strength of feeling in this House about the need for them to take a more pragmatic and sympathetic approach towards the countryside. The truth is that the feeling out there in our green and pleasant land is one of anger and frustration. Your Lordships have made your views very clear not only in this debate but in other recent debates in your Lordships' House. However, one topic has not had the airing it deserves. I refer to rural crime. I wish today to address most of my remarks to that.
To illustrate the strong feeling that rural people have on the subject, a 1998 survey by the Countryside Agency's predecessor, the Countryside Commission, found that 68 per cent of people in the countryside were very concerned about crime, and that the issue topped the list of rural concerns, coming above traffic problems and green belt development. It is, therefore, particularly extraordinary that in its document The State of the Countryside, the new Countryside Agency failed to mention rural crime or policing in any of the list of key rural services.

855
The latest published crime figures from the Home Office demonstrate that the police have achieved a 19 per cent reduction in crime over the past five years. That is clearly to be welcomed. They should be congratulated. Perhaps the Government should also be congratulated; I cannot differentiate between the extent to which that has occurred in the past two years and other years. Clearly there has been a marked decrease and one must congratulate the Government on that.
The figures in rural areas are less clear. Listening to local people and reading local newspapers, I suggest that the problem is increasing. A recent article in The Times at the weekend gave what I can only describe as a chilling report of how big-time crime operators are now moving into rural areas. My noble friend Lord Caithness gave figures from the BBC 1 programme "Countryfile". I shall not repeat them, but they are horrific.
The other aspect which concerns me is the repeated victimisation which occurs on so many farms. It is a debilitating experience for anyone, in particular at this time when farmers are experiencing such harsh economic times. I suspect, as The Times reported, that much of that is due to the fact that criminals who are becoming thwarted by the more efficient and sophisticated crime prevention methods employed in urban areas are moving out to the rural areas, which they regard as being a soft touch. In other words, the success of the towns and cities is working against the countryside, and clearly that matter has to be addressed.
In 1997, 92 per cent of parishes had no police station, compared with 89 per cent in 1991. Now many rural communities have taken up their own initiatives in an attempt to tackle crime, as my noble friend Lord Dean mentioned: Neighbourhood Watch, Car Watch, Sheep Watch, and many different "watches". In my part of the world, we now have Dales Watch. I discussed the matter recently with my chief constable. He said, "Quite frankly, our local police force simply would not be able to cope in rural areas if it were not for those local initiatives." I also acknowledge the fact that the Home Secretary has introduced crime and disorder partnerships as part of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 specifically to encourage and develop the relationships between police, local authorities and local groups. Perhaps it is too early to see how it is working, but the initiative was worth taking and I wish it well.
However, the problem is that local communities involved in such schemes will soon lose confidence if the police fail to deliver as a result of a continuing lack of resources. One upshot of all that is local security groups setting themselves up as custodians of law and order in the countryside and frightening people by putting pamphlets through letter boxes encouraging them to subscribe to such schemes. That is happening more and more and many local people who cannot afford to be involved in the schemes are increasingly afraid because others are putting them under pressure to do so. Then there is a split in local communities.
856
Many such groups are cowboy operators and they have no accountability to local authorities or to the police. It is a most unsatisfactory situation.
One of the many examples of the seriousness of the situation comes from Cumbria. The chief constable is quoted as saying that government underfunding could force him to close another 20 of his smaller police stations and concentrate officers in major towns. The same force has already closed 10 rural stations and recruited civilians to 70 officer posts in order to cope with a £2 million shortfall. No wonder the criminal fraternity is turning to the countryside; they see it as a soft option.
Of course I appreciate only too well the need for budgetary constraints. However, surely, policing any community must be regarded as a cornerstone for any civilised society. Furthermore, if we are to encourage investment in rural areas and create the new businesses and jobs which are so necessary to take up the slack in the traditional agricultural activities that are disappearing, investors must have the confidence to do so. A proper law enforcement system is essential to that.
One of the principal reasons behind the lack of investment in policing in rural areas is the inadequacy of the police funding formula. It fails to take into account what is now known as the "sparsity factor". I believe that the sparsity factor cuts across many aspects of rural life and hinders local authorities in their attempt to deliver many different services at the same costs as their urban counterparts. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield referred to this issue in his excellent speech.
In reply to a Written Question asked by my right honourable friend David Maclean on 25th November, the Government stated that there was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected but less agreement about how to include it appropriately in the police funding formula. The Government reply went on to state:
"the Government will need to be satisfied that the research has provided a final answer to this question, which is beyond dispute or challenge.".—[Official Report, Commons. 25/11/99; col. 183W.]
For heaven's sake, if all government decisions were based on achieving full agreement, frankly, nothing would ever happen! On the face of it, this looks like a fudge and yet another example of the countryside getting a raw deal.
It is clear that the Government must accept the sparsity factor. Will the Minister ask her right honourable friend the Home Secretary and her honourable friends in the Home Office to act positively on this important issue?
I have a further comment to make on policing. I noticed that the Home Secretary announced at the Labour Party conference that he would provide an additional 5,000 police officers over the next three years. There is no news as to how they will be distributed, or whether they will be forthcoming, but the Government have spoken of a bidding process and have said that their salaries will be ring-fenced. In my

857
home county of North Yorkshire, that would mean about 50 additional police officers, which is excellent. However, I am told that, if the present underlying funding continues to fall, a further 100 staff will be laid off, thus making a nonsense of such a commitment and negating any advantage.
Therefore, whichever way one looks at the issue, the indications are not good. I urge the Government to ensure that rural communities are given the level of crime prevention that they deserve.
Finally, I turn briefly to another subject. My noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned fox hunting. I had not intended to mention it, but I recently read Ken Livingstone's announcement that he might be prepared to take a Private Member's Bill through Parliament banning the hunting of foxes with hounds. I was interested because I had always believed that Ken Livingstone was a tolerant person who understood minority groups. I was also interested to note his comment that one of the reasons he is against fox hunting was because foxes are attractive and intelligent. Presumably, that implies that it would be all right to hunt them if they were ugly and stupid.
Ken calls himself a man of the people. I say to him, "If so, go to Cumbria and to Wales and talk to the people whose lives will be affected. Spend some time with them and find out what the subject is all about. But do not try to pick up cheap votes on the back of the countryside in order to become mayor of our capital city".
5.46 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it was good to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, whose experience is different from that of other speakers today. He said that there would be an uproar if country dwellers were not allowed to make laws affecting people living in the inner cities. As someone who has worked with young people in the inner cities, I would feel most uncomfortable about country dwellers making legislation affecting those living there, just as I would tend to have no confidence in an education Minister who had not been state educated or taught in a state school.
I am an agricultural landowner. My farther used often to warn me against the evil of absentee landlords. At the time, I could not understand the reason for his concern. After all, my tenants are determinedly independent and their rights are protected by statute. Looking back, I see that he may have been remembering our absentee forebears, the Hares, who spent most of their time away from their Irish estate. Then the landowner could greatly affect the lives of his tenants and did indeed need to be more in touch with his people.
Today, rural business is suffering and very many small farmers, especially livestock and tenant farmers, are going out of business. They depend on government to help them through this period of difficult and painful change. So I would urge the Government not to allow themselves to become out of touch with those
858
whose business is the countryside. So far as possible, I hope they will listen most attentively to those within their ranks who have had experience in rural business; to those in the other place from rural constituencies; and to those inside and outside Parliament who make their living from the land.
Can the Minister say what is being done to encourage civil servants advising the Government on rural matters to gain experience of working with those most affected by policy; for instance, livestock and tenant farmers in the South West and in the Borders? How many civil servants in the Minister's department have visited farms and put on green wellies? There is nothing that can replace a deep understanding of the countryside and what it means and personal experience of working on the land and in the countryside environment.
5.49 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is excellent for one elected Peer to follow another elected Peer whose grandfather was the last governor-general of Ghana.
I must declare an interest also, in that I am a landowner in Surrey; I regret to say, a much smaller landowner than was my grandfather or my great-grandfather. In the 1930s agricultural slump, my grandfather persuaded people to come from Wales to take some of his rented farms at extremely low prices.
The history of agricultural boom and bust has continued for a long time. After the 1846 repeal of the Corn Laws, an agricultural slump was forecast in the United Kingdom. That slump did not actually arrive until the 1870s, with the invention of the binder and the opening up of the American West and the American grain trade. That slump lasted more or less until the 1914 war. The 1914 war produced a temporary but prosperous agriculture because of the U-boats in the Channel and the Atlantic. The 1930s agricultural slump followed.
That slump was in a way reversed by the war. The war influenced all agricultural thinking beyond anything. After the war there was a really marvellous Minister of Agriculture. Tom Williams, to his eternal credit, made absolutely certain that no fox-hunting ban was passed by the 1945 Labour government. He was succeeded in the Wilson government by the late and much-loved Lord Peart. All those Ministers understood the important role played by the agricultural industry in the country's affairs.
There was also the Boyd-Orr report, which emphasised that we had to produce because the third world was going to starve. It was deeply influenced by U-boats in the Channel. To a certain extent we were subsidised right up until the mid-1980s for production at all costs. Since those subsidies ceased, the poorer areas have done far worse. The poorer areas tend to be the most picturesque areas. The people who have least harm done to them by an agricultural slump are the grain farmers in the Beauce and those in Sussex and Hampshire. They carry enough fat to withstand the catastrophic fall in prices.

859
As one of my noble friends said, the price of wheat was £140 per tonne and it is now £64 per tonne. I admit that the price of £140 per tonne was at a time when the Chinese harvest failed and wheat prices went through the roof, so it is not totally fair to quote that high price as the norm. However, even taking that into account, the prices of wheat, grain, cattle, sheep and pigs have gone through the floor.
I suspect that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will talk about slaughterhouses, although I have not asked her. She signifies that she is not going to speak about them. That is a pity, because she is quite qualified to do so. The slaughterhouses have been regulated out of existence. The cost of slaughtering an animal here is astronomical compared with the Continent. The regulations specify that six people must check every single animal. That is crazy as a regulation. I accept that that is not all the fault of the present Government; the previous government set them on that way with the Meat Hygiene Service, when local authorities were doing a perfectly adequate job. However, that is another story.
Regulation on our slaughterhouses has been increased, followed by the gold-plating of EC regulations. A gentleman produces the original Aylesbury duck and slaughters them himself. It appears that the EC has passed some regulations on the home slaughtering of ducks. We have gold-plated that regulation by saying that he cannot sell his ducks dead outside his own local authority area. Your Lordships should listen to this because it is lovely. If a man from a smart restaurant in Cumberland goes to the slaughterhouse and says, "Please may I have 12 ducks?" and pays for them, he may then return to Cumberland and the ducks can be sent by post. That is because he has purchased them within the local authority area. If, however, he picks up the telephone and says, "Please, O duck killer, send me 12 dead ducks by post", they cannot be sent by post because he is outside the local authority area. That is a silly way of running anything.
The EC regulation says nothing about the local authority area. We put in that stipulation just for fun. Even worse, he cannot appoint a chum as an agent to go in with his credit card or his pounds, shillings and pence—or whatever we now use as a currency—and say, "Here is my money, please send the ducks up to Cumberland". He must come down to the farm himself, say, "Please sell me the ducks", go back, and then they will be sent to him. It is impossible to think of anything so stupid.
The hygiene regulations for slaughterhouses have become worse. There is a new regulation on hygiene for pig units and battery chickens which imposes a cost of £18,000 on a modest-sized intensive pig unit. Our competitors in the rest of Europe do not have to bear those charges. That is what is so unfair and so wrong. It has not saved one single tummy bug in a single human being. I shall be prepared to lay my bottom dollar on that. It is regulation for the sake of regulation, followed by the fun of writing regulations, followed by gold-plating them. The industry cannot be prosperous if that is how we behave.
860
I touch briefly on hill farming. The problem of the hill farmers not being looked after is due to the common agricultural policy, which is a problem common all over Europe and not unique to Britain. In the Massif Central and Burgundy in France there are deserted villages because the common agricultural policy has failed in its social purpose. Where do we go from here? It seems to me that we should go for free trade in food production with the minimum of sensible regulation and a major amount of subsidy, which will cost much less than the common agricultural policy, for what—for want of a better description—I shall call "gardening and game-keeping". That is looking after countryside activities which are totally uneconomic.
We have a blessed countryside. It is so varied that it changes every 20 miles. It is like English and Scots accents which change every 20 miles. I have no objection to a large amount of public access to the countryside, because if we as landowners or farmers are in receipt of a subsidy, that subsidy is a tax paid by our fellow subjects. Therefore we cannot deny them access to the land. However, it should be done by agreement and co-operation. I know very few landowners who are not totally reasonable in the access which they allow. That should be encouraged.
We are blessedly lucky in the land that we own and love. It is our duty to share it as much as possible. It is equally our duty to ensure that the countryside is not merely a farm factory. That farm factory is essential for its prosperity, but there are other activities which must take place in it. Above all, do not clobber it with unnecessary regulation and banning. I have not had time to deal with the subjects of fox-hunting and fur farming, but I shall do so at a future date.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for introducing this debate. I believe that his speech deployed the maximum amount of reasonably good jokes to conceal the maximum amount of rather bad argument. I take the example of trying to put the rather cruel farming of mink for their fur on a par with the use of leather for our shoes from animals which almost certainly had to die anyway.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, everything has to die.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, everything has to die, as the noble Earl says.
However, I thank the noble Earl for introducing the debate, as it has turned up a number of extremely good speeches. I mention the contribution from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, which we have just heard. I thought that speech was an extremely important contribution to the debate as a whole, although I do not necessarily go along with his final endorsement of free trade.
I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said: that the countryside is important and that it is not the countryside unless it is the home of farming. I do not

861
pretend that that is an axiom; I merely say that, almost without exception, those of us who have lived in a healthy working countryside will recognise it as an important truth. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was absolutely right to say so. As I told your Lordships in a recent debate, recently I travelled through New England. I did not travel through countryside but through forestry or suburbia or both, made from good farmland by the evils of free trade. To help the countryside, one needs to help farming.
This weekend I went to a farming world conference entitled "Farmers—Are they an endangered species?" Except for an NFU economist who pointed out that a few clever, imaginative farmers could survive by diversifying, the answer was yes, they are endangered. Not only are they endangered but, in fact, they are committing suicide by the score.
The countryside is for producing food—but food that is healthy, palatable and does not have to be taken long distances, but feeds its own hinterland. I believe that it is time that we started reversing the move towards extreme free trade—almost all extremes being bad. The first and most important step would be to take agriculture and food production back from free trade into the area of food security. Many noble Lords have lived through a period when food security was very important to this country. In a difficult world, however much globalisation we have, that will not go away. I should not like to live in a country where there was not a certain amount of food security. Indeed, in some places like Tanganyika there is a move towards area food security. That means ensuring that local farmers are able to feed the people who live around them and that the people produce the food in return for a living wage. That would not, as is falsely suggested, harm developing countries because it would not encourage or allow dumping.
I found the recent debate on the CAP distressing. It seemed to me that the only reasonable speech was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, because she did not emphasise monetary income as the measure of efficiency. Of course, monetary income is important. This debate, to a large extent, has been about monetary income and in no way would I detract from that. We have to ensure the monetary income of our farmers. But what about efficiency as regards the conservation of our soils and the welfare of our animals? Plenty of other efficiencies must be put on an equal par.
In that debate, speaker after speaker said that we have subsidised inefficient farmers. However, the farmers referred to were efficient producers and conservers but were being driven out by the big boys, by the farmers who sit in offices in the City and who have the time that small farmers do not to sit on NFU committees and to resist modulation on behalf of the small farmers.
The Green Party, which I represent, asks for a number of matters to be considered in agricultural policy. I shall list five: safe, healthy, nutritious food seen as a basic human right; sustainable, smaller-scale, organic farms encouraged, creating more local jobs;
862
financial support and education for farmers converting to organic farming; taxes to discourage the use of pesticides and artificial fertilisers; and natural, free-range, low-drug animal-rearing practices encouraged. I should have thought that few countrymen would quarrel with those points. We need them. They are all sensible and essential.
We have had a good, valuable debate. Unless we can make the Government take rather drastic steps to protect our farms and our farmers—especially our small farms—we shall lose the countryside as we have known it all our lives; we shall lose a lot of hardworking worthwhile citizens from the land, and we shall lose a long tradition that we should preserve.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the countryside, as we comprehend it, is the product of centuries of development and dedication. In medieval times England and large tracts of Scotland and Wales were heavily forested. In order to see for miles one had to find a clear day and get above the tree line. In succeeding centuries trees were chopped down both for housing and for ocean going ships, particularly oaks for fighting ships, pasture land was enclosed with hedges and walls and the spaces between the trees became larger and more frequent.
In this century we have seen an extraordinary increase in the building of houses. A questionable 1 million new houses are now sought in the south east by the Government. On top of that, today I read that this year there has been an influx of around 400,000 migrant workers and a larger increase in the number of asylum seekers than before. Coupled with the number of refugees, that figure rises to half a million people. I question where they will all find their houses. Along with the building of factories and industrial units and enormous road-building programmes to allow for a tenfold increase in car numbers, the demands on the countryside have been enormous, resulting in an irreversible erosion of farmland hectares.
As a farmer and land manager I have studied the words of some of the great and the good of our time. First, Richard Wakeford, chief executive of the Countryside Agency, said:
"A countryside without farming is unthinkable; farms need to provide good incomes, which in turn sustain many secondary businesses".
His boss, Ewen Cameron, Chairman of the Countryside Agency, said:
"Agriculture amounts to less than one tenth of the rural economy and an even smaller percentage of rural employment. But its true significance is much greater because farmers are the stewards of four fifths of our landscape".
Those 50,000 rural businesses are involved in farming, forestry, water resource management, environment land management, and so on. This year agricultural incomes in the UK are expected to total less than £2 billion compared with £4.8 billion in 1996.
That dramatic fall has been caused in part by the beef ban, the strong pound hitting other exports, the collapse in the price for pigs, milk, beef, lambs, arable

863
produce and so forth. Government influence many of those factors. This government influence could have been more beneficial to farming. For example, the beef ban was an unnecessary ban to appease our European Union partners that could have been lifted a month or so ago. But we had to wait for Scotland and Wales to agree. This Government enabled the tail to wag the farming industry.
The reliance on imported products is alarming both from the point of view of the continuation of our own agriculture industry and from that of the advisability of handing the feeding of our people to overseas countries. As our farming industry's competitiveness is eroded by the EU and government laws, much of our imported food is produced under regulations less stringent than our own high standards. Many of our imported meat products are produced in ways less kind than under our own higher welfare and environmental standards. This year has seen a 23.5 per cent increase in pig meat imports. That means that 23.5 per cent of pigs eaten in this country now are reared under less favourable conditions.
Unfortunately, many of the countries in the world are busy reducing their growing medium by covering it in buildings, by exhausting its goodness, by spoiling it with chemicals and so on. As recently as spring 1998 the chief executive of Britain's Natural Environment Research Council, Professor John Krebs, talking of the effects of global warming and climate change wrote that,
"In the case of food supply, a predictive model might show that past gains (that is, in agricultural productivity) had been made at a price that could not be paid at an increasing level into the future".
We must take the long view. Our countryside is the result of hundreds of years of change and more recently of the care and commitment of generations of farmers and land managers. They have planted and tended the hedgerows; built and repaired walls; dug the ditches; ploughed and harvested the fields and filled the pastures with livestock, producing that outstanding countryside that has encouraged people to visit it. The farmers recouped their costs from the price commanded by their arable and livestock products. But for how long can they continue to subsidise the beauty of the landscape when the money they earn is falling steadily and the costs heaped upon them by a series of British and European laws and government stealth taxes are rising just as steadily?
The British countryside is a huge national asset but it is a fragile asset. We must take our time in deciding what, if anything, to do with it to meet the aspirations of those who maintain that, because it is a national asset. it should be suitably accessible to all those who wish access to it. It must not be used as a political football to advance the careers of would-be or nearly has-been politicians, as my noble friend Lord Peel said.
Farming is in crisis and the Government must not talk rhetoric but take action to influence the rebuilding of this great industry and its return to profit. If the countryside is to remain a desirable, attractive and viable part of our heritage, the caretakers of that countryside must have the bureaucratic fetters
864
loosened and their industry must be allowed to prosper. Profitable farming is the key to the maintenance of our countryside.
What steps are the Government taking to rebuild our farming industry and its profitability? What steps are they taking to reduce red tape and produce a fair market place such as that in which the farming industry has historically competed so brilliantly?
6.14 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for tabling this debate today. I must declare an interest as a specialist cheese maker, a farmer's wife and a member of the Countryside Alliance.
We need to decide what we mean by the term "countryside" and, once we have that definition, what we expect of those who are its custodians. Is the countryside the landscape that we now know and love—a backdrop for our leisure and recreation, a haven for wildlife, a green lung for our urban population and a reminder of who we are as people? Alternatively, is it the workplace for a steadily diminishing minority, evolving as the demands of consumers and governments change? Opinions seem to have become polarised, though I believe the countryside is a bit of both.
The majority, who comprise our urban population, rightly regard the countryside as part of their heritage. However, too many of them seem to have lost touch with their ancestral origins. In their imaginations they see chocolate box villages surrounded by wild tracts of hillside and meadow over which they and their dogs can roam freely. They perceive the farmer as a feather-bedded sponger who must do their bidding because it is they who pay him through their taxes. Their rural counterparts, who must earn a living from and in the countryside, feel beleaguered in the face of rapidly diminishing incomes, a loss of markets for their products and erosion of their freedom by bureaucrats and pressure groups who appear to have no concept of the real world of farming.
As other noble Lords have said, our landscape is our heritage. It is of real value to our economy, and a vital—in the sense that it is living—part of our nation, though it appears on no balance sheet. If we want to retain our countryside, there is a price to pay. Farmers do not, by any means, capture all the economic benefits of their stewardship. The whole population is not well served by attempts to turn our agriculture into a production machine, striving to compete in an unequal world market encouraged by production-based subsidies. How can we compete with ranches in Australia and South America or with hog farmers in America? We must look at other methods.
The barley barons of East Anglia rule over a hinterland devoid of people, employment opportunities, affordable housing, schools and public transport. Upland communities have disappeared because the previously mixed economy, which once supported a small community, has been replaced by

865
sheep and suckler cows. The net effect of production-linked subsidies is that they distance the producer from the consumer and encourage single product concentration. They blur the self-correcting mechanism of market distortions and force farmers to ask for more, much as the drug addict begs for another fix to ease his pain. Ultimately they are pernicious and damaging to those they were intended to protect.
British farmers are currently paying the price for a quarter of a century of dependency upon EU attempts to control agricultural production. Older farmers knew about market cycles and hedged against them with mixed farming; hence the adage, "Never put all your eggs in one basket". They kept a range of farm animals and poultry and they understood the value of rotating arable crops with grassland to maintain the structure and fertility of the soil.
The parish in which I live is interesting in that we have examples of both cultures. There is a farm shop that sells a combination of home-grown vegetables and soft fruits with goods bought in from further afield. There is an enterprising family who diversified from milk production alone into asparagus and pick-your-own soft fruits for the summer and free-range geese and turkeys for the winter. One couple has orchards from which they sell apples and pears; another sells the meat from their own Aberdeen Angus cattle as well as home-grown dried flowers, and my husband and I produce goats' milk and cheese as well as home-produced black Welsh mountain lamb. We all sell directly to the consumer either from our farms or through farmers' markets and, while we are not making our fortunes, we are managing to survive and maintain our little bits of landscape. Interestingly, we do not depend upon subsidies.
The rest of the land in the parish—several hundred acres—is either owned or rented by two very successful brothers. We always know which crops are in the high subsidy bracket because those are the ones they grow. When sheep and cattle were receiving high subsidies and high market prices, they had sheep and cattle—despite the fact that they would be the first to admit that they are not stockmen. Everything they do is on a grand scale. It will be interesting to see, in the coming years, who are the survivors.
If we want our rural landscape to remain, we must, first, accept that it will never be static. Secondly, we must support the rural economy as an integrated entity. We need to recognise that, while agriculture is the heart of our countryside, there is inter-dependency between farming and other businesses. The survival of rural society as a whole depends upon a mixed economy. This includes the village shop and post office, the local pub, the garage, the church and schools, as other noble Lords have said. Above all, it includes people; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will be interested to hear me say that.
If people are driven away because of the lack of facilities or employment opportunities, there will be no community and no one to conserve our landscape. What tourist or town dweller will want to visit the countryside in order to admire a tangle of bramble,
866
gorse and bracken, I wonder? I am pleased that moves are now in train to divert subsidies away from production. The knock-on effect this should have is that rural workers and businesses remain local, a broader economic base should encourage diversification and local producers will be able satisfy many of the needs of the local community by adding value to their products. I think very much along the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, as regards this point of view.
But, and this is a very big "but", we also need to be aware of the dangers posed by over-prescription and a heavy-handed bureaucracy, both of which stifle innovation and growth. I recognise that public health, food safety and animal welfare should be given priority. However, as the Minister is only too well aware, I believe that regulation should be fair, reasonable and based on sound scientific knowledge—not upon ideas plucked out of the air by officials who have probably never set foot in a farmyard, or the results of pressure from vociferous and sentimental minority groups.
A former Prime Minister once said:
"There is no such thing as society".
Unfortunately, we have been reaping the harvest of her philosophy at the cost of the bonds we used to have with our fellow citizens. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, has now returned to his seat because I believe that this is what he was saying. The unlimited pursuit of private gain leads to bankruptcy of the body public. Its unpleasant manifestations are growing daily more acute—a lack of concern for the rights of others, declining moral and spiritual values, emotional stress and sociopathic crime, for example.
The countryside is an essential safety valve for the urban population for it enables them to recharge their batteries, to widen their horizons and to find their identities as people. Thus, the welfare of those who live and work in the countryside should be a matter of concern to the whole population. It makes economic sense. In the last analysis, the countryside shapes the kind of society we wish to bequeath to our children. As John Winthrop said in his City Hill speech:
"We must delight in each other, make each other's conditions our own, rejoice together, labor and suffer together, always having the community as members of the same body".
6.23 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Countess, Lady Mar, because it gives me the opportunity of paying tribute to her as one of the Members of your Lordships' House who has done more than most to champion the plight of the farming community. I was most interested, as I am sure all noble Lords were, in her thought-provoking remarks.
I have no interest to declare. I do not own rolling acres. However, I have lived most of my life in the countryside and many of my friends are farmers or own land as, indeed, do a number of my family.

867
Therefore, I speak as one who enjoys the countryside but who has at present, quite happily, no responsibilities within it.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Ferrers has given the House the opportunity to have this debate today. Like him, arid other noble Lords, I agree that it is no exaggeration to say that the countryside is under threat as never before in this country. Farming is, unquestionably, at its lowest ebb since the 1930s. We are told that millions of new homes will have to be built and that there are not enough brownfield sites to accommodate them. So the countryside will have to take the strain.
The ever increasing number of cars on the roads means that congestion is set to increase and, therefore, presumably new roads will have to be provided, introducing additional environmental pressures and putting million; more acres under tarmac and concrete. In the same vein, the motorist is being increasingly penalised. But cars in the countryside are not a luxury, especially in places which are not served by public transport; they are a necessity. I believe that further strains are placed on the countryside by out-of-town shopping centres that have created their own pressures, not least on the more rural traders and shopkeepers.
I believe that it is our duty to seek ways to enable all our countrymen to live in harmony—and the fragile interplay between the rural and urban areas is one of the most important aspects to make sure we get right. As the countryside adapts to its new pressures, the Government need to integrate agricultural, environmental and rural policy. As my noble friend Lord Jopling said earlier, this cannot be done if, as has been mooted, MAFF is put into the Department of Trade and Industry.
However, I believe it can be done by establishing a new department for countryside and agriculture, with a Secretary of State in the Cabinet reporting direct to the Prime Minister. I understand that this idea has not been greeted with enormous enthusiasm by the Government. That is a shame because there is certainly a full-time job there. Such an appointment would do much to make our farmers, and those who derive a living from working in the countryside, feel that they are not some forgotten breed.
With so many pressures bearing down on the countryside, it seems extraordinary to me that the only piece of legislation heralded in the gracious Speech was a Bill to create a statutory right of public access. Add to that the continuing, creeping repression of traditional sporting pursuits and I believe that noble Lords will agree with me that there is not much for the hard-pressed farmer to rejoice about.
I am focusing on farmers. I hope that I shall be forgiven to doing so. I know that some noble Lords feel that this slightly narrows the debate, but it is the issue on which I should like to focus. Farmers have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for the past four years at least. Although there was some welcome news yesterday that the beef-on-the-bone ban will be lifted before Christmas, many of them
868
simply cannot foresee a return to profitability in their lifetimes. This is borne out by the fact that over 5,000 farmers came out of the industry between June 1998 and June 1999. In fact, the overall number of working farmers and wives in the industry fell from just over 211,000 to 201,000.
I believe that that trend is accelerating. The average age of the working farmer in this country is increasing and the younger generation are now far less inclined to follow their fathers. The reasons are fairly obvious. The risks far outweigh the returns. The stress factor is enormous, as a number of noble Lords mentioned, including the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield in a thought-provoking speech. Farmers have no confidence that the Government have the capacity to protect their interests, and the new working hours directive will inevitably create further cost burdens.
Moreover, farmers are increasingly becoming paper farmers. It is now normal for farmers to have to devote two full working days a week to form-filling; indeed, it is no exaggeration to describe farming as being in a "regulatory quagmire". The gracious Speech gave some small glimmer of hope that regulatory burdens would be reduced. We shall have to wait and see, but I suspect that, sadly, it may be too little, too late.
Farmers do not feel that the playing field will ever be level with their European partners. I am sure that noble Lords will know that if one confirmed case of BSE is found in a French herd, the entire herd has to be slaughtered. Not unnaturally, this has led to French farmers becoming extremely skilled at digging deep holes very quickly! Indeed there is a well worn joke in the farming community with which I shall burden your Lordships: French farmers do not suffer at all from CJD disease; they only have JCB disease. I am told by my friends in the farming community that in Belgium the veterinary profession has become adept at finding alternative causes of death when their farmers' stock is affected.
The BSE catastrophe will linger on, but it beggars belief that the effect of actions taken to control it have cost the taxpayers of this country literally billions of pounds and have put many farmers out of business given that the number of definite and probable cases of nvCJD in this country over the past five years totals 48. While every case is to be regretted and each one is a human tragedy for the family concerned, I feel that we must get this in context. Taken as an average this figure represents fewer than 10 cases per annum. The number of road deaths in this country exceeds 3,500 per annum. Therefore, I fear that we have got the whole matter out of proportion. However, let us hope that as regards beef we are now about to return to some kind of trading normality with our neighbours.
However, there is less hope for the pig farmer where the use of sow stalls is, I believe, still legal in many countries whereas it is quite rightly banned here. However, that increases production costs and makes it virtually impossible for our farmers to compete. As many noble Lords have already stated, at present pig farmers are losing up to £25 on each pig sold.

869
Furthermore, apparently, chickens are being imported from Thailand at prices which undercut the prices charged by our farmers—and who knows on what those chickens have been fed and what standard of animal husbandry has been observed. The fact is that we are importing food produced under conditions which are less stringent than those by which we are regulated. My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to this matter and sensibly suggested that specific labelling might be the answer.
We are told that we must increasingly accept that we are living in a competition-led economy. Tariff barriers are already low and are set to come down further. The reform of the CAP is progressing apace. I have friends who farm sugar beet. They are fearful that with the abolition of tariff barriers altogether they will no longer be competitive compared with cane sugar growers.
So where is the ray of hope for farmers? Is it surprising that the suicide rate in the industry is rising? In 1997, there were 59 tragic cases and in 1998 that figure had risen to 72. That represents an increase in one year of 25 per cent. The figures are not yet available for this year, but I hope and pray that when they are published they will not show a similar rise.
We need to see the finest example of joined-up government to dig ourselves out of the hole in which farmers find themselves. There is a crisis which is not only looming; it has already loomed; and at the moment it is not being properly addressed.
I return to remarks that I made earlier and ask the noble Baroness in all seriousness whether the Government might give consideration to the appointment of a Minister for the countryside and agriculture because, without such an appointment, we may be close to reaching the point of no return in our management of the countryside. We simply cannot stand idly by and allow that to happen.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I put it to him that we gain absolutely nothing from categorising the French in rather a derogatory manner. I believe that that is out of place in a debate in this House.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, takes that view. I referred to reports that I have seen in newspapers. I know that it is completely "off message" to say that my wife is French and that I obtained her approval to make those remarks in your Lordships' House today.
6.35 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. My family own land on the borders of Wales and Gloucestershire where we conduct various countryside businesses including farming, and particularly dairy farming. For a sizeable part of this debate I was detained in a committee room in your Lordships' House and therefore I apologise if, more than usual, I repeat points which other noble Lords have already made better.
870
Although this debate is about the countryside and not merely farming, as many noble Lords have said, one cannot disconnect the two. I suggest that it is a complete fallacy for people to say that, because fewer people are now directly employed in agriculture, agriculture, in which I include forestry, horticulture and so on, is no longer the essence of the countryside. Agriculture remains vital to the prosperity and the viability of countryside communities and to the physical and visual state of the countryside. That point cannot be emphasised too strongly.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to whom we are all grateful for introducing this debate, and many others have given cogent figures to illustrate the appalling state of farming. The most frightening one that I heard the noble Earl mention was of a Scots farmer's income of £1,700 a year; that is, £35 a week. If a farmer is expected to live on £35 a week because he is in business on his own account, how does that accord with the Government's concept of a minimum wage?
As a dairy farmer, I shall give your Lordships one statistic. In the past four years the price of our milk has fallen by 30 per cent in a high cost activity. My farm has all the advantages in that it is situated on a main road which is convenient for deliveries and collections. We have enough land to enable us to expand if we want to. We have managed to find the capital to modernise our plant. But what business activity with high costs can stand a drop of 30 per cent in the price of its product? How much worse is the situation of the small, remote family farmer whose farm is situated at the end of a long lane in Wales and who is unable to expand? He suffers cost differentials with regard to the price for collecting his milk and is unable to obtain bulk discounts. He may have no capacity to expand either in terms of space or money.
I fear that there is no prospect or reason why this situation should improve. Many of your Lordships have spoken of farming being a cyclical business. I confess that I am unable to see any reason why this cycle should pan out, rise or do anything else. It is quite frankly unrealistic to assume that farming in this country, with its limited area of land, its relatively high cost of labour, and its mass of regulation, of which so many of your Lordships have spoken, can compete with the prairies of America—as mentioned by the noble Countess—or the areas of the world where pay is low. It is a constant surprise to learn how ignorant of the truth of this situation are so many of our population. I believe it is largely the fault of people who live in the countryside. In the past we have always assumed that people would realise how the countryside worked; that there would be many Members of this House and of the other place who had a country background and therefore there was no need to educate. That situation has gone. We fail at our peril if we do not teach people how the countryside works.
That ignorance is widespread and was well demonstrated by the first speaker from the Government Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who told us that the farming industry was full of opportunities. I would like to see the noble Lord

871
being brave enough to say that to a group of farmers. He would be lucky to escape with his life. It would be amazing if he had his trousers on when he left.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Viscount of the context in which I said that. I was referring to the fact that, if the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, were 30 years younger, instead of seeing farming as a declining industry, he might see it as an industry in change. As we all know, when an industry is changing it presents difficulties and opportunities at the same time. That was the point I was trying to make.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like to visit the group of farmers I postulated and tell them what changes could be made to remedy the situation. I shall be interested to receive a copy of his speech to them.
There is constant talk of diversification. There is a limit to which one can do that. God forbid, but let us suppose that we double the number of golf courses and caravan parks in this country. They would take up a minute proportion of the area being farmed and benefit very few farmers.
What is frequently forgotten is that farming now produces so much more food than it used to because after the war a very deliberate decision was taken that this country would never again be as dependent on imported food as it was during the war. At that time this country was very nearly brought to its knees not through military defeat, but because of the sheer difficulty of importing food. It may be thought that that policy is out of date. I have never heard any government say that they have consciously resiled from it. They would be brave to do so.
The urban view is that other industries have gone into decline and that is bad luck. Factories have to be shut and something else has to be done. One cannot shut the countryside. In many urban minds I believe there is a view of a blissful countryside returning to its natural idyllic condition, unfarmed and looking very much as it does at the moment, but with a plethora of beautiful flora and fauna. That is ignorant rubbish. If farming were no longer to take place, most of the countryside would revert to impenetrable scrub, devoid of beauty, impossible of access and very short of flora and fauna of any kind. We would then be left with a situation where farmers have to be re-employed at vast expense, and with no self-satisfaction, to keep the countryside in a manner which the urban dweller would like. That is not a possible or desirable solution. It is necessary that people appreciate these facts if the countryside is to have a future.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he interestingly remarked that he is receiving 30 per cent less for his milk. Can he confirm that the consumer is paying that same percentage drop for milk in the supermarkets?
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I believe that is entirely right, except on occasions when supermarkets
872
use their enormous power to sell milk as a loss-leader in order to persuade customers to buy their other products.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for bringing this debate to the House this afternoon. It has been very informative, not least in the way that some noble Lords have fallen into the trap of polarising the countryside debate. I believe that we have failed to recognise that a time of change for the countryside is difficult. We have turned from blaming the European Union, the last government and this one, civil servants for not going about in their wellies enough and Belgium and France. Everyone carries some blame, but this afternoon we have been somewhat short on solutions.
I particularly appreciated the speeches of the right reverend Prelates because they looked more for solutions than blame. I particularly regret that we appear to be blaming the urban population for not understanding the countryside. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made the point that we need to educate people. That is right. I do not believe that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, appreciated the role that some people have played. For instance, he quoted the clearing of footpaths after a storm. In fact, many people from towns and villages and conservation volunteers, often from urban areas, go to the countryside to offer their time and services for badly needed conservation work and footpath clearing. Although there is much further to go in educating us as to the future for the countryside, I do not believe that we should simply blame our urban population for its ills.
This debate has quite rightly been about the state of agriculture. Many noble Lords have quoted statistics which I shall not rehearse except for one example. Agriculture is in a dire state this year. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and a number of other noble Lords said that 20,000 farmers and farm workers left the industry over the past year. That leads to the point made by noble Lords as to what should be done with land if it becomes derelict and a wilderness. Will it revert to horsey-culture perhaps, which we see developing more widely? Many noble Lords have contributed to the debate on the basis that horses provide a pleasant leisure activity. I agree. However, I do not believe that a countryside populated simply by horses would be desirable.
We need to address the fact that some areas of our agriculture can remain competitive on the world. stage. But the Government must take a firm line on how that is to be achieved. I cannot better the example of the ducks given by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the red tape review that needs to take place. We on these Benches are glad that the Government have made a start on reviewing red tape and regulations with a view to cutting and simplifying the system. For instance, the Government need to address the meat hygiene service charges in order to enable farmers to compete on the world stage, if that is what they seek.

873
I am surprised this afternoon that we have not heard more about what we hope the Government will do in Seattle as regards upholding the requirements that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, outlined for labelling. That is a crucial area. Perhaps we could have the right to label food so that consumers can make a choice by buying British food that has been produced to high animal welfare standards. I am sure that the Government would be pleased to do that. I would like the Minister to comment on what the Government will say in Seattle on the subject.
Agenda 2000 CAP reforms will be an opportunity for our countryside, but we must define what we are looking for. MAFF still regards agriculture as one package. In its consultation document Agriculture: The Way Forward, it states that it wants farming to be,
"Competitive, diverse, flexible, responsive to consumer wishes, environmentally responsible and an integral part of the rural and wider economy".
I believe that that is too wide. The demands that are being made need to be rethought.
As many noble Lords have outlined, competition and diversity sit uncomfortably together. The Government want the industry to be competitive—the industry wants to be competitive—but we as a nation want the countryside to be diverse. We should allow the industry to be competitive, but diversity comes at a price. Until now, neither the Government nor the public have been willing to pay the price for the number of other benefits that they have had on the cheap—a well cared for countryside, with hedgerows, dry stone walls, biodiversity and so on. There is never enough money to go round in schemes such as the Countryside Stewardship scheme or the organic scheme; they are permanently oversubscribed.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham mentioned particularly the situation in our upland areas. I make no apology for going into this matter in a little detail. Noble Lords will appreciate that at the moment it is of particular concern.
The upland areas are frequently our most beautiful landscapes—they bring in tourists—and they are areas to which the new access legislation will apply. To farm there is very hard because of the physical constraints. But farming in upland areas has created the very landscapes that people enjoy. In the past the balance between environmental concerns and viable farms led to the hill farmers compensatory allowance scheme. That was based on headage and so drove up the stocking rates. It is right that MAFF should be making an effort to introduce a scheme which is less environmentally detrimental.
The aims of the scheme are to contribute to the maintenance of the social fabric in upland rural communities through support for continued agricultural land use and to help preserve the farmed upland environment by ensuring that land in less favoured areas is managed sustainably. Those are worthy aims. The scheme is out to consultation and I should like to mention some details. There is still an
874
opportunity for some thoughts about the scheme to be considered. The way it is drafted now, it seems that in some regions hill farmers will suffer a considerable drop in income. At a time of crisis for hill farmers, that seems a strange way to go.
Can the Minister tell me whether I am correct in understanding that, for example, in the south west, if livestock numbers from the 1998 less favoured areas are used, when the new scheme is implemented by 2003, the HFA payments will have fallen by some £500,000, which would be about 12 per cent?
Interestingly, the scheme makes no links with the fact that there will soon be another added complication and cost for farmers who farm open access areas. When the legislation comes in, undoubtedly they will have to put more time and effort into farming those areas. I wonder whether we should not have a scheme which aims to promote the farmed upland environment and which links the fact that there will be access to those areas, rather than the complicated enhancement schemes proposed.
If the main aim of the scheme is to help small family farms to go on farming in their traditional way in difficult places, the enhancement offered under the scheme should be kept simple, perhaps a fixed amount per hectare, with a higher rate for the first 50 hectares to favour the small family farms. It is apparent from the consultation and the responses that at the moment the enhancement criteria are complicated. I am short of time and I cannot go into the way the stocking rates are looked at; but, quite frankly, it is another bureaucratic nightmare. We should not be getting into another bureaucratic nightmare at a time when we are trying to get out of them.
Lastly, perhaps the Minister can say what will happen to the many farms that straddle lowland and less favoured area boundaries? What of the stock on those farms. Farmers will have a nightmare working through the paperwork about which animals are kept on which bit of land and when.
Before moving to some of the other crucial issues concerning the countryside, I should like to recommend to your Lordships a book I have been reading which is in the Library. It contains the selected writings of Richard Mabey, with whom many of your Lordships will be familiar. He has been writing about the countryside for many years. These are his writings over the past 30 years, defining the views and politics of the countryside and so on. I found it inspirational.
As to post offices, at the moment the Post Office is spending substantial sums on automating its systems. It is regrettable that at this point the DSS is bringing in the automatic credit transfer which may well threaten rural post offices, not necessarily because people will not be using them to collect their benefit, as in the past, but because people used to do their shopping in the rural post office when they collected their benefit. That has not been sufficiently appreciated.
Can the Minister comment on whether the small business service will include agricultural businesses? How small is small? The small business service in rural

875
communities will need to offer services to very small businesses, particularly to a large number of businesses which employ fewer than five people.
The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Lichfield and the Bishop of Durham and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, mentioned the sparsity factor in local government settlements. That is a long-term and unjust burden that local authorities in country areas have had to bear. They have had to deliver services. They want to deliver services to the same standards as elsewhere—they are being judged on those standards—but they have not had the money to do so. I believe that the settlement this time for other services—which include tourism, economic development and supporting projects such as farmers' markets—has been reduced because the Government have focused extra money on specific service areas.
Finally, I urge the Minister to consider the Government's commitment to providing adequate match funding for the rural development regulation. I do not expect her to comment on the point made by many noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool—about the reorganisation of MAFF into a rural affairs ministry. But I have asked the question a number of times and I have been told that it is a matter for the Prime Minister. That is a matter of regret. It would be interesting to debate how and in what way MAFF should be reorganised.
I thank the noble Earl for introducing the debate. I have found it very interesting. Although there are a number of areas that we have not covered, it has moved the arguments forward.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for introducing this important debate. The contributions made have demonstrated the breadth and depth of the concern that we have in the House for farming and, twinned with it, for our countryside. They go hand in hand, together. Many of us are concerned for the economical future of farming and for the well-being of our countryside. All around the House speakers in the debate have highlighted both concerns. I shall not be able to mention every contribution, but I hope that I can do justice to the tenor of the argument.
As days passed by, I found myself asking what I understand by "the countryside". Indeed, other noble Lords have posed exactly that question. I was surprised to find that it was a difficult question to answer. It is nearly an emotion—and there lies the rub of my and, I suspect, other people's understanding of the countryside.
Over the past 10 days we have had three important agricultural debates: first, the response to the gracious Speech; secondly, the report from the European Communities Committee's findings on CAP and Agenda 2000; and today's major debate, moved so ably by my noble friend. On all of those occasions the theme coming from the various speeches expressed the dire state of our current farming industry; the need for
876
a level playing field; the increasing regulatory burdens; the effect this has had on the farming industry; and the increasing numbers leaving the industry—sadly, some 20,000 this year, as was mentioned again today. Other noble Lords have mentioned the income of farmers, which varies from the average income of hill farmers of £2,000 down to that in Scotland, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Caithness, where it is a mere £416. Those are frightening examples.
We on these Benches feel that perhaps it is time to take stock and for the Government to stand back and to stop lurching from one crisis to another. I realise that in some ways it is not easy for a national government to do that because now we all operate not just within the EU but within a global market. Therefore, this issue has great implications for we farmers here today. However, if the Government can stand back and stop papering over the cracks, they can tackle the core problems. I believe that some of the suggestions made from all sides of the House today provide good examples of the problems which we need to tackle.
I know that other noble Lords have expressed their disappointment at the outcome of the CAP reforms, which have only added to our problems. Indeed, I know that the Minister and her colleague in the other place have reflected the Government's disappointment that the reforms did not go further.
This week we have learned from Seattle that the USA and the Cairns Group see the future of agriculture in a very different way. They are not constrained by our higher welfare standards. They do not have our desire to enhance the environment; indeed, their environment is very different from ours. Their view is that if we wish to enhance our environment and to have higher welfare standards, we should arrange for that to be done, but not as part of a trading agreement. I believe that that is where the core problem lies. They feel that our Government should finance such projects from our own resources rather than expect resources to come from an overall EU or world-wide budget.
For the USA and the Cairns Group bloc, food is food; and our subsidy schemes are unacceptable. That is slightly ironic as the Americans have deficiency payments and crop revenue assurance schemes, which we would regard as subsidies. UK farmers set the highest welfare standards but, as other noble Lords have said, they do so at great cost. In many cases, that makes us uncompetitive with other countries in the global market.
While proper labelling, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, would at least help the consumer in making a choice, it is not the only answer. Personally, I welcome the Government's initiative—indeed, we give the Government credit on many occasions—in setting up the task force to consider how we can reduce our regulatory burden. I plead that that should be done urgently. As each week goes by, yet more farmers go out of business and leave the industry.
Although we have some idea of the Government's proposed countryside legislation, there are many areas where we are not sure about the detail. We on these

877
Benches welcome the greater protection for our wildlife, but we await the detail which will be laid down in the respective Bills.
Today we have heard that the countryside is the result of constant change, assimilated over time by people whose business is the countryside. We have also been made aware that the rural scene is a workplace, as is a car factory or a solicitor's office in a city or town. I fancy that instant access to the latter would be denied on grounds of convenience, health and safety, and loss of earnings. I can see no reason why such factors should not apply when we talk of giving access to the countryside. Such issues as owner liability, compensation, shooting days, the closed 28 days for breeding purposes and the keeping of dogs on leads are all crucial to those whose incomes are derived from organised shoots. They are equally important to those who keep sheep on our hillsides. As other noble Lords have mentioned, if farmers and land managers are not allowed to be commercially viable, the very moorland that people wish to walk over will be destroyed and will return to shrubland.
Open access nearer to one's home is favoured by the majority of people, who want to walk with easy access, take their dog for a walk, ride a bike, go on organised outings and have access to organised car parks and well-signed pathways. Those are their priorities. Although I suspect that we hear a great deal more from the comparative minority who want to ramble and have open access to mountain, moorland and heathland, they should not forget that, for the majority, that is not a priority.
Many noble Lords have illustrated graphically why our countryside must be allowed to remain a living and economically viable entity. Without that, the very thing that people wish to visit and see will not be there.
In truly thought-provoking speeches, noble Lords have reflected that not only are farmers struggling, but that local communities, too, are feeling their demise. That point was made clearly by the right reverend Prelates, the Bishops of Lichfield and of Durham. Rural social deprivation is real; isolation in many cases is acute; and suicides, sadly, are the outcome of such difficulties. At a time when, increasingly, fewer people are employed on farms, there is less opportunity for people to discuss their difficulties on a one-to-one basis. It is, indeed, an extremely worrying time. Therefore, the Government must deal with a tight balance between work, rural living and personal leisure pursuits.
I ask the Government what will happen to some of their schemes, which we warmly welcome. For example, the Countryside Stewardship scheme is over-subscribed and, I understand, will be closed for the next 18 months; the habitat scheme is also to be closed; and moneys paid to the ESAs are to be redirected. All those issues will have added implications for those who work on our land. I wonder whether the Minister could reply to that point, although she may not be able to do so tonight. We are concerned about the number of changes being made to the schemes.
878
I do not want to end on a totally negative note. However, I feel that there is much that the Government could do, even now, within their discretion. For example, have they come to any conclusions about assisting older farmers with early retirement packages? I know that it is possible for them to do so. Have they any plans to "pump prime" a scheme to help young farmers who wish to enter the industry? Again, I should like to add my weight to those who have mentioned the importance of young people entering our industry. Will the Government consider easing planning restrictions on farm buildings to enable those who wish to leave the industry to do so? As mentioned earlier by one of my noble friends, that point particularly concerns buildings for battery hens which will have to be upgraded. Will the Government allow farmers to make such conversions more easily than is sometimes the case? Those are practical issues which I believe the Government could, and I hope will, take on.
Many of the questions raised by my noble friends today have a direct bearing on agricultural incomes. But times they are achanging. The onrush of the world trade talks threatens to bring Europe and the CAP into opposition with others. The CAP should have been severely overhauled in the preparation for the trade round but, sadly, Berlin scuppered that. I wonder whether the Government and the European Union will have sufficient time to implement their long-term policy of securing a stronger market orientation in which our farmers can work. Those are real and important issues.
In my last few minutes, perhaps I may move back to the countryside. Many people who live and work in the countryside are not employed directly in farming but are in allied or linked industries. For many of them, the countryside is only as it is because we work it. It incorporates our fields, woods, hedges and ditches, to which many noble Lords have referred. However, one issue is of particular concern to them, as it is to parish councils. I refer to the ever-increasing traffic along country roads. Too many vehicles travel too fast on roads which are inadequate for the weight, length and power of the vehicles—a matter which causes anxiety to parents, horse riders and walkers.
I have not been able to touch on many of the points raised by other noble Lords. However, perhaps in conclusion I may refer to three issues. The first is the whole question of the SSAs, to which other noble Lords referred earlier. My understanding is that in London the SSA for an average person is £1,350 but in the shire counties the figure is £750; and that is at a time when it is more expensive for us to provide those services. Secondly, will the Government give greater thought to what they can do to help tenant farmers? Farmers who own their land at least have a buffer behind them to help them in difficult times, but our tenant farmers have great difficulty. Thirdly, I should like to pick up on the question raised by my noble friend Lord Jopling. Agriculture must be the priority, whatever ministry takes part. As I said at the beginning of my speech, without a strong farming presence, the

879
countryside we know and love would just not be there. I look to the Minister to set out the Government's thinking in that area.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, like all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for allowing us the opportunity to debate subjects which could not be fully covered in the Queen's Speech debate, when we naturally focused on areas of legislation rather than the areas of broad-ranging policy which have been illustrated today. I know of noble Lords' concern on that point.
As we have come to expect from the noble Earl, he introduced the debate in a witty and wide-ranging fashion. He even spoke about his legitimacy. I think we can probably all agree that the noble Earl is probably best designated as the primus inter impares in this House. If we did it in that way we would not have to have a contentious debate about the relative legitimacy of either set of the impares. I shall leave it at that. The noble Earl is probably in a better position than I am because I am still trying to work out from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, whether I am an incompetent politician on the way up, which seems highly unlikely, or an incompetent politician who is clapped out and on the way down—
Noble Lords: Neither!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it has been an enormously wide debate, reflecting the range of issues that are involved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said. when we conjure up an image c f the countryside. We have dealt with a great many matters agricultural. But, equally, we have dealt with matters of social deprivation, the environment, education, transport and crime. That emphasises the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that this is not an area in which we can or should polarise or suggest that the interests of one group of people are diametrically opposed to, are different from or do not coincide with the views of their fellow citizens who may live in different parts of the country.
I was thinking about how I would respond to the right reverend Prelate on the issue of market towns. I am sure that that issue will be touched on in the rural White Paper because of the importance of market towns to the rural economy. But, equally, they are urban areas and the urban White Paper, which has been developed in tandem and in parallel with the rural White Paper, must recognise how we can make those thriving urban centres ones to which the rural population can relate.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two of the minor matters. I feel that I should reassure the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I was worried about his protected rabbit warren when I first heard of it. I am reliably informed that the proposal from English Heritage—it is only a proposal—is to designate a medieval structure built by
880
people for rabbit farming rather than by rabbits for rabbits to live in. So there will perhaps be something to preserve.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness. I found that out myself yesterday, but that makes the whole thing even more absurd.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thought the noble Earl was going to say that it would have spoilt his joke if he had admitted what he had found out yesterday. As far as concerns the Newbury snails, I can draw on past experience. The noble Earl made a wise decision in the snails' benefit because, as I understand from my time as Minister with responsibility for roads, they were relocated and have thrived in their new location and are breeding better than ever.
While I am on the issue of roads, perhaps I should respond to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who referred to the dualling of the A.1. I know, again from a previous incarnation, that that is a matter of great concern to him. He will appreciate that specific road schemes are not now within my hands or purview, but I have some sympathy with him on the accident record on that stretch of road. I shall take the opportunity to ensure that my noble friend Lord Whitty, whom I am sure the noble Lord has lobbied anyway, is made aware of his concerns on that area.
Another matter that is not in my hands is the future of MAFF, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Byford, made reference. I shall repeat the mantra that it is a matter for the Prime Minister. But that is not to say that it should not be debated in this House or that Members of this House should not express a view on it. It is just rather difficult for MAFF Ministers to express a view on it. I hope that noble Lords will understand that. Equally, it is difficult for MAFF Ministers to express a view on matters of taxation, which are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The issue of a pesticides tax was raised today. Noble Lords will be aware that we understand the concerns of agriculture and have made clear that those will be well considered in any government decisions in that area. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to VAT on church repairs. I shall ensure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has his attention drawn that issue.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked whether MAFF staff and civil servants appropriately understand farming, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, also has views on that subject. In all areas of government it is important to ensure that people who are involved in advising Ministers about policy have some experience and vision of the areas concerned. When I have donned my green wellies and gone out, the farmers to whom I have spoken have been very appreciative of MAFF, particularly of the regional service centre staff, and feel that they are very involved regionally and have an understanding of those areas.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the local civil servants know about us, but I would welcome onto our

881
farm any civil servants from Whitehall to see what we do so that they get some idea. The noble Baroness may know about the exchange chap we have for the specialist cheese makers who is having his eyes opened.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are doing a great deal in terms of the Modernising Government initiative in having that kind of valuable interchange of ideas. That interchange of ideas and the recognition that those of us who spend most of our time in the city but enjoy some time in the countryside, and likewise those who spend most of their time in the countryside but enjoy some time in the city, must understand the other's view point are extremely important. Indeed, the polarisation that crept into some of the contributions made in the debate is not helpful to anyone.
In relation to the West Midlands, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield reminded us how important the countryside is for his urban parishioners. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and other noble Lords drew attention to the services that are provided in the cities and by city dwellers within the countryside. As one who was brought up in Wolverhampton, I certainly related to the way in which the rural areas in the right reverend Prelate's diocese provide not only leisure but a completely different perspective on life for those who dwell in cities. To some extent I disagree with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that one may make the distinction that either side does not have the right to contribute to debates on the future of the countryside or of the town. I believe that such problems are better solved when a range of perspectives are brought together. We should not exaggerate the differences between town and country but rather we should understand the common causes, while not in any way jettisoning the perspectives of those who have long experience of a certain area.
We need to protect the rural environment while ensuring that we continue to enjoy the countryside. The grave problems facing the farming industry must be recognised, while at the same time—this point has been made by several speakers—the perspective of customers and consumers has to be clearly understood. Only by doing that will we ensure the future success of the industry.
Many speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Plumb, pointed out that this debate is taking place at a time when the farming industry is facing the most severe difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, used the word "despair". It is true that enormous personal and family problems have been caused by the current widespread depression in farming. Last year, farm incomes were already very low, and this year the forecast suggests that the situation will be similar. Telling figures were given by several speakers in the debate. After a period of relatively good incomes in the early 1990s, in real terms farm incomes have now dropped back below the levels of a decade ago.
882
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, noted that the depression has now spread widely among the different farming sectors and that it is no longer a matter of one sector thriving while another struggles. We are seeing a much more widespread situation of depression. Concern for those affected has been demonstrated in contributions from all sides of the House. Noble Lords recognise that this not only affects the individuals directly involved in farming but impacts on related businesses and businesses ancillary to farming. Indeed, the consequences are potentially worrying for the landscape, the environment, animal welfare and a whole range of other related issues.
The Government are taking the situation very seriously. In September my right honourable friend the Minister announced a major review of the regulatory burdens on agriculture. Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Plumb and Lord Rotherwick, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, made the point that those constraints are keenly felt and that this is an important issue. The three major working parties covering the priority topics of meat hygiene, the IACS scheme and inspections and the intervention system are reaching the end of their work. We hope to receive their reports this month. I can assure the House that the Government are committed to rooting out unnecessary red tape.
Equally, we need to look at exactly what regulation is unnecessary. We must recognise that some constraints need to be in place, especially in terms of the legal framework under which we operate—often a European framework. While there is no desire to gold-plate, we cannot under-implement and then complain about other countries' implementation.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Her speech so far has been quite excellent and the sooner she takes over the job now undertaken by Mr Brown the better.
Having said that, I see a major problem when UK governments take regulations emanating from Europe and then add bits onto them, sometimes verging on the edge of legality. This fault applies not only to the present Government. Our side was just as bad. Can the noble Baroness make a great effort to ensure that this is stopped?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Earl that we are looking at that point. I know that Ministers now closely scrutinise individual proposals to ensure that we do not over-implement. Occasionally it may seem that over-implementation is taking place. However, when one examines the issues in more detail, that view is not necessarily accurate. For instance, I have been assured that the poultry hygiene regulations are essential. We must take cognisance of the fact that we could get into very great difficulties with the EU on this matter. The EU in turn could then create problems in terms of payment of subsidies should we not implement appropriately in this area. However, I have listened carefully to the words of the noble Earl. The issue of ducklings by post

883
is one that I shall look at as soon as I return to my office. I regret that I cannot respond directly on that point today.
Several noble Lords raised the matter of hill farming. That sector has been under great pressure. We have provided more support there. An extra £60 million has been allocated to hill livestock compensatory allowances for 1999 and 2000. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, asked about agri-monetary compensation. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, also raised the issue, although I may be incorrect on that. The Government have made available some £264 million of agri-monetary compensation to ensure that farmers do indeed have access to a level playing field and are not unnecessarily disadvantaged by the strength of the pound. It is an unpalatable fact that the previous government chose not even to apply for any of the £153 million of compensation that was made available in January and March 1997.
The issue of easing the cost of regulation was raised by several noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to it in detail. For at least the duration of the current comprehensive spending review, the Government are committed to paying for cattle passports, which amounts to £22 million per annum. Furthermore, they are committed to meeting the cost of specified risk materials inspections, which amounts to another £18 million per annum. Those are necessary safeguards in the wake of BSE. Equally, today my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced another easing of the cost of regulation on the industry. Concerns have been expressed by many noble Lords about the cost of the Meat Hygiene Service. Charges will be frozen for this year at a cost of £7 million, and we have pledged that charges for next year will not rise above the rate of inflation. I hope that that will be welcomed by noble Lords.
A new marketing drive is to be established by MAFF and the Meat and Livestock Commission to explore the scope for more activity on beef export promotion, using a proportion of the £6 million contained in the recent aid packages. It is hoped that that will give some help to the beef industry which, as has been pointed out many times today, has been so gravely injured by the BSE crisis.
Many who have spoken in the debate today pointed out that agriculture is not the only source of employment in the countryside but equally that it is central to achieving the wider economic, social and environmental objectives for rural areas, even though agriculture as a source of employment has declined as a proportion of the whole workforce in many areas. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, illustrated, these days agriculture is seldom the single source of income for farming families. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the Government are not abandoning farmers to the market without concern for them. Our long-term policy for agriculture is to secure a more competitive and sustainable industry with a stronger market orientation. Several speakers have welcomed that. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, spoke wisely on these issues in a very thoughtful speech.
884
I agree with the noble Earl on the importance of consumer understanding and information, so that issues such as differing welfare regimes in different countries are understood. Those who, as one set of citizens, want to see higher animal welfare standards should also recognise the implications that that has for them as consumers. We have nothing to fear in making these matters clear in the marketing of British produce.
Stronger market orientation was our philosophy in pressing for a radical reform of the CAP. Although the outcome of the Agenda 2000 negotiations did not go as far as we should have liked, it represented an important step in moving the common agricultural policy in the right direction, as was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and others. That change also gave us the opportunity provided by the Rural Development Regulation. For the first time, it provides a chance for the long-term redirection of agricultural support so as to encourage sustainable and enterprising rural economies and communities.
The regulation recognises the wider contribution that farmers make to rural areas and the need for farmers to diversify their businesses as they adapt to changing market conditions. I believe that that was the context in which my noble friend Lord Haskel referred to opportunities. Certainly, those opportunities are being grasped by many farmers. That is not to suggest that there are not mainstream and deep-rooted problems for farmers, but there are ways in which value can be added. The regulation also recognises the need to encourage enterprise through the rural economy, in part at least to enable it to adjust to the decline in the direct contribution made by agriculture. The points relating to diversification and support for rural industries have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, sought a comment on renewable energy from crops and wastes. We are considering carefully, in the context of the Rural Development Regulation, possible support for energy crops. We believe that value for money from short rotation coppice is better than that from bio-diesel. I suspect that the noble Lord may not agree, but that is our view. We are considering whether we can increase R&D funding in that area.
In responding to the noble Lord, perhaps I may comment on the trials of GM crops. It is in the interest of everyone, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in his opening remarks, that we have the information from real farm-scale evaluations as regards the implications for the environment—not least to answer the questions of those who have the gravest doubts about the introduction of GM crops. We are committed to a rigorous assessment of the safety of the trial release of GM crops in the environment. Equally, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we are committed to openness. We do not want it to be done by stealth. That would not be in anyone's interest. But given that attitude, there must be responsibility on the part of those who seek to undermine the only method of obtaining the information on which judgments for the future can be based.

885
A number of speakers mentioned the rural White Paper. More can, and should, be done to ensure an integrated and effective approach to rural areas. That is why we are examining the ways in which we can serve and enhance the countryside as a resource and amenity for all through the rural White Paper which is to be published next year. I assure noble Lords that the White Paper will adopt a holistic approach in exploring how a wide range of policies, encompassing the work of many government departments, agencies and local authorities, can support rural communities.
The rural White Paper will consider the impact of policies on many of the areas raised by noble Lords during the debate; for example, crime and policing, about which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, spoke; education, referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham; transport; and housing. It will explore how those issues fit together. The White Paper will discuss how to foster sustainable communities and will examine how our development and regeneration policies will assist deprived rural communities. My noble friend Lord Haskel was right to point out the evidence regarding rural deprivation and the possibility of severe social isolation and exclusion within rural areas, and how we can give all rural people the opportunity to play a full part in the economic vitality and sustainable development of our society.
I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that it will be in that context that the issues concerning rural post offices, to which we have given some scope for more commercial freedom, and small business services will be approached.
Several noble Lords asked about the possibility of EU funds for rural development measures, particularly for over-subscribed agri-environmental schemes. That forms part of the consultation that has been taking place on the Rural Development Regulation. We have consulted, for example, on such issues as an early retirement scheme; help for young farmers; and, above all, the principle of modulation referred to by the right reverend Prelate. I am afraid that I cannot give him the answers as regards the decisions on match funding and modulation, which have still to be made; but I can tell him that it will not be long before that information is available. There has been concern about the low level of historical funding that we inherited; it does not give us a strong base from which to work. We shall be pressing within Europe to ensure that the overall level of funding is examined for the next round.
I am conscious of the time, so perhaps I may deal briefly with points made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, in regard to the countryside amenity and conservation Bill, the widening of access to the countryside and ways in which we can promote people's enjoyment of it while recognising the need to preserve the livelihoods of those who work there as well as wildlife and the environment itself.
Fifty years after the landmark National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, we shall be bringing forward new countryside legislation early next year.
886
The Bill will fulfil two important manifesto commitments: to strengthen the protection of wildlife, and to give people greater access to the countryside. It will demonstrate our determination both to secure effective protection of our finest habitats and species and to ensure that more people have the opportunity to enjoy our wonderful natural heritage—and, as several noble Lords suggested was important for those who live in towns, to understand the countryside better.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked whether we would consider the views of the CLA and others in the passage of the Bill. We have held extensive consultation with interested organisations over the past two years. Equally, during the parliamentary stages of that Bill, especially in your Lordships' House, we shall consider carefully the views expressed by the CLA and others.
Funding for rural services was raised by several noble Lords. The issues of scarcity and support for services through local authority grant systems are well recognised. They will be an underlying theme in consideration of rural policies. Because of the need for "joined-up government", for ensuring that we make all the departments involved play their part, it has been announced that there will be a cross-cutting rural review in the context of the next spending review which I hope will be helpful.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked specifically about how much more green belt would be destroyed by our Government. I have to say: a great deal less than was destroyed by his. In their last year of office, the Conservative government took 1,200 hectares out of the green belt. Since May 1997, there has been a net gain of almost 30,000 hectares. I hope that the noble Earl will find that reassuring.
On the issue of fox hunting raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and others, I was glad that in today's debate the impression was not given, as sometimes happens, that it is the predominant or only issue of concern in the countryside. Nevertheless, it is right that the facts about hunting should be properly assessed and balanced in a dispassionate way, before any legislation is considered. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is in the Chamber; he has an onerous task.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is an interesting development. Is the Minister saying that no Bills will be supported in another place until the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has reported? If he reports that a ban will cause economic distress to the countryside, is the Minister saying that the Government will pay immense attention and listen? I thought she went rather a nice long way down that line. I liked it.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that makes me extremely nervous. The promise that has been given of government time and assistance for the legislation does not in any way pre-judge the outcome of the inquiry. The inquiry will look into the practical aspects of different types of hunting with dogs and the impact on the rural economy, agriculture and pest control; on

887
the social and cultural life of the countryside; on the management and conservation of wildlife and on animal welfare in particular areas of England and Wales. The inquiry will also consider the consequences of any ban on hunting with dogs and how any ban might be implemented. It will take evidence from all interested parties. The noble Earl, like me, will have to await the inquiry's findings before deciding what any response will be. The inquiry is independent of government, and the promise of a Bill bears no relation to the work of the inquiry. It is for Parliament to decide whether hunting is right or wrong, but I am sure that the work done by the noble Lord's committee will help every Member of Parliament to make up their minds on this important issue.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it is not for Parliament to decide whether hunting is right or wrong. It is for Parliament to decide whether hunting should be made illegal. That is very different.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that is what Members of Parliament will do in their function as legislators. I am happy to illustrate that. How we legislate, in the best of all possible worlds, reflects how we feel on issues with regard to whether certain things are right or wrong. That applies particularly to matters on which we have a free vote, like hunting. Perhaps the dichotomy is not as great as the noble Lord suggests, but he is right to be pedantic about the language. It is for Members of Parliament to legislate, not to go into areas of personal morality. I have spoken at some length and beyond my time.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, perhaps I pre-empt the Minister, but I raised specific questions on the hill farming allowance. I should be happy if the Minister could write to me with a reply.
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords. The proposed hill farming allowance scheme will be operated on data we collect now, so it should not involve any additional bureaucracy. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness on the other point.
Earl Peel: My Lords, inevitably in a debate such as this, which has been wide ranging, the number of questions posed to the noble Baroness is great. She has done a remarkable job in attempting to answer them. However, inevitably she will not be able to answer them all, and some relate to other departments. I always thought it was a tradition of this House that where questions put specifically to the Minister were not answered at the Dispatch Box, she would arrange for letters to be written to the noble Lords concerned. Can she confirm that she will do that?
We had a wide-ranging debate when we discussed the gracious Speech but, unfortunately, environment and agriculture were rolled up with education. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was answering questions on matters with which she was unable to deal. However, none of us has ever had a response to the questions we posed in that debate. Perhaps the
888
Government will keep to this tradition and ensure that we receive proper written responses to questions not answered at the Dispatch Box.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl has saved me a minute of my speech. I was going to say that I would write to noble Lords whose points I have not been able to cover in my reply. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Blackstone equally intended to do the same. It sometimes takes rather longer than one would wish for the workings of government to grind on, particularly when it involves different departments. I am sure that points raised both in the debate on the gracious Speech and today, which neither my noble friend nor I have been able to cover, will be specifically dealt with by letter.
I am grossly out of time and I shall, therefore, end by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for giving me such a challenging task in winding up.
7.47 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Baroness discovered from the noise around the Chamber as she sat down, she has done a remarkably good job with great style, understanding and charm. It has not been an easy subject to cover; it has been wide and it is impossible to try to brief oneself for every eventuality. I add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Baroness on what she has done.
I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. One point which came out clearly is that agriculture and the countryside are in a bad state, a state of depression and anxiety. It must be addressed. The noble Baroness understands the problem and I hope that she can get her colleagues in government to present themselves in such a manner that people in the countryside believe the Government do care. I do not like to say so, but at the moment people in the countryside do not believe that the Government understand or care. I hope that they will do their best to make their understanding come over better.
I was glad that the two right reverend Prelates took part in the debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield made a sensitive and human speech, saying that he had seen the anxieties of people faced with having to get rid of their homes and businesses and sometimes not being able to provide money for their pensions. The right reverend Prelate might meet those problems more than other people.
I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for participating in the debate. I was sorry that he was bullied by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who accused him of trying to leave early. It is true that there is a convention that one stays to the end. Equally, the noble Baroness, quite rightly, said she understood if, for various reasons, people had to leave. However, the poor right reverend Prelate is sitting here having missed his train with a task to undertake early tomorrow. It is all the fault of the Liberal Democrats.
I was glad to have the opportunity to hear three government Back-Benchers, the noble Lords, Lord Haskel, Lord Harrison and Lord Davies of

889
Coity. They said that they had come from the towns. That is good because the countryside encompasses not just the countryside. People in the towns participate in the countryside and it is of importance to them. It is also important that we have a contribution from them. The only point I sought to make was that, since the Government intend to undertake some substantial measures in the country, whether it be fox-hunting, fur-farming or access to the countryside, I would have thought that we would have had contributions from some noble Lords on the government Back-Benches who live in the countryside, know about these matters and would back up the noble Baroness. As it was, she was left rather bereft of such assistance, albeit supported vigorously by her urban counterparts.
I am grateful to noble Lords for having taken part in the debate. It has given us the opportunity to discuss a wide section of an important part of the countryside, and I hope that the Government will take note of what has happened. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Personal Pensions
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylderose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they will take steps to end the present mandatory requirement on personal pension fund holders to purchase an annuity at the age of 75.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first I thank the small band of noble Lords who are to take part in this short debate tonight, particularly my noble friend the Minister. I am sure that at the end of the proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill my noble friend believed that he had seen the back of the issue of annuities for some time to come. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has escaped tonight and that his place is taken by his noble friend Lord Astor of Hever. On 11th October the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, tabled an amendment to that part of the Bill concerned with stakeholder pensions. It called for the removal from the Bill of the requirement to buy an annuity related to a stakeholder pension. If noble Lords look at col. 65 of Hansard for that day, they will see that I went into the Division Lobby in opposition to that amendment.
It may assist if I make clear at the outset what my Question does not seek to do. I do not favour the abolition of the mandatory requirement to buy an annuity related to a pension; nor do I seek to increase the age at which a person is required to start taking income from a pension fund, which is 75. In the context of my Question I propose that the age be increased from 75. I did not specify an upper age, but I propose that it be 80. Therefore, at the age of 75 a person holding a pension fund would be required to start drawing down taxed income from the fund but would not be required to convert the fund into an annuity until the age of 80.
890
I believe that it was in the 1950s that the age was increased to 75. In those days there were far fewer people covered by pension schemes. Certainly, no one was covered by some of the schemes that we have today. Most were covered by occupational schemes, although it was a smaller number than today. Most of those pensions would have been defined benefit schemes which, by and large, would not be caught by this provision.
The Association of Insurance Brokers tells us that this year about £10 billion will mature for draw-down or conversion to annuities. There is a view in the industry that in 10 years' time that figure will have risen to £50 billion. We are talking about the investment of a substantial amount of money in a way that does not deny to the Chancellor the right to income tax from the benefits but also allows for the investment for which the person has saved all his life to give a decent return. Herein lies the core of my concerns. Interest earned from annuities has halved in the past decade and that accounts for a considerable amount of money. That is because the returns from gilts have been reduced.
I do not believe that my Question this evening in any way runs counter to or dilutes the national policy of this Government, and previous ones, to try to encourage people to save for their retirement. Having benefited from tax allowances, at the time of their retirement they should not try to manipulate the money that is available in a way that takes unfair advantage of the tax breaks that they have received.
I have looked at the situation today. I do not know what the Minister will say this evening. It may be said that there are a variety of methods and that people do not have to choose simply a fixed term annuity. For example, there is the draw-down option introduced in 1995. There is also the possibility of going for a fixed annuity whereby there is a guarantee of up to 10 years from the date of purchase. There is a joint annuity for couples. Having taken out the annuity, it ceases only at the point when both partners pass on.
It may be argued that there is flexibility. However, I suggest that there is a big price to pay for that small degree of flexibility. In the case of a variable annuity, in every case the costs are higher and the returns lower and the people whom they hit are not the wealthy. People have said that this is about helping the wealthy; it is not. The people most affected by the current situation are those on low incomes who find it difficult to accumulate pension funds of any substantial size. Of the various options to try to protect pension funds, they are the people who pay the highest charges in proportion to their schemes.
It may be argued that to take an annuity is almost like trying to win the lottery. It depends on the day when one assesses the fund that is to give a return for the rest of one's life irrespective of the health of the market. The events of the past decade in relation to gilts are not new. Those of us who have been involved in occupational pension schemes over the years have seen schemes in which the majority of funds have moved from gilts to equities. That has been a painful

891
process but as a result there are much healthier occupational pension schemes. However, this provision relating to annuities lags behind. Because those variable options cost more, the majority of people go for annuities only for themselves because they give the biggest return. If the individual passes on within a very short time of taking out the annuity, the consequence is that the whole fund reverts to the life company.
Pensions are complex and there are lots of anomalies, many of which cannot be resolved. Some argue that someone who smokes heavily and does not look after himself, and therefore has a shorter anticipated lifespan, under the current arrangements could take out an annuity and receive a better return than an individual who does not smoke and has looked after himself because he is assessed actuarially as having a longer life expectation. That seems crackers in anyone's book. Such anomalies are almost exaggerated by the straitjacket with regard to annuities.
I was shocked to learn that if, in a contractual annuity, the return exceeds the permitted maximum by more than 3 per cent, the Inland Revenue requires that the balance between the 3 per cent and whatever was achieved is reverted into the reserved with-profits funds of the life company. It is there to provide for under-performance. If there is no under-performance in the lifetime of the pension holder, the sum being held reverts to the life company as a windfall profit. I find that difficult to accept. That anomaly may be part of the fall-out from the requirements of the pensions legislation.
I tabled the Unstarred Question out of concern for low income people, and the increasing number who have personal pensions, as we have all been encouraged to do. The debate is not about the large funds of the wealthy. A large fund is not affected in the same way as is the present annuity system.
I support the principle of encouraging people to save for retirement. It is not a new interest; I have done so all my working life. There was a provision that if your company had an occupational scheme you were required under your contract of employment to join that scheme. I believe that the removal of that requirement was a retrograde step.
The Government have made progress in introducing stakeholder pensions. The concept is good. I am sure many people will join stakeholder pensions. However, there is a view—I support it—that without changes in the present annuity provision which allow greater flexibility, and allow the pension fundholder to be a customer in the truest sense of having choice, the take-up will not be as great as one might have expected.
I know enough about pensions to realise that every proposal for change presents a problem. There is perhaps difficulty about the funding. Nevertheless, a range of ideas should be considered. A range of ideas has been tried elsewhere. Some may choose Ireland as an example. I do not. It is too soon to use the scheme in Northern Ireland as an example. However, there are
892
schemes in the United States. A scheme in South Africa has been running for some years and has proved effective.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned Ireland and then referred to Northern Ireland. To which was she referring?
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, giving me the opportunity to correct what I said. I referred to Ireland, where a £50,000 minimum is required.
I can understand the Treasury's concern about the loss of income from tax. One could say that, if one delays the annuity until 80 years of age, as I seek—only that is not enough; one needs to consider the whole reform—and starts to draw down at 75, if one passes on before 80 the Treasury could have a call on the balance of the existing fund at that time. Equally, I would argue that inheritance tax should take care of that aspect.
One could look at fixed term annuities, to be reassessed actuarially at the end of that fixed term. One could remove the requirement—new regulations would be necessary—that the annuity should be non-commutable and provide that one should be able to go back and do that against certain criteria. There may well be pitfalls. I do not put those suggestions forward as a panacea. But a review is necessary.
There are only about four kinds of product available at present. If we are to have a community which is saving for retirement—small though the amounts that individuals can afford may be—they need to have proper advice and proper choice as a consumer.
The Government have demonstrated recently that they are on the side of the consumer as regards the fixed interest mortgage issue. One had agreements reached between the consumer and the company. The Government have said that that is not fair in the interests of the consumer. We now need the Government to adopt that kind of consumer concern. I think that I am right—the Minister will correct if I am not—that the Government are considering the drawdown issue. I hope that they are looking at the maximum age limit of 75. I am aware that there was a parliamentary Question in another place. I am equally aware that the Minister replied that the Government would come back to the issue in due course. Perhaps the Minister can indicate how long "due course" means.
Some of us have been negotiating for many years for people's future provision. Pensions are savings. They are part of a person's income. They are part of a person's earnings. It is a wide issue. It not about avoiding tax. It is not about providing pitfalls for people who want to avoid the commitments into which they have entered. It is about giving people a choice, and ensuring that when they enter into agreements they get a fair return.

893
I shall appreciate answers from the Minister to the questions that I have asked today.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for raising the question of pensions, especially as she is so clearly a long way off from being a pensioner herself. However, I was somewhat disappointed to hear her say that she does not seek to eliminate the need to take up an annuity. That is exactly what I think we should be discussing tonight.
I declare an interest. I am exhibit A! I am a pensioner; and I am a cross old pensioner too. I receive a very small taxed income from the annuity which I have taken out. Now that I have taken out the annuity, three-quarters of the money that I have saved over 35 years belongs to the pension company. It does not belong to me, my heirs or my estate. It belongs to the pension company. I think that that is unfair and inequitable. It is true that I could have delayed taking the annuity until I was 75—even, under the noble Baroness's suggestion, until I was 80. By that time I shall probably be too gaga to care what I do with it. However, if, having taken my annuity, on my 75th birthday I take my celebratory cruise and have a heart attack during a particularly vigorous game of deck quoits, again three-quarters of my enhanced fund goes immediately to the pension company. It is extraordinary.
The situation is rather like those men who try to sell you tarmac. If someone came to your door and said, "Now, squire, I've got a very good offer here. You'll absolutely love it. You give me nearly all your life savings and I'll give you a small income until you die", you might be a little upset and set the dog on him. It is exactly the same situation; there is no difference.
Something more imaginative is required from the Government. I am surprised that the noble Baroness did not go some way towards meeting that need. For example, the PEP scheme was excellent. It has been replaced by the slightly less excellent and more complex ISA. But when one puts money into a PEP scheme it is out of taxed income. The Treasury wants its slice and gets it because all contributions to PEPs or ISAs are from taxed income. The Treasury has had its tax. But one then builds up a tax-free fund. It is free of capital gains tax and of income tax. A retirement fund into which one can pay all one's life—it is up to the Government to state a minimum time before qualifying—would at least allow people to save and to keep that.
The noble Baroness is right to say that the issue is vital because it is about people's incomes; but it is also their capital. Under the present arrangement, three-quarters of it is given away to the pension company. It is that to which I object and I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not go further in her comments.
The Government may well be concerned that people who are receiving tax-free gains will spend it on riotous living, slow horses or fast women. But that would not
894
be the case because people are more financially aware. We are continually lectured about making provision for our old age. Every newspaper carries a financial section; there are financial programmes on radio and television; there is even a 24-hour financial service on television; and the Internet is full of financial advice. People are more financially aware than they ever have been and the Government's concern that "pensioner prodigals" will spend all their money and then throw themselves on the mercy of the state is without foundation.
It would make more sense if people, having saved all their lives, were allowed to keep their pension pot and dispose of it as they wish; whether on buying high interest coupons, low interest stocks, a property to let or whatever. They would be spending their own money; money which they had saved all their working lives.
That is the important point I wish to make. The Government will get their money early when people contribute to the scheme and those who have contributed to the scheme will have their own capital. The only losers will be the pension companies. My Lords, how very sad!
8.12 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Dean for tabling this Unstarred Question. I was present for the debates on the stakeholder pension funds on 24th June and 11th October and I voted against the amendment proposed by the Opposition on that latter date. Those debates were strictly within the confines of stakeholder pensions, but we are having a different debate today.
I regret that I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, that I am not here to speak strongly for the total abolition of annuities I intend to speak on similar lines to my noble friend. It is an important topic and it is useful to have a general debate rather than the confrontational exchange which took place on 24th June and 11th October. There will be a commonality of view in some areas and I hope that from the Minister we shall gain an understanding of how we might move forward. Having read his firm response on 11th October—he nods—I hope that he will not be so firm tonight.
We must take note of what is happening around us because pension provision affects many people. The 1995 figures indicate that under existing pension arrangements at least 5 million individuals will have to purchase annuities. Moreover, with the shift from defined benefit occupational pension schemes to money purchase schemes—that is happening to many employees—the number is likely to grow.
The Government should take note of the fact that the simmering discontent with the present means of providing retirement income through annuities will grow. I hope that the Government will be conscious of that. Indeed, it continues to be one of the topics which figures regularly in the money pages of the financial press—and, in my view, with increasing justification. I speak not on behalf of the rich, but on behalf of

895
many people who continue to have to work long and hard to try to build up reasonable pensions in order to have a reasonable standard of life in retirement.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the case not for total abolition but for change. I also hope that they will avoid the bureaucratic knee-jerk reaction which can come from government departments, particularly the Inland Revenue with which I have had a long association. They do not always react in such a fashion, but I imagine that as regards this topic they may believe that there is special pleading for a minority, that few people are affected by it, and that those who are probably well heeled and seeking to enhance their opportunities for further tax breaks. Like my noble friend Lady Dean, I contend that that is not the case or the purpose behind our argument.
I understand and appreciate the Government's caution about introducing changes. That was expressed by my noble friend. Even with the present declining rates, annuities give certainties, which is important. They provide a level of security for pension income that is a reassurance not only for the recipient, but also for governments, especially after they have provided tax relief for the contributions made during the years.
Annuities also help to limit dependency on the state, for which all governments aim in the longer term. I strongly argue that those factors need to be taken into account and be part of any annuity changes. I want to subscribe to such principles and I believe that the Government will continue to do so. We need to write them into future changes.
The Government also need to take account of the changes which have taken place in society during the relatively short time since the 1986 Social Security Act and the introduction of personal pension plans in 1988; for example, longevity has significantly increased. People are receiving better healthcare and better food. They take more exercise and are staying fitter. Fewer than 10 years ago, a 65 year-old man could expect to live until he was 79 and a woman until she was 83. Today, a man of 65 will probably live until he is 85, if not 87, and a woman until she is 87. A big change has taken place, therefore.
Furthermore, people are working differently from what was the fashion in the 1960s and 1970s; for example, there are now 4 million self-employed people as against only 1.5 million in the early 1980s. The Inland Revenue forecasts at least 5 million in self-employment soon. As IT spreads, we shall see more people working in different ways; working from home, for themselves or on a contractual basis.
Importantly, many people need to work longer, not just into their 70s but into their 80s, too. The demography of the future labour force will require more people to work even longer. The Government will need that. People will not only be fit enough to work, but I suspect that many people will want to do so. Furthermore, a substantial number of people will have divorced perhaps twice and married a third time and will have seen their pension provisions scattered in
896
a number of different directions. They will need to continue working to try to build up a reasonable pension because they will perhaps not have access to those to which they contributed earlier. There is a case for looking at how we can give support to those people. They will want to continue making contributions towards building good pensions which will provide a reasonable standard of living in retirement and for care in old age—for which, again, the Government are changing the provisions.
In the immediate future I can see no reason why the current legislative requirement for money purchase pension holders to purchase an annuity no later than age 75 should not be reviewed and be increased to, say, age 80. The age of 75 has been the upper limit for many years. I do not know from where it was plucked in the first instance, but it was certainly stipulated in the 1986 legislation and when pension plans were introduced in 1988. On an index link to the changes in longevity, looking at a period from the last decade to this one, there is at least a case that it should be reviewed and revised upwards. I am not certain how far it should go, but we should have a serious look at extending it up to the age of 80.
The principal advantage of such a change is that not only will people be able to make contributions for a longer period but they will also be able to purchase their annuity at the time which would be to their best advantage. Furthermore, if the existing income draw-down provisions were applicable between the ages of 75 and 80, that would be beneficial also—not to many people, but it would provide some benefit. I should like to hear whether my noble friend the Minister is prepared to give, in the light of the arguments which we have been advancing, some more favourable consideration to possible changes. That might possibly even include indexation of the age limit as a factor to be examined. Again I see him scowling, as if to say, "No, I am not prepared to do so", but those are issues that we should look at carefully and not dismiss lightly. If we do so, we are ignoring changes which are taking place around us.
It may be feared that those are tax-aided arrangements which could accrue lump sums or savings rather than pension schemes. I am conscious of that and I do not want to see that happen either. There are many anomalies and loopholes in the inheritance tax legislation which would not cover some problems that could arise on that front. I suggest that those can be plugged. Indeed, I urge the Government to start turning their attention to inheritance tax reform and reorganisation. However, those factors should not be a reason for not looking for more flexible applications of annuities to provide opportunities for better returns, yet with safeguards to meet the Government's aims that I mentioned earlier.
We need to stimulate a more imaginative and innovative response from the life insurance industry than we have had so far in its offerings to its customers. I suggest that if any life insurance people listen to this debate or read it in Hansard afterwards, they should start to pay attention—as are some of the banks—to people's other greatest asset next to pension plans;

897
I refer to their homes, their houses. Is it not time to start thinking about making a link between the two so that pensioners might be able to look forward to more flexible annuities with more flexible overall packages which provide for an even better income stream in retirement and would, in particular, enable them also to have good care in old age?
8.24 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I begin by declaring not one interest, but two. First, I am chairman of an insurance company, Axa Equity and Law Life. Secondly, I have a personal interest, because at the age of 75 I shall be forced to have a fixed annuity which I should much rather avoid. From the point of view of personal interest, I greatly hope that the suggestion made by the noble Baroness is followed by the Government.
However, I shall consider the issue not from a personal point of view, nor indeed, from a corporate point of view. I begin with what appears to be the suggestion in the Unstarred Question—although I gather that the noble Baroness gave a different interpretation to it—that we should, in effect, abolish the present mandatory requirements.
On the face of it, the Motion seems very reasonable. Of course, what the noble Baroness said was very reasonable, as one should expect. A fixed date can undoubtedly be difficult. Interest rates may rise rapidly and unpredictably. I defy people to predict the future of interest rates. Economists are extremely good at telling one tomorrow why what they predicted yesterday did not come true today. Interest rates can rise and fall unpredictably. A great difference can be shown by a matter of timing, even within a period of six months. There is an element of a lottery, as the noble Baroness pointed out, which can certainly seem extremely unfair.
However, I have considerable difficulty with the Motion and I may even have some difficulty with the interpretation given to it by the noble Baroness. I turn first to the Motion. The fundamental question is why tax relief is given to pensions. The simple reason for that is because the state has a considerable interest in people providing pensions for themselves. Therefore, it encourages tax relief and savings. The tax relief for pensions is extremely valuable. It has the classic EET form: there is exemption for the contributions, exemption for the income as capital, and tax for what comes out.
The tax-free lump sum is an anomaly in that, and has been so for a long time. At some stage, I expect that the Chancellor will have a go at that tax-free lump sum. It is kept because many people have made their plans on the basis of receiving such a sum and it therefore seemed harsh to deprive them of that.
There are two advantages if there is a postponement of the age at which the annuity—which is the equivalent of a pension—has to be fixed. First, the capital continues to be available with tax-free income, from which a certain amount has to be drawn which is
898
of course taxable. Secondly, by postponing the annuity one receives a higher rate of annuity. However, if the mandatory requirement is abolished and people need not take out the equivalent of a pension at all and may then pass on the estate through inheritance, often avoiding inheritance tax, it seems to me that one is rather over-egging the pudding and providing a considerable advantage by way of tax relief.
Tax relief is a wonderful thing to have but one man's tax relief is another man's tax burden, and another woman's tax burden. One cannot be generous and give tax relief all round because other people still have to pay corresponding taxes. Therefore one has to examine whether, in some ways, tax relief can be over generous. One must compare pensions with other forms of savings. Because of the large contributions which can attract the exemptions, tax relief of that kind—if there is no liability at the end and further advantages are obtainable—is far greater than that which can be obtained by other forms of saving such as ISAs.
Therefore I believe that the Motion, if interpreted purely, would be stretched too far. Is 75 even such an intolerable age? The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, says that the whole system of annuities is unfair because one may die the day after one takes one's annuity. He said that he might die on his cruise playing deck quoits. I should have thought it far more likely that, following the example of many in this House, he will live to a ripe old age and that it is the insurance company that will lose. For one person who dies and therefore gives a great benefit to the insurance company, another person lives to a very ripe old age and the insurance company loses, which balances out. If people live longer, then rates will be lower If people die earlier, then the annuities can be more generous and it will balance out.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, the money that one has saved goes into the pension fund not just when one dies, but when one takes the annuity.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, of course, the money goes to the pension fund—in order to pay the annuity. That is the nature of the bargain.
It seems that it was right to extend the age beyond 65 because life expectancy is so much longer. People now have 10 more years to make a choice. During a period of 10 years it is likely that interest rates will go up and down. People may miss their chance when interest rates are high or they may be unlucky or badly advised. It is a lottery. I do not see how that can be avoided if a pension becomes fixed. The nature of defined contribution pensions is that the employee or the individual takes the risk. The great advantage of defined benefit pensions is that that risk is then taken by the employer.
Should the age limit be extended to 80? I have no dogmatic views on that. It seems to me that if one gets close to the age of life expectancy—as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out, for those who have reached

899
the age of 65 that is still well above 80—the advantage of the annuity tax-relief system begins to edge too close to what is perhaps an exceptional advantage.
On the other hand, I believe that the question should be looked at again. Many of the suggestions made by the noble Baroness should be examined. As we live longer, I believe that from time to time the age limit will have to be raised. The other day a Dutch population expert predicted that babies born in the year 2010 will live to be 115. I hope that people will work longer. People are likely to be fit for much longer.
In my old age I have taken up running. The other day I read in a magazine about a highly competitive veteran athletic club where the over-60s held world championships and the 100 metres was won in a time faster than that of the Olympics of 1892. It is incredible how the physical abilities of people have changed.
On balance, looking at the tax advantage of the pension system, one should compare it with other forms of savings and the tax benefits that they give. On the whole, I am inclined to conclude that at the moment 75 is a reasonable age, but I am open-minded on the matter. I do not think that anyone should be dogmatic about it. As time goes on, I believe that the age limit will have to be raised.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for introducing this important debate. As one would expect from someone who was on the Occupational Pensions Board and who lists pensions as among her special interests, the noble Baroness speaks with great authority and clarity on the subject. I look forward to hearing the response from the Minister. I know that he has a great deal of personal experience in this area. The debate has been characterised by contributions from noble Lords who are also experts. As a pensioner, my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke spoke with great authority.
As the noble Baroness used the word "when" in her question and not "if", I hope that there is cause for optimism, although I understand that she seeks only to raise the age from 75 to 80. At Report stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, the Minister told the House that the Government were monitoring the annuity position and that the Inland Revenue was conducting a special exercise to assess how the current arrangements on income drawdown and annuity purchase were working in practice. I also remember that the Minister assured the House at that time that Gordon Brown was able to walk on water. If the Chancellor can do that, surely he can resolve the problems associated with forcing personal pension fund holders to purchase an annuity at age 75!
On 30th June in a debate on pensions in the other place, the Minister of State, Stephen Timms, said that the Inland Revenue's review would be published in the autumn. Today being 1st December, by my reckoning autumn has been and gone and we are well into winter. Therefore, can the Minister tell the House when we may have the results of that important review? I hope that the answer will not be "in due course".
900
Recently annuities have been the subject of much focus. As I am sure the Minister will be aware, Members of Parliament on all sides are finding that many constituents approaching the age of 75 are unhappy about the requirement to purchase an annuity. Indeed, I am advised that surveys show that about 98 per cent of people approaching the age of 75 are unhappy about it. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that it is not just the rich who are affected but also people on low incomes. This is not just special pleading for minorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said.
The steady fall in long-term interest rates is seriously reducing the value of pensioners' incomes in retirement derived from an annuity. According to the Financial Times, in the autumn of 1997 annuity rates were at their lowest level for 40 years. In the past 10 years annuity rates have fallen from around 16 per cent to 8 per cent, halving income that a newly retired person with the same lump sum would receive.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I do not want to be confrontational, but on these Benches it is our clear view that the requirement to buy an annuity at the age of 75 should be abolished. Indeed, this campaign has been driven for some time by the Conservatives, particularly by my honourable friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, Howard Flight.
We want individuals to exercise a greater degree of choice for themselves. We want greater flexibility to allow those who have saved into a fund more control over their hard-earned savings to enable them to take advantage of a broader range of investment solutions. From a public policy standpoint, the issue of annuities is important, not least because of the Government's desire to promote stakeholder pensions. That has already been touched on.
If the annuity rules relating to 75 year-olds were to stay as they currently are, I believe that professional best advice would suggest that many of the target market would be better served by putting their money into an ISA rather than into a stakeholder pension. Whether or not it was in fact the best professional advice, human nature would probably produce that result.
When viewed by those with perhaps less to save, the choice would be between a stakeholder pension and an ISA. With an ISA they could put money in when they chose to but withdraw it when they chose to. If they have the discipline to continue saving until their retirement, they could use the fund as they saw fit. With a stakeholder pension the choice will be to put money into a stakeholder pension as flexibly as with an ISA, to have that contribution grossed up for tax, but to be forced to leave the money there until they retire and then be forced to purchase an annuity with everything they have saved. Put in those stark terms, as many pensions experts do, it is likely that many will choose the ISA route rather than the stakeholder route.

901
In the light of that, does the Minister agree that compulsory annuities for all the moneys saved in a stakeholder pension scheme could damage the attraction of the scheme? If so, what action do the Government intend to take to redress the situation?
I draw the Minister's attention also to the range of more flexible arrangements such as equity-linked, variable drawdown and term annuities that are currently found in the United States, Australia, South Africa and Ireland. Though the noble Baroness may disagree, the Irish pension system is particularly interesting. Pensioners there buy a basic annuity and are then free to do as they like with the rest of their pension pot. Will the Minister consider looking at such arrangements to see whether they would have any merit in this country?
The problem facing those coming up to 75 is now serious. Government policy must respond. The issue will not go away, and Ministers in the other place accept that. I hope that the Minister will bring the House, and the many people approaching retirement age, some good news tonight.
8.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that there were considerable difficulties for economists in making the kind of forecasts necessary to understand these issues well. It is not just economists. I remind him that the solicitor of Jeanne Calment of Arles made a deal with her when she reached her 90th birthday. The deal was related to her flat in Arles—in French it is called viager—that while she lived, he would pay her an income and when she died he would inherit the flat. Madame Calment lived from the age of 90 to the age of 122. When she died the solicitor was already dead. I hope that noble Lords will not get themselves in that sort of position.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Dean for introducing this debate. As she said, we debated the issue of annuities for stakeholder pensions in this House on 24th June and 11th October, and my noble friend Lord Brooke is right in saying that I gave a firm reply to the debate at that time, though he is right also in saying that what I was replying to was a different proposition from the Opposition Front Bench to that which my noble friends have been putting forward tonight. I am still grateful for the opportunity of saying it again, though whether I give any more reassurance to the Opposition than I did at that time is extremely doubtful.
Let me explain the present situation. Currently, people in personal pension schemes—that is, defined contribution schemes as opposed to defined benefit, occupational or final salary schemes—must use their pension fund to purchase an annuity. They do not need to do that at the point of retirement; instead they can choose to draw an income from the pension fund by a process commonly known as the "income drawdown". That has been in place since 1995. But they must purchase an annuity by the age of 75 at the latest.
902
Income drawdown is a useful facility for providing people with a degree of flexibility over the timing of their annuity purchase, but it is not a panacea for all the perceived ills of annuities. I shall come on to the reasons why in a moment, but I should like to say a little more about annuities and why there is a requirement to purchase them.
The purpose of a pension is to provide a person with a secure, reliable, life-long income when he or she stops earning. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, rightly said, that is why we give tax relief on the contributions to a pension fund. Of course nobody knows how long retirement will be, so it is difficult to plan for the income to last and at the same time to maximise the level of that income. That is why we "annuitise" it; that is why we set up annuities which, in simple terms, insure the length of a person's life.
Annuity rates are decided by life expectancy, combined with yields from secure long-term investments such as gilts. I can say to my noble friend Lady Dean that they are not normally based on individual life expectancy; they are based on the life expectancy of all annuitants and do not relate to an individual's own life expectation. There are exceptions. There are different annuity rates for smokers. My noble friend Lady Farrington would obtain a better annuity than I would, though my dissolute life would probably overcome that if we were going to personalise it. Nevertheless, the essence of pooling arrangements underlies the basis on which annuities are given. Of course individuals who die young benefit the pool. Those who live longer draw from the pool as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said. It is not a matter of the money going into an insurance company. My noble friend Lady Dean talked of the whole fund reverting to the life company as a "windfall profit". That is simply not the case. The calculation and the market for annuities is competitive. It is based on the life expectancy for all people and there must be a balance between those who gain and those who lose.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Clearly he misunderstood my point. I did not say that the whole fund would revert to the life company as a windfall profit. I was referring to the amount above the maximum return on a contractual annuity whereby, if the earnings were above 3 per cent, it was that element that was a "windfall profit" to the company; that then went into the company's funds if the annuitant died.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall come on to this point. That is why there are a variety of possible annuities available. It is a competitive market and if what is being offered is not competitive, then it is up to the person who has the fund from the personal pension to shop around to find the best. The average life expectancy affects the rates that life companies are able to offer for annuities and, as my noble friend Lord Brooke confirmed, people are liking longer. That is feeding through into lower annuities with the same pool of funds having to be stretched out to last longer.

903
Inflation is another factor that affects annuities. As a result of this Government's prudent handling of the economy, we now have inflation under firm control. During the time of the previous government, inflation averaged 6.6 per cent; under this Government it has been steadily reducing and now stands at 2.2 per cent. Interest rates mirror inflation. That means that they too have dropped and that has contributed to annuity rates coming down.
But there are two sides to the coin. It is not accidental that with low interest rates the capital value of equities has increased. Pension funds invest heavily in equities so people have larger funds with which to buy their annuity. With low inflation the real purchasing power of the annuity will last well into the future.
As I indicated to my noble friend Lady Dean, we should not forget that people have a choice, not only in the timing of their annuity purchase, but also in being able to shop around for the best annuity deal on offer. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked for more flexibility. Holders of personal pensions have the facility to exercise an open-market option when they buy an annuity. They may not only choose the best rate, but may also decide which type of annuity best suits their needs. Many people choose a flat-rate annuity where the level stays fixed for the rest of their life, but there are also index-linked annuities which guarantee to keep pace with inflation, and the newer breed of "with profits" annuities where pensioners can share in the returns from the investments of the annuity provider. The last category has been well developed by the insurance industry and answers the claim that innovation is not taking place.
Of course, the insurance industry and the Government are keen to find further ways of developing flexibility, from the Government's point of view, within the principles that govern pension funds. We will look at any country to see whether there are better ideas. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred to the Irish Republic. But that is a restrictive scheme. It has a substantial minimum pot before it comes into force and is severely restricted in the number of people who are allowed to make use of it.
Some people would say that annuities are poor value because of the lack of a competitive market, but we do not have any evidence in that respect. One of the virtues of annuities is that they are relatively simple compared to other financial products. This allows providers to reduce their overheads so that the costs and commissions paid on annuities are much lower than those for income drawdown, for example, which requires intensive fund management.
High costs is one of the reasons why income drawdown is unlikely to be suitable for most people. Costs, combined with high investment risks, mean that providers will generally recommend drawdown only for people with large pension funds. A number of noble Lords, including both my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said that they were arguing not only on behalf of the rich. I accept that that is their intention, but the fact is that some providers specify a
904
minimum level of around £100,000, while others say that it needs to be as high as a quarter of a million pounds. Few people have funds of that size. The contention that drawdown provides only for a minority is backed by a recent industry report indicating that there were only around 30,000 people in income drawdown arrangements. Therefore, that means that 30,000 people will be as upset at the age of 75, as noble Lords opposite seem to think will be the case.
The reason is very simple: the typical value annuity is bought with a pension fund of less than £30,000. A fund of that size could not sustain the risks associated with drawdown. The investment return on the fund must cover not only the income taken out, but also the high administration costs, inflation, and the fact that life expectancy does not remain constant but actually increases with age. To achieve the return needed, a substantial proportion of the fund must be placed in volatile investments. So there is a significant possibility that the value of the fund may fall rather than rise. This risk can be managed by a large fund using a comprehensive spread of investments, but a smaller fund would be much more vulnerable. That is not the way to secure a life-long income for retirement.
The proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his amendment to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, and which is reflected in the wording of the Question—although not in the speech—of my noble friend Lady Dean, is not about providing a better pension for the majority of people in this country. But that would not be a reason for opposing an easement for a minority if it could be shown to be beneficial and justified. So we must return to the purpose of pensions and the justification for spending the equivalent of £13 billion of public money a year in subsidising private pensions through tax relief.
The purpose of a pension is to provide a secure income throughout retirement. People will not then be likely to have to fall back on state benefits. If the pension were not secure—through no fault of the pensioner, necessarily, but perhaps, because of poor investment decisions—he or she might lose their pension income. The state would then end up paying twice over. Many of the people who have been lobbying Ministers to remove the 75-years age limit do not even need to draw their pension income; they already have security in their retirement.
Perhaps I may return to the issue of the need to charge tax, which would be necessary if we were to make substantial changes to the annuity requirement. There is a misconception that the annuity requirement is about the Inland Revenue taking back the tax reliefs given. It is not. It would be quite straightforward to recoup tax in other ways. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, pointed out, the essential point here is that pensions are not vehicles for passing wealth between generations. If they were to become so, as they might if the age 75 requirement were removed, we would have to reconsider the system of pension tax reliefs. We would also have to consider the consequences for other types of private pensions. In particular, we would have to consider the threat to

905
defined benefit pension schemes—occupational pension schemes—which might lose out if people were to leave them. It might make some of them non-viable and we would have a particular problem with unfunded public pensions, which could involve a considerable risk of expenditure for the Treasury.
I turn now to the point my noble friend Lady Dean made about the artificiality of the age 75 requirement and her proposal that it should be increased to the age of 80. The problem here is that the longer an income withdrawal arrangement continues, the greater the risk of depletion of the pension fund, leaving the pensioner reliant on state support. I am not saying that there will never have to be changes; indeed, life expectancy changes make that an inevitable consequence at some time. But change of the kind proposed by my noble friend would run the risk that we would depart from the essential purpose of pension arrangements; namely, to provide a secure income throughout retirement. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, acknowledged, the current age 75 requirement strikes a reasonable balance between minimising the risk of the fund depleting too quickly and allowing a good measure of flexibility to the individual who can choose when to buy an annuity over a period of up to 25 years.
Perhaps I may conclude on a positive note. The Government are committed to improving pension provision in this country for all sections of the community. We have already made good progress with the proposals put forward in our Green Paper, which was published last December. Those proposals were taken forward in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act and we are working in partnership with
906
the pensions industry further to develop and implement these ideas. We have received a great deal of support, for which we are grateful.
The pensions industry has also helped us to look at income drawdown. As has been said, the Inland Revenue has reviewed with industry representatives the current rules for personal pension income drawdown to see whether the rules are working well, or might be improved. That is important because, if we can streamline the process, it may assist the industry to provide a better product. However, as I said, that does not mean that changes in life expectancy may not cause changes in the age requirement in due course. Although the review is complete and the recommendations are currently being considered by Treasury Ministers, I have to say that the invitation which was issued by Stephen Timms (then the Minister for Social Security) on 11th March of this year—for anyone else outside to come forward with positive suggestions—has not achieved any positive results. No suggestions have been made for improvements other than those which have been drawn out in the course of the consultation process.
Therefore, I must return to what Ministers in the House of Commons have said. The Government recognise people's concerns. We are encouraging the financial sector to come forward with possible alternatives, but they must be practical and must address the central purpose of a pension. The Government believe that it is important for people to have a secure, reliable income for the whole of their retirement. It is not clear at present that anything other than an annuity can do this.
House adjourned at two minutes before nine o'clock.

  Aviation Safety
  Aviation Safety
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Royal Parks Agency: Review
  Royal Parks Agency: Review
  Quality Efficiency and Standards Team
  Quality Efficiency and Standards Team
  Education Council, 25 November
  Education Council, 25 November
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Kosovo: Depleted Uranium
  Kosovo: Depleted Uranium
  UNICOM
  UNICOM
  RAF Aircrew and Alcohol and Drug Misuse
  RAF Aircrew and Alcohol and Drug Misuse
  Armed Forces Redress of Grievance Procedure
  Armed Forces Redress of Grievance Procedure
  Naval Personnel: Notice Period
  Naval Personnel: Notice Period
  Northern Ireland: Prisoner Releases
  Northern Ireland: Prisoner Releases