Sitting of 7 July 1999

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

Wildlife Protection
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.33 am
Ms Julia Drown: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this important issue today, as 7 July is the 50th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949—now known as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—which established the existing framework for wildlife protection and access to the countryside. I know that wildlife protection is a matter of great concern to hon. Members, especially on the Labour Benches, and I hope that a number of others will be able to participate in the debate.
I hope that, in the debate, we will succeed in persuading the Government to include a new wildlife and countryside Bill in the 1999 Queen's Speech, to cover the many issues that need to be addressed—the measures that would not only increase the protection of wildlife but increase people's enjoyment of the countryside. That would not only benefit us today, but would be an inheritance that we could leave for future generations.
The past 50 years have brought marked changes to our environment and countryside, some of them good, but many of them destructive and regressive. Many of our best wildlife sites have been lost and species that were once common are now endangered. That is a matter of great concern to my constituents and, sadly, sites in my constituency, are among those that have suffered as a result of inadequate protection.
The challenge to protect our natural heritage is greater than ever. That is emphasised by the shocking figures that starkly illustrate the threats to our countryside. At a rate of almost one a day, more than 300 of the United Kingdom's best wildlife sites are lost or damaged every year. We have seen a huge decline in wild flower meadows, lowland heathland, hedgerows and ancient woodlands in Britain.
Over the past 50 years, more than 25 species have become extinct in the wild in the UK, and more are heading that way. The World Wid Fund for Nature has projected that if no action is taken, water voles will become extinct in 2003, skylarks in 2009, and the song thrush will vanish from farmland by 2006.
Many have welcomed the Government's Green Paper on sites of special scientific interest, which I shall call special sites. It outlined how such sites could be better protected. However, it is critical that those proposals are translated into action at the earliest opportunity. Delay simply means more damage and destruction to our
946
countryside. The Government could do more than they have outlined in the Green Paper by examining the needs of species outside those special sites, where there are also serious threats to wildlife.
More than half of all hon. Members—343 in all—have signed early-day motion 11, which calls for a wildlife Bill based on the wildlife charter. The level of support that it has received sends the strongest signal to the Government that there is a firm belief right across the political spectrum that early action is essential.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act was revised in 1981, but it is out of date and is not working. Landowners and managers are not legally obliged to manage special sites for the benefit of the wildlife for which they were declared. There have been no prosecutions for destroying listed plants, and only a handful of prosecutions for harming animals, other than bats.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I participated in the Committee stage, which was 100 hours, of the 1981 Act. One of the troubles is not the Act, but the reluctance of authorities to go to the courts to prosecute. I wish my hon. Friend well with all my heart in her efforts to persuade the Government to introduce another Bill, but something must be done to persuade authorities to go to law, when that is justified.
Ms Drown: I agree with my hon. Friend. The improvements to the legislation must include clearer statutory duties for landowners and managers, as well as better enforcement, strengthened powers to enter land, and stiffer penalties that would act as a real deterrent. There should be improved powers for statutory nature conservation agencies, so that they can fulfil an effective watchdog role. Landowners also need advice on how they can protect wildlife and which practices will cause damage.
The objective is not anti-farmer or anti-landowner legislation. Farmers in my constituency have made clear to me their commitment to wildlife and the environment, and how they want to co-operate with the Government and environmental groups to get the best for the countryside.
That brings me to incentives. I ask the Government to consider incentives to encourage landowners to invest in the proper management and protection of wildlife. In 1996–97, management payments on special sites amounted to £12 million. Those were typically compensation payments for not carrying out an activity, rather than an incentive for positive management. Compensation payments can be far less than an owner could get for rearing sheep or cattle, or for growing flax, so better directed incentives may reap better rewards for wildlife in the UK.
I urge the Government to take a broader look at how policies across Departments impact on the success of wildlife and countryside legislation. For instance, agricultural intensification has led to a reduction in the quantity and quality of habitats such as heather moorland, chalk grassland and lowland wet grassland. Species are lost because of overgrazing of pastures, undergrazing of marginal land, the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and the loss of traditional crop rotations. Water abstraction can lead to the drying out of important wetland sites, and planning decisions made years ago continue to cause harm to sites—for example, through mineral extraction. Revising planning policy could help in that

947
respect. The Department for Education and Employment could also have a part to play in improving education in our schools on the environment and protection of wildlife and encouraging initiatives among children to help to protect their local wildlife.
A coalition of 22 wildlife organisations, including the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Friends of the Earth and the Wildlife Trusts, is supported by more than 5.5 million people in the United Kingdom. Most political parties would be glad of such a membership. It is campaigning for better legal protection for wildlife. Specifically, it wants legislation to be introduced that will deliver the Government's manifesto commitment to
"ensure better protection for wildlife".
Such a Bill will also provide an ideal opportunity to introduce the Government's proposals for improved access to open countryside, and I know that ramblers in South Swindon are anxious for it to be enacted at the earliest opportunity. I therefore urge the Government to announce a comprehensive wildlife and countryside Bill in the 1999 Queen's Speech to back up their determination to halt further environmental degradation and to bring many of their good intentions to fruition.
In many cases, we cannot replace the wildlife habitats that we are losing without legislation to protect them. We certainly cannot bring back species that become extinct. There is a consensus on the need for action. For the sake of wildlife, the enjoyment that our countryside brings and the wonderful inheritance that we could leave for future generations, I urge the Government to listen to the calls made by my hon. Friends and by me today.
9.41 am
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I support much of what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) has said and I am sure that the Bill for which she asks will enjoy broad cross-party support. Indeed, I have expressed my support for it by signing early-day motion 11 and a number of similar ones.
For the benefit of the Minister, I want to air a parochial concern that, because of the nature of the New forest and the fact that it is the most important wildlife and ecological sanctuary in western Europe, is also a concern for the nation. I do not want him to take the opportunity presented by the introduction of a wildlife protection Bill in the next Session to slip through a new national park status for the New forest. My concern is that changes made to the existing management structure of the New forest will be for the worse and to the detriment of wildlife protection and that sensitive ecological area.
I estimate that no modern legislation would afford the powers that the existing structures enjoy, although those structures are undemocratic. It would not give them the power to stand against so-called progress and development. If hon. Members consider the issues of development versus conservation as they have arisen over the past 30 years in the New forest, they will find that, on every occasion, one or other of the local authorities—be it Hampshire county council or New Forest district council or its forebears—has stood on the side of development, democratically representing the wishes of the people.
948
To take the cause celebre—the great Lyndhurst bypass—there was a democratic call for the private Member's Bill on it which was considered in this Parliament. By sponsoring it, Hampshire county council was responding quite legitimately to the democratic concerns expressed by the people of Lyndhurst and of Lymington. We know the history of bypasses at Newbury and in the west midlands. We also know of the attendant legitimate concern of people who are interested in the protection of wildlife habitats and we have witnessed the public disorder that may arise from that concern. But we should bear in mind the fact that the people of Lyndhurst and of Lymington sought that bypass.
The bypass would have taken up an enormous swathe of the New forest. My concern is that, had there been a park authority—loaded, as it inevitably would have been, with representatives of the democratically accountable district and county councils—it would have said, "On people versus ponies, because of the development of the fast-growing, economically viable southern coastal strip below the New forest, people are more important that ponies, so we ought to let the bypass go through." I believe that that would not have been in the interests of the New forest or the nation.
It is the job of legislation to protect the interests of the New forest. The Minister will no doubt assure me, as he has done in the past, that the existing structures will not be constrained by any change in status that he might envisage. In other words, the existing laws, which govern the New forest and give the verderers court the power that it now enjoys to thwart development, will not be changed. I understand that, but there is a difficulty and it will arise merely because of the existence of a national park authority or quasi-authority.
I quote the experience of Anthony Passmore, one of the senior and most experienced verderers, as he told it to me. He said, "Mr. Swayne, a national park body may not constrain or change the existing verderers court and its authority, but suppose that there had been a national park authority, representing the strategic view of the future of the New forest and all that that implies, when the Lyndhurst bypass Bill was going through Parliament. Suppose that it had said that there should be a Lyndhurst bypass. Would the verderers court, irrespective of its ability and power to say no, have had—to put it bluntly—the guts to say no when the whole thrust of the strategic authority, which is charged with drawing up the strategy for the future of the New forest, had been that the bypass should go ahead?"
With respect to any changes that the Minister might envisage that would not necessarily change the power of the verderers, who are the guardians of conservation in the New forest, I warn him that there may be unforeseen effects. I would counsel him that any legislation that he might introduce that would change the status of the New forest or alter the balance of the powers within it would be highly likely to be a hybrid Bill, given the existence of the commoners and their rights. That might introduce all sorts of difficulties for a wildlife protection Bill, which the hon. Member for South Swindon would not welcome.
9.48 am
Mr. David Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing an Adjournment debate

949
on this most important topic. My constituency is at the core of the new 200 sq miles national forest. It is developing rapidly and transforming the landscape in several different counties. I shall speak about the mirror image of our expanding forest: the contracting ancient woodlands and the continuing threats that they face.
In England and Wales, ancient woods are areas where there has been continuous woodland cover since at least 1600. Planting was uncommon before that date, so woods were likely to have developed naturally. In Scotland, ancient woods date from 1750, because the best historical maps available are from a military survey carried out at about that time.
It is particularly relevant in the context of this debate to address the protection of ancient woodland, which is one of the great irreplaceable glories of our natural heritage. As the habitat most representative of original, natural, stable conditions, it is home to more threatened species than any other habitat in the United Kingdom. That is underlined by the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan, which suggests that broadleaf woodland supports nearly twice as many BAP species as any other habitat. It supports more than twice as many species as chalk grassland, and nearly three times as many as lowland heathland. It must be a key element in any Government strategy aiming to provide better protection for wildlife.
Ancient woodlands are the last bastion of a good deal of our wildlife heritage. They deserve proper protection, and there could be no more appropriate time than the millennium to consider that. The problem is that 85 per cent. of ancient woodland, including five of the 12 largest ancient woodland sites in the United Kingdom, lacks the designation of site of special scientific interest, or, indeed, any other designation. More than half of Britain's semi-natural ancient woodland has been lost since the first world war, mainly through conversion to conifer woodland and clearance for agriculture. In England, Wales and Scotland, just 300,000 hectares of ancient semi-natural woodland survive—an area roughly the size of Leicestershire. In Northern Ireland, there are no accurate records of the amount of ancient woodland, as far as I am aware.
Ancient woodland remains constantly under threat, especially from development pressures. The Government forecast that, in the next 20 years, 1.44 million more homes will be needed in south-east England; but that is the richest area that we have for ancient woodland. Kent, Hampshire, East and West Sussex and Surrey hold nearly 30 per cent. of such ecological treasures. The Channel tunnel rail link, the Newbury bypass and countless less well-known road schemes have threatened or destroyed areas of ancient woodland. Increasingly, ancient woodland is now to be found in small fragments: islands of biodiversity surrounded by a hostile landscape of intensive agriculture and urban sprawl.
More than 80 per cent. of individual ancient woods in the inventory of England and Wales are less than 20 hectares in size. Just 500 exceed 100 hectares—1 sq km—and only 12 ancient semi-natural woods are larger than 300 hectares. These fragments are often too small to sustain healthy populations of many woodland species, and too isolated to allow migration. As global warming becomes a reality, many species, unable to relocate, face the likelihood of extinction. The bleak picture is considerably worsened by the degradation of
950
our ancient woods through inappropriate use, poor management and repeated replanting with non-native species.
Although, in some ancient woodlands, endangered species, such as the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), hang on, in the past 100 years more species have become nationally extinct in broadleaf woodland than in any other habitat—46 species—and it also contains the most globally threatened and rapidly declining species—78. The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology's "Countryside Survey 90" showed that, between 1978 and 1990, there was a 14 per cent. loss of "species richness" in such woodlands, a higher figure than in any other semi-natural habitat.
What action should the Government take to staunch the worrying losses of ancient woodland? There are some encouraging signs that the need to protect these crucial sites is being recognised, but words must be matched by actions. The "England Forestry Strategy", published by the Government at the end of last year, contains a commitment to review the effectiveness of existing measures to protect ancient semi-natural woodlands, and to provide added protection if that is shown to be necessary. Organisations such as the Woodland Trusts, in its recently launched millennium challenges to Government—I believe that the Minister was present at the launch—have said how crucial it is to deliver on that core commitment. A similar commitment was given in the "United Kingdom Sustainable Development Strategy", along with a statement of the Government's aim to halt the trend of ancient woodland loss and fragmentation. It is crucial for those commitments to be acted on quickly.
Hon. Members sometimes speak of the need for protective mechanisms targeted at land adjacent to SSSIs, and of the importance of empowering Government agencies to fulfil an effective watchdog role. I agree: SSSIs certainly need to withstand environmental change, and the measures suggested would be helpful. Agencies have a key protective role, but I believe that similar measures for our ancient woodlands are needed even more urgently. There must be no further loss of ancient woodland. The time really has come to say, "Enough is enough."
I support environmental organisations that are pressing for a fully maintained, up-to-date inventory of ancient woodland covering the whole of the United Kingdom, with regular assessments to confirm the extent and quality of the nation's ancient woods. We must also provide better protection of ancient woodlands such as Gracedieu woods in north-west Leicestershire through legislation and the planning system. I believe that, in the longer term, a special designation for them will be needed to toughen up those controls.
We must also encourage owners of ancient woodland to understand its importance and manage it appropriately, and provide better guidelines and incentives to help them to do so. We must assist appropriate groups to continue to acquire ancient woods, and bring them under sensitive management. Finally, in providing new native woodland cover, we must target it to link and buffer existing ancient woodland sites that should be seen as the key resource in enhancing people's enjoyment of woodland.
I believe that we should treat ancient woodlands, those timeless places of great tranquillity and beauty, as the foundation of our approach to improving biodiversity. I should very much like to hear the Minister's comments.
9.57 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing this important debate. I support her call for the inclusion of a wildlife Bill in the next Queen's Speech, and would be happy to facilitate the swift passage of such a Bill.
As has been said, the debate is timely. Fifty years after the post-war Government's landmark legislation, new measures are needed to protect our wildlife. The House is well versed in the arguments: we debated them in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on 14 April, and, only last week, a linked issue—the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty—was discussed in an Adjournment debate called by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton).
Early-day motion 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), continues to attract increasing support. As of yesterday, when I checked, it had the support of no fewer than 343 hon. Members. In the last Session, a similar early-day motion received the support of 302 hon. Members, so progress is clearly being made. A clear majority not just of Back Benchers, but of the House as a whole, now favours legislation. I hope that the Minister will note that.
Threatened species were mentioned in those earlier debates, and have been mentioned again today. I have obtained a few new examples. One is the nail fungus, which lives in the dung of horses, mainly in the New forest in Hampshire. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) may well be familiar with such species. The nail fungus is internationally threatened, but has been refused protection because the threats that it faces are not intentional. That is a key point, which the Minister should consider. The Wildlife Trusts tell me that it can only advise on the need; there is no law to back it up.
There are other examples that are more local to my constituency. As a Member whose constituency is in Greater London, I am particularly concerned about the future of the Erith marshes in south London, which support breeding skylarks, grass snakes and the hugely important population of water voles. They are threatened by the proposed development of a supermarket distribution depot. Currently, the law can do nothing to stop that development.
I could mention many other wildlife species or habitats whose days are numbered. In Surrey and across south-east England, where the pressure to build is greatest, acres of ancient woodland are under threat. The Deptford pink, the sandy stilt puffball and dormice are all under threat somewhere in the United Kingdom.
Today's debate is timely not only because we are marking the anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, but for another reason, because the Government seem to be starting to wobble in their commitment to require that 60 per cent. of new build should be on brown-field sites. As the current rate of such build—1996 is the most recent year for which figures are available—is 56 per cent., a target of 60 per cent. can hardly be thought to be challenging. The Government have to be bolder both on that issue and on wildlife protection.
952
The debate is also timely because a revised planning policy guidance note 3 has just been issued, although it has relatively little to say about the biodiversity implications of new housing development. The PPG also provides no guidance whatsoever on minimising the indirect environmental impact of housing development.
I should like to deal with a couple of wildlife reform matters that I have not dealt with before. First, it is—at best—unclear whether the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan is adequate to fulfil the requirements of the 1979 European Union birds directive and the 1982 habitats directive, both of which require restoration of protected habitats. As the biodiversity action plan has not been implemented statutorily, many of its prescribed actions have no Government funding and can be undertaken only by voluntary bodies. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us whether such provision fulfils the function of habitat restoration required by the EU directives.
The second matter also concerns EU law. The EU birds directive requires the United Kingdom Government to designate as special protection areas sites that support internationally important concentrations of particular bird species. However, certain species listed for protection under the directive are not covered by the existing SPA network, as their populations are dispersed over a much wider area. Some heathlands in England—the Thames basin heaths, Wealdon heaths and Breckland—for example, support important populations or rare species, such as the stone curlew, woodlark, nightjar, and the Dartford warbler, but are still not protected by SPA status. Although that issue is slightly different from that of sites of special scientific interest, it is certainly relevant to today's debate, and illustrates the general crisis facing United Kingdom wildlife.
We should be in no doubt that time is running out for our wildlife. Here are a few facts: every day, another SSSI is destroyed or damaged; in the past six years, there have been more than 2,000 cases of damage to SSSIs; and 45 per cent. of all SSSIs are deemed to be in an unfavourable condition. Time is, therefore, of the essence—as I said in our most recent debate on the issue, in April. Since then, unfortunately, nothing much has changed—except that two more months have elapsed, and, undoubtedly, another 50 or 60 cases of damage to SSSIs will have been recorded.
In 1997, Labour was elected with a pledge to ensure better protection for wildlife. As we approach 2000, it is time to deliver on that pledge. In 1949, the Attlee Government had the foresight to introduce their legislation; now, the Government should show similar foresight. As other hon. Members have said, adequate legislation must be introduced in the next Queen's Speech. The House of Commons wants such legislation. I think that Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions also want legislation, and I know that the country wants it. Now, it is time for the Prime Minister to deliver it.
10.4 am
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I am very happy to contribute to this very important debate on wildlife conservation. I shall keep my remarks brief, as I know that many colleagues wish to speak.
A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the importance of ancient woodlands, and said that we should

953
help people to understand the importance of maintaining them. As he was speaking, I allowed myself a wry smile, because it was only a few years ago, in 1995, when the warden of Windsor great park ordered the felling of 63 ancient oak trees that dated back to Queen Anne's days. The warden of Windsor great park is, of course, the Duke of Edinburgh. If he does not know the importance of ancient woodland, what hope is there for us?
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) spoke about the nail fungus living in the dung of New Forest ponies. Tragically, that is not the only species that has gone in recent years. I received a briefing from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, stating that the Essex emerald moth has gone—it is extinct. The mouse-eared bat, which sounds like an endearing creature, is gone for ever—extinct. As for plant life, alpine butterwort is gone, as is the purple spurge. I do not know what the purple spurge looks like—I have probably never seen it in my life—but I feel that it is a tragedy for all of us that it is gone.
We need to act, and to act quickly. This morning, on the "Today" programme, I heard the Minister for the Environment tell us that action would be taken. He was good; he is always good. If I had a vote for Ministers—tragically, I do not—he would have my vote. I hope that he keeps his job.
Mr. David Taylor: Kiss of death.
Mr. Prentice: We all want my right hon. Friend to keep his job. We do not want him to be moved, to placate some lobby saying, "The Government are too green. We've gotta get rid of him." I want him to stay where he is.
The countryside Minister told John Humphrys that we need legislation to protect sites of special scientific interest, and that it was not a question of if, but when—which had a familiar ring to it. This year, in March, when I withdrew my Right to Roam Bill, he told me that the Government were in favour of opening up the countryside—4 million acres of mountain, moorland, heath and common land—and that that would be done as soon as parliamentary time permits. This November, we want to see that parliamentary time permitted.
This Session, we have dealt with the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill. No one asked me whether we should consider that Bill. Mysteriously—magically—we discovered ourselves debating it in the Chamber. That Bill has never been debated in the parliamentary Labour party, and no one in the wider Labour party knows about it. Personally, I feel quite hostile to it; but we debated it. In the same breath, however, we are told that we cannot introduce wildlife and habitat legislation because of a problem with parliamentary time. There is lots of parliamentary time.
Mr. Brake: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be prepared, as I would, to extend our stay in this place a little into our rather generous summer recess to address the issue?
Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman's comments would carry more force if he had a few Liberal Democrat colleagues sitting behind him. I should say, just for the record, that one Liberal Democrat Member—from a party
954
that waxes lyrical about its concern for wildlife and habitat—is in the Chamber. It is a pity that, today, he could not get a few more Liberal Democrats Members to come and support his request.
This morning—to get back to the point—the countryside Minister said that he was seeking the earliest legislative slot for the relevant Bill. Listening to him, I started running around trying to find a pen, as I thought that he was going to say something of great moment, which he did. He said that there was a very good chance of obtaining that legislative slot, and then he played his trump card: "Tony Blair is strongly in support of this."
So what is the problem? The Prime Minister apparently supports strongly the need for early legislation. The problem is that too many people just do not believe it. Philip Rothwell, head of policy operation at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Birds [HON. MEMBERS: "Protection."] I am obviously too fired up today. Let me call it the RSPB. Mr. Rothwell was quoted in The Express as saying:
"Tony Blair is not interested in the environment and he has surrounded himself with advisers who are not interested either."
The RSPB is not some fringe organisation that can be dismissed with a wave of the hand. There are 3 million members of the RSPB and other organisations dedicated to the protection of wildlife.
If the RSPB holds that view, we can imagine the millions more who feel the same. The perception exists that the Government are dragging their feet, and much that has happened has reinforced that idea. I was given a commitment in March that there would be legislation on the right to roam, but the papers tell us that the idea has been shelved in case it alienates landowning interests. Fox hunting is immensely important, particularly to our younger constituents, but the Government give the impression of being unwilling to take on the blood sports lobby.
Despite what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said on the radio this morning, there is a feeling that wildlife is another area that may fall off the end of the plank. If we are governed by focus groups that tell us that health and education are the top priorities—as they must be—it is inevitable that wildlife protection will be regarded as less important in the great scheme of things. But that is a mistake.
Our attitude to wildlife boils down to trust. Do the people trust the Government to deliver? If we do not deliver on wildlife, it will be impossible to make promises about legislation at the next election. We have an enormous majority, and we control the legislative agenda. We could sit here for 12 months to pass a wildlife Bill if we wanted to.
The Government must recognise that SSSIs are being damaged and that more must be done to protect habitats. There is huge support for legislation, and a Bill would immensely cheer up my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party. A fortnight ago, we held a debate—no vote of course—on what we should like in the Queen's Speech, and there was overwhelming support for legislation on access to the countryside and on wildlife. To coin perhaps the wrong phrase, we could kill two birds with one stone by yoking the two areas together in a comprehensive Bill. The legislation would have no cost, or at most a very low cost. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State

955
for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do all in his power to persuade the decision makers to introduce such a Bill in November.
10.15 am
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I am delighted to add my voice to those calling for greater protection for wildlife, and particularly to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) who spoke with great passion. It is fitting that we should mark the 50th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which was, as so many have said, ground-breaking legislation introduced by a great Labour Government, by returning to the issue of wildlife protection and asking what improvements we can make.
We must accept that improvements are now needed to that legislation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment knows that, and I commend him on his hard work in this area. However, to make improvements that we all want for the protection of sites of special scientific interest, we need new legislation, and I hope that the next Queens Speech will include a Bill.
The need for improvements is illustrated by Government figures showing that more than 300 SSSIs are damaged every year. The effect of even just one more year's delay is absolutely clear. A year's delay would mean another 300 of our finest and most treasured wildlife sites being destroyed or ruined. We cannot allow that to happen.
My constituents have raised this matter with me. The protection of wildlife sites and SSSIs has real resonance with members of the public who want our countryside to be preserved and the wild animals and wild flowers that make the countryside such a special place to be protected. I have received many letters from constituents, and many hon. Members will have received, in the form of an enormous daisy chain, a novel and very large petition from their constituents.
It is easy to see why the issue has such resonance with the public. Many beautiful places known to our constituents are being damaged. In Northamptonshire alone, two SSSIs have been all but destroyed. A tiny fraction of Harleston heath remains; despite its SSSI status, the rules to protect it from development and forestry were too weak. Likewise, only a fragment of the Oakley purlieus SSSI remains, its having been destroyed by quarrying.
On top of the loss of those beautiful places, the public recognise the loss of important and well-loved species. I was staggered to see in today's report from the wildlife and countryside link that 25 species have become extinct in the UK since the passage of Clem Attlee's 1949 Act. We think of extinction as something that happens in countries struck by poverty, or as a relic of the last century. We think of it happening when people destroy habitats in a desperate attempt to grow food or scrape out a living. We do not think of it happening in a prosperous country such as the United Kingdom, where there are laws to protect the countryside.
Other species have suffered dramatic declines. The grey partridge has declined by 78 per cent. since 1972, and the tree sparrow by 87 per cent. Even among birds as common as starlings—once positively a pest because
956
of their enormous flocks—numbers have dropped dramatically. People notice these changes, and the introduction of a Bill to halt the decline would be extremely popular and effective politics.
As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has taken a superb, excellent and dynamic lead on the issue. The coalition of wildlife groups, with a total membership of some 6 million people—a heavy voting body there—welcomed the positive spirit of co-operation that he has shown and gave him an excellent reception at a public rally here at the House of Commons. Now is the time to build on the support and good will for the Government's work so far, but we need to maintain that momentum by introducing the necessary legislation to protect our wildlife.
Along with many other right hon. and hon. Members, I would be delighted if new legislation provided greater access for people to enjoy the countryside. This is how our Labour Government should celebrate the 50th anniversary of Clem Attlee's last Bill; it is how we should welcome the next century and it would delight the many millions of people who would welcome such protection.
10.21 am
Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on her initiative in introducing today's excellent debate. I very much support the call from my hon. Friend and others for new countryside and wildlife law. I do so as a committed environmentalist and as a Londoner.
Despite the common perception here and elsewhere, London's wildlife encompasses rather more than the pigeons in Trafalgar square. Londoners have always very much supported and valued the city's elegant parks and municipal flowerbeds. There is increasing recognition of the precious diversity of our wildlife. We have urban habitats, railway corridors, private gardens and wasteland, all of which support valued wildlife.
The London Wildlife Trust has a membership of 7,000 and I am proud to be one of them. We are engaged in a great fight to try to preserve our precious wildlife against the on-going and unrelenting pressures of development. It is not that the development is unwelcome—indeed, in my run-down and deprived constituency rehabilitation and regeneration are critical to our economic life and employment opportunities. Although I support building homes on brown-field sites and protecting the green belt, the pressure on those sites means that Londoners may be deprived of their wildlife and that is clearly not acceptable.
Our quality of life in London depends on getting the balance right between appropriate development and respect for ecology and the recognition that biodiversity matters. A surprisingly wide range of animals and plants are found in London. Many of them are thriving, but others are only just surviving. We cannot take that natural wealth for granted. In London, as elsewhere, there has been a haemorrhage of wildlife sites over the past 30 years. Unless we have stronger wildlife laws, the process will continue inexorably.
My constituency is no exception. Although its border is just five miles from here and it is a dense urban area, just 200 years ago it was an area of market gardens.

957
A nationally rare species of plant known as the Deptford Pink dates from that time. Another rare species is found in Deptford creek. The black redstart, which is rarer than the golden eagle, first bred in London in the 1920s. Seven per cent. of the national population and 40 per cent. of the London population of black redstarts are found in Deptford creek. However, Deptford creek is now a silted up part of the river. It is bordered on all sides by dereliction and it is prime land for redevelopment. The creekside project in my constituency, led by Jill Goddard, has undertaken a mapping exercise to ensure that we understand what wildlife is there so that the development that we welcome will preserve wildlife habitats. Amazingly, the Environment Agency has constructed new flood defences from old wood and in a way that protects the wildlife habitats.
Given all that, why do we need new laws? The black redstart is listed in schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Its nests are protected; its eggs are protected; breeding adults are protected and so are the young birds. However, for the rest of the year it is possible to destroy its habitat and, as we all know, if the habitat is destroyed, the species cannot breed.
There are many similar cases in other parts of London. Water voles are under threat in many areas such as the Erith, Crayford and Rainham marshes that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake).
Many other sites are being targeted for development, including those occupied by skylarks, stag beetles and other wildlife. I have not time to mention them all, but they are extremely numerous and precious. They are important not only to Londoners, but regionally and nationally. Without new laws, the quality of life in our great city will be undermined and so will our biodiversity. I very much support today's debate.
10.26 am
Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing today's debate. I should like to concentrate on peat lands and the Thorne and Hatfield moors that are in my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). They form one of the United Kingdom's rarest and most vulnerable habitats and are all that is left of a vast wetland that once existed around the Humber estuary 4000 years ago. Over time, layer upon layer of mosses accumulated and became compacted in the waterlogged conditions. Plants and insects colonised the surfaces and rare or even extinct bog plant, dragonflies, butterflies and beetles were commonplace many years ago.
Today, 94 per cent. of the United Kingdom's peat bogs have been lost and fewer than 6,000 hectares remain in near natural condition. Thorne and Hatfield moors are part of this and today they represent England's largest raised peat bog site. They support more than 3,000 insects, 800 flowering plants and hundreds of liver-worts, lichens and fungi. They are vital for breeding, migrating and wintering birds including golden plovers, hen harriers and nightjars. People have worked on the moors for 500 years and the incredible archaeological record contained within the peat was, until relatively recently, undisturbed.
958
Such a site should be managed for its incredible wealth of bog vegetation and associated wildlife, yet, instead, I am sad to say, it is being threatened by commercial peat extraction. Instead of being treasured, protected and nurtured, it is being plundered for its peat.
Peat extraction threatens many important sites in the United Kingdom. Of the 14 extraction sites in England, nine have SSSI status. Thorne and Hatfield, along with Wedholme Flow—all three proposed EU Natura 2000 designations—account for more than 50 per cent. of UK production. The fact that extraction of peat is permitted on SSS1s highlights the major weaknesses in protecting those sites.
The problem dates back to 1951 when planning permission was granted for peat extraction. Then, as for hundreds of years previously, hand-digging was the norm, but industrialisation of the process has ravaged the land. In the 1960s, the process was mechanised and now, since milling methods were introduced in the 1980s—with little complaint from the Opposition—extraction involves the almost complete removal of surface vegetation along with the top layer of peat. That has occurred on large tracts of Thorne and Hatfield and the huge areas of stripped, bare earth, where once were beautiful moors, are a very sad sight indeed.
The vast majority of peat that has taken many, many years to be created, has been lost in only the past decade. That has heightened the sense of the urgent need for Government action. Each day that extraction continues and the land is stripped and drained, with the removal of tons of peat, nature's foothold on the Thorne and Hatfield moors weakens.
Locally, there is immense concern that such an important site is being lost. I get more letters from constituents on that issue than on any other. When English Nature proposed removing the SSSI status there was an amazing campaign, which we won. I was pleased to attend a meeting in Thorne where more than 400 local residents came along to make their feelings known. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North and for Brigg and Goole have had the same experience.
Environmental matters are often said to be the concern of the middle classes—eco-warriors shut away in their leafy suburbs—but the letters that I get are from people in the former coal mining villages that surround the moors, who are witnessing the disappearance of a national treasure. They understand only too well that the extractors' economic arguments do not add up.
Extraction is not and never was a long-term employment option; it will result only in the permanent destruction of the moors. We believe that there is an alternative: a sustainable tourist industry on the site, protecting it while providing enjoyment and long-term economic stability for the local population.
There is such concern that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has established a peat working group that includes representatives of the industry and of the environmental lobby. Labour Members are keen that, wherever possible, business interests should be married with the public interest, but my worry is that, on this issue, there is no common ground that can be established between the extractors, who see money in peat, and the public, who want the moors to be preserved.

959
I am not surprised that the peat working group has so far failed to produce any report, but I am very concerned and I call on the Government to bite the bullet and take the long-term environmental view that is so clearly in the national interest. Many solutions are available. In the long term, my constituents want a complete end to peat extraction. That could be phased to avoid any major impact on jobs. We can work with the industry to develop alternatives to peat. I am sure that many hon. Members are keen gardeners and viewers of "Ground Force". We want a "Ground Force" team of our own in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I leave it to Ministers to decide who should be Alan, Tommy and Charlie, but if the Government can find a solution that will preserve the moors for all time, they will receive great credit.
The longer we spend without a clear policy, the more events will take their own course, and the moors will simply be worked to death; with them will go much of the precious wildlife that they support.
10.32 am
Mr. David Chaytor: My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) has done the House a service in securing this debate.
I want to express my support for the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who has waged an unrelenting campaign to secure the right to roam. I agree that it is essential to ensure that access to open countryside is built into comprehensive wildlife and countryside legislation.
Such legislation also provides the opportunity to settle once and for all the contentious issue of fox hunting. No other issue has aroused such interest, especially in young voters. Our manifesto made it clear that our position was not to legislate against fox hunting but to provide the opportunity for a free vote, although there is huge public support for a ban.
I endorse the work of the Government and the previous Government in developing biodiversity policies. It is important to understand that wildlife protection is not only about furry creatures but goes far deeper: it is about environmental survival. The variety of species that survive is an indicator of the health of the planet on which we all depend. This is not an add-on extra: it goes to the heart of our survival on this planet.
I commend the previous Government's biodiversity action plan, and especially the recently published volume 4, on invertebrates. For those with any interest in creepy crawlies, it is a treasure house of fascinating information. I look forward to volume 5.
Whatever legislation we pass, the protection will be limited if we do not tackle the root causes of environmental degradation. In most cases, those are the deregulated economic processes, both industrial and agricultural, that have disfigured our society and environment for so many years. We must set this debate in the wider context of the reform of the common agricultural policy and the implementation of the Kyoto directive on climate change.
Whatever an individual Government may do, this is a matter on which the limitations of the nation state are most evident. We must work internationally.
960
The European Union has an important role and it is crucial that we play a full part in the various international treaties and protocols that have been and will continue to be established to secure biodiversity.
The Government and the previous Government have an enviable record in not only signing international treaties but ratifying them quickly. I urge the Government to continue that process, especially with the Kyoto protocol and the Århus protocol on access to environmental information. There are two important protocols that we have signed, but not yet ratified: the heavy metals protocol and the one on persistent organic pollutants. Those protocols are crucial to biodiversity and I urge the Government to ratify them swiftly.
10.37 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) has given everyone an opportunity to express their views and feelings, which is very important. There is nothing more important to people in this country than looking after wildlife, habitats and countryside. There is more pressure as more people want to enjoy the countryside, and we must make it more accessible.
All our mailbags are filled with letters from people who want an end to fox hunting. Sooner or later, it must be tackled. The majority of the House and of the country support a ban. It is time to legislate. Let me describe what happens in conservation areas that are supposed to protect wildlife. In Rivington, a beautiful part of my constituency—I am lucky to have a mainly rural constituency where we can enjoy the pleasure of the countryside—the hunt comes along, and the fox hunters, having had no luck that day, dig out a fox. They do not kill it instantly. Oh, no. We cannot have fun without cruelty. They release the fox and chase it and chase it before killing it. Is that how we should treat our wildlife? I say not. The time has to come to end such cruelty.
In the southern lakeland, gamekeepers use traps on badgers. In their view, killing them instantly is obviously wrong. They believe in cruel traps and it takes a long time for the badgers to die. We have found half-skeletons of badgers. What a terrible end for such a beautiful animal. Badgers are protected, but such practices continue.
Protected species of birds have their nests robbed and their chicks stolen. There is no true protection. Fines are not enough: if it takes mandatory prison sentences to protect the birds, let us do that. Hen harriers—beautiful birds—are shot by gamekeepers because they do not fit in with what they think a grouse moor should be. The countryside is not about that; it is about balance. We must ensure that species are protected for everyone to see and enjoy, because they are not for the few to destroy. It is time for us to change our views about wildlife, habitats and countryside. If we work together, we can ensure our future.
10.40 am
Mr. Damian Green: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing the debate. She will be either cheered up or worried when I say that I agree with about 90 per cent. of what she said. The Minister and I are getting used to each other: this is the second Wednesday

961
morning in a row that we have discussed countryside protection. If we go around the same course again next Wednesday, I hope that he will still be with us in his post.
It is clear that we broadly agree on many of the aims of wildlife and habitat protection, although I am slightly worried by the means that many Labour Members have discussed. There is an inclination to reach for the stick rather than the carrot, and I hope that the Minister will not go too far down that route.
I shall deal with the various details in a moment, but the question at the heart of the debate is not whether there should legislation, but why there has been none so far. Like the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I listened to the "Today" programme this morning with great interest. However, when the hon. Gentleman said that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, with its 3 million members, had written off the Prime Minister as uninterested in the environment, he added a plea that the Minister for the Environment should retain his job. If I were that Minister, I am not sure that I would consider that the most helpful intervention in the debate this morning.
The "Today" programme item was instructive for several reasons. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) repeat what she said on the programme—that the reason for introducing wildlife legislation was that the Labour party was worried about losing rural seats. That is a terrible reason for wanting to protect the environment, and anyway it will not wash, because of other factors that I shall describe later. However, I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that, even if she is right about the reason for introducing legislation to protect wildlife and endangered habitats, Conservative Members would still support it, because we consider the underlying issue so important.
The contribution to the programme this morning by the Minister for the Environment was equally instructive, although I am not sure that I am as optimistic about what the right hon. Gentleman said as the hon. Member for Pendle. To me, taking to the air waves to fight for a place in the legislative programme is a sign of desperation, not of confidence. I hope that I am wrong, that the matter is all stitched up and that the Minister was simply making a lap of honour in public. However, I suspect that I am not wrong.
The Minister for the Environment also said that the Prime Minister, and the whole Government, were very much in favour of the legislation. Perhaps that is so, but we are coming up to what may be the final full legislative session before an election in which the Government can guarantee taking a Bill through the House, and we are still unsure about whether such a Bill will be introduced, despite the manifesto commitment to do so. St. Augustine famously said:
"Oh Lord, make me chaste, but not yet."
The updated, modernised, new Labour version would be:
"Oh Lord, make me green—but only with the agreement of colleagues across Whitehall."
That will not do. If the Minister cannot give a positive commitment to early legislation, fears will arise that delay is turning into inaction, and that another broken promise is on the way.
What specific measures should any new legislation contain? The first point to be made is that it would be much more sensible if the Bill were confined to updating
962
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We would support a Bill with that general aim. Various hon. Members have spoken this morning about how a Bill should be extended to include much more controversial matters such as access and the right to roam, and some have even proposed that it be used to bring back anti-hunting measures. Anyone observing the debate will have noticed that the latter possibility, more than any other, set the juices flowing among Labour Members. It was instructive to see so strong a desire to oppress minority interests.
We all agree that there is an urgent need to promote wildlife and habitat protection, and Conservative Members would support and seek to improve any legislation to that end. However, including in a Bill other, much more controversial measures would impede its passage through the House, and might even prevent it altogether. That would be a tragedy for our wildlife and countryside. I hope that the Minister will resist the siren calls from Labour Back-Bench Members.
Any legislation would cover those areas already designated as sites of special scientific interest, but it could go further. The RSPB has proposed some helpful principles for the contents of a wildlife Bill, and I hope that the Minister will consider them seriously. The RSPB proposes that such a Bill should include a statutory purpose for individual SSSIs and the whole SSSI network. It should also contain provisions to give a legal underpinning to the bio-diversity action plan, to improve the powers of the statutory nature conservation agencies, and to impose a duty on all public bodies to protect and manage SSSIs.
However, we need a comprehensive strategy for all green land, whether it be part of an SSSI or not. Friends of the Earth rightly wants greater protection for species that are outside SSSIs, and a related problem involves land adjoining an existing site. If that land is developed unsympathetically, the knock-on effects can be very damaging to the neighbouring SSSI. We hope that any legislation to be introduced will be wider and more comprehensive. It should include incentives for better management and adopt a partnership approach.
I said that I was worried that Labour Members shared a tendency to reach for the stick rather than the carrot. In the long term, without the partnership approach advocated by responsible bodies such as the Country Landowners Association and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the effects on the countryside will be less beneficial. We need to engender support for the measures in a new Bill among people who live and work in the countryside. A permanent state of war between visiting regulators and people who live in an area every day would not be helpful.
I am sure that the hon. Member for South Swindon would agree that merely establishing a strict police force is not enough and will not work. Strict policing is necessary, but there must be a mixture of regulation and incentives.
In addition, there must be radical reform of the common agricultural policy. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) say that one of the problems was that farming was too deregulated. Has he ever met a farmer? He said that industrial and agricultural deregulation was bad for the countryside. The problem with the CAP is not that it is deregulatory, but that it pours billions of pounds into encouraging farmers

963
to produce intensively in ways that may damage the environment. It pours only a few million pounds into encouraging them to farm less intensively.
Mr. Chaytor: That is not what I said. In fact, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis: the problem with the CAP is that the resources have been wrongly directed, not the degree of regulation associated with it.
Mr. Green: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that clarification.
There is much to be discussed in the detail, but all hon. Members clearly agree that the need for action is urgent. We have heard this morning about the various species that have been made extinct already, or are in danger. The doomsday list of the World Wide Fund for Nature is alarming, as the hon. Member for South Swindon noted. She mentioned some of the species in danger, but the WWF has warned that the high brown fritillary butterfly and the pipistrelle bat may be extinct by 2007, and that even the skylark may have vanished by 2009. Clearly, those would be large-scale ecological disasters.
Therefore, as long as he sticks to what is sensible and gets on with it, the Minister has a chance to lead a wide consensus among all the parties, including even landowners and the many environmental non-governmental organisations. If he does that, Conservative Members will seek to give him a fair wind when the legislation is introduced.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) for his kind remarks and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on using her parliamentary time to obtain a debate on such an important issue, especially at this historic time. She is a worthy champion on the issue, as she is on a number of others.
That is not surprising as my hon. Friend's constituency is fortunate to include several nationally important nature conservation sites, including three geological sites of special scientific interest at Great quarry, Okus quarry and Old Town railway cutting, and a further four biological SSSIs at Coate water, Burderop wood, Clouts wood and the Coombes, Hinton Parva. Included within those sites are open water, woodland bird communities and chalk grassland. They all contribute to the overall value of the national SSSI series and to protecting our natural heritage for our children and grandchildren.
The Government share the view of many of the hon. Members who have spoken that the UK's nature conservation heritage should be given effective protection. Indeed, I welcome the opportunity that is provided by the debate to reaffirm the commitments in the Labour party's manifesto to affording better protection to wildlife, and the priority that the Government are giving to implementing those manifesto commitments.
At this point, I should like to answer queries that several hon. Members have raised that may not be answered in my brief. That is important because it is always an easy option just to go on and not to give replies to specific queries in a debate.
964
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon raised incentives for management. I confirm that the Government propose to move from a compensatory scheme of payments to landowners to positive agreements. Even now, in advance of any changes in legislation, a substantial number of payments for support action are under way, rather than cash compensation payments.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) never misses an opportunity to raise questions on the area that he represents. I repeat my assurances to him that, within the present consultation, there is no thought within Government for any changes that would affect the status of the verderers. I say it every time. To his credit, he always raises a range of issues on the New forest. On that particular one, I reconfirm our position.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned widely dispersed bird species, which pose a particular difficulty for boundary definition. We are committed to effective and full implementation of obligations under the birds and habitats directives. My Department is discussing with English Nature the best way in which to protect such wide-ranging species. I will write to him to give further information on the matter, and try to get an answer to the point that he raised on restoration.
The hon. Member also asked me to acknowledge the tide of support for early-day motion 11. There is no doubt that that can and, indeed, should be done from the Government side of the Chamber. We are aware of the support and greatly impressed by it. It is very large—one of the largest gatherings of support on an issue since the last election. The Government are reassured by the level of interest and the swell of opinion on the need for legislation. We are aware of that and keep it in mind in all our considerations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster raised the question of peat working on SSSIs. [Interruption.] Sorry—my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). We support moves to encourage alternatives to the use of peat. Where sites have Natura 2000 status, there will be obligations to review extant planning permissions. We are considering the options for other sites. All the issues that she raised in respect of that will be considered.
The Government's approach to wildlife conservation must blend a strong statutory framework for the protection of species and their habitats with positive measures through biodiversity action plans and environmental education. In that respect, we have encouraged a participative approach to conservation through partnerships between the public and private sectors and involvement of voluntary conservation organisations and the public. We believe that each element is important in ensuring that we protect and enhance the value of our countryside.
I take first the protection of habitats. We continue to make good progress in implementing Natura 2000, the network of special sites that are recognised at European level. The United Kingdom has now classified 200 sites as special protection areas for their ornithological interest under the birds directive, and submitted 340 sites as candidate special areas of conservation to the European Commission under the habitats directive, giving recognition and enhanced protection to the cream of our nature conservation heritage.

965
The UK Government are committed to full implementation of the requirements of the habitats directive. Our SAC list has been selected through a rigorous and iterative scientific process, which has applied the directive's criteria consistently throughout the UK. What is more, there has been full consultation on all the proposals, which, in a number of cases, incorporated changes in the light of comments from the voluntary conservation movement and other consultees. I acknowledge criticisms of our list, but those have been based on unscientific comparisons and misunderstandings of the directive's requirements.
Natura 2000 sites—together with sites listed under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance—are all sites of special scientific interest, all of which are designated for their national importance and constitute some of our most precious areas for wildlife, hosting rare or endangered species and providing habitats where they can flourish and—I hope—multiply. Although many are well managed and in good condition, and landowners and managers enjoy a constructive relationship with the conservation agencies, the Government agree with hon. Members who have expressed concern about special sites that have been damaged, or whose interest is declining as a result of both human activities and natural processes.
English Nature is already aiming to increase the percentage of sites in England that are being positively managed for conservation and to reduce the proportion that are in an unfavourable condition. The comprehensive proposals that we announced in last year's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation paper on SSSIs will also help to deliver real improvements in the immediate future and will substantially strengthen English Nature's hand as steward of the most valuable examples of our natural heritage. Those proposals covered a range of options and looked at ways in which enhanced protection could be delivered quickly without new legislation, as well as the case for legislative change.
The Government believe that it is important to foster the constructive relationship that has already been established with the owners of SSSIs, many of whom are sympathetic to conservation aims and work actively alongside statutory agencies to conserve the interest of their land. On SSSIs, the consultation paper emphasised the need for a variety of partnerships with owners and occupiers, with local communities and voluntary conservation organisations and with Government Departments, some of which are major landholders and custodians of our wildlife heritage. We accept the responsibility that that places on us. We will help and encourage others who similarly accept their responsibilities for the nation's wildlife.
The paper acknowledged—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the next debate.

Police Funding
11 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how grateful I am to have secured this debate. I thank the Minister of State for visiting the National Missing Persons Helpline, of which I am a trustee. Those who work for the helpline very much enjoyed the visit and hope that something constructive will come out of it.
Since my election to Beckenham, the subject of police numbers and the link with police funding has come up constantly. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends and Labour Members also get a lot of complaints from people who say that they do not see enough police on the beat. Often, constituents do not link that subject with reduced crime figures or the sophisticated arguments about how intelligence-led policing is changing the nature of policing.
In Bromley, of which Beckenham is a part, we have an active police consultative committee and sector working parties, which constantly discuss police numbers and funding. In the annual report for last year, which was published in June, the committee chairman states:
"During the last three years, I cannot recall a year when there has not been underfunding to cover the cost of maintaining the existing strength of the police with inevitable cuts in the service in one way or another. This year the increase in the annual budget for the Metropolitan Police is to be 1.7 per cent. which is below the national average increase of 2.7 per cent. It again falls short of what is needed to cover the increase in police pay and pensions and the rise in inflation. In past years there has been a steady reduction in the number of uniformed officers in the Bromley area to cope with inadequate funding."
His comments are backed up by Bromley division's own figures. Its manpower target strengths, to use the jargon, have gone from 497 police in the borough and the division—the two are co-terminus—in November 1994 to 440 this year. Civilianisation has not replaced the uniformed copper. In November 1994, there were 121 civilian staff. This year, the figure is down to 113, so the numbers of both groups have dropped.
Penge, which is in my constituency, has been identified by Bromley police in a much-admired document on crime and disorder, as a high-risk area. Last April, the inspector in charge told the Penge sector working party:
"we have 9 Community Action Team Officers for community policing between Crystal Palace and Coney Hall"—
another area of my constituency—
"with several having 2/3 council wards to patrol on foot."
As hon. Members know, in particular those who represent cities, that is a large area to cover. The inspector continued:
"There are 3 high street patrols, in Penge, Beckenham and West Wickham."
Some people may think that leafy Bromley borough and Beckenham should reduce their police numbers to help in other parts of the Greater London area where crime levels are higher. However, the authentic voice of the Beckenham resident wrote to the Home Secretary and to me at the end of 1998. He pointed out that
"there has been growing disquiet among members of the public concerning the near-absence of uniformed officers patrolling the streets on a routine basis… During the past two or three years there appears to have been a reduction in real terms".

967
He is absolutely right. Figures provided by the Metropolitan police show that, since 1995, that force has reduced from 27,945 to 26,563 this year. Indeed, when I was on the Metropolitan police parliamentary scheme along with two Labour Members, one of whom is here today, the story everywhere was the same and I am sure that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will agree. The police are concerned about cuts in manpower, old equipment and buildings that need refurbishment.
The pattern is repeated nationally. It is happening not merely in Bromley or in the Met, but throughout the country. Just last week, on 30 June, a Home Office press release stated:
"Numbers of police officers have fallen by 793 to 123,922 in the year ending March 1999—a reduction of less than 1 per cent."
The first sentence of that press release shows the Home Office's sensitivity about linking police funding with police numbers. That sentence reads:
"The number of police officers has fallen despite increased police spending".
I can understand and appreciate why the Home Office is going to such lengths to decouple funding and police numbers. Linked with that issue is the reduction in crime. We all congratulate the police on reducing crime, but most of us would agree that other issues have contributed to that reduction. When employment is high, there tends to be a reduction in crime.
The Audit Commission has backed up the Home Office and I can understand where it is coming from. It says that some forces have higher clear-up rates and lower numbers of police relatively and/or smaller budgets—
Ms Hazel Blears: The Audit Commission supports the view that there is no direct correlation between numbers of officers and amounts of crime. On the last occasion on which we debated the matter in the House, 18 March, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, unusually:
"However, I rather agree with the Home Secretary on that point. I do not think that there is a direct correlation between police numbers and crime."—[Official Report, 18 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1277.]
Does the hon. Lady agree with her right hon. Friend?
Mrs. Lait: If the hon. Lady listens to the rest of my speech, she will understand my argument. It is difficult to disagree with the Audit Commission's figures, which show that smaller forces may have smaller budgets and higher clear-up rates. Indeed, the Audit Commission has compared like with like: it has compared one rural force with another and found differences in clear-up rates; it has also compared one inner-city area with another and found differences. Statistically, I do not disagree, but the problem is that the British public and police forces themselves do not make that link. I suspect that the better clear-up rates reflect both good management and historic spending patterns. As I pointed out, the problem is that the public and the police do not believe it.
As I said, the consultative committee in Bromley regularly links underfunding with lack of police numbers. When we toured various operations under the parliamentary scheme, we were told time after time by
968
the police, from the constable on the beat to the inspector in charge of any police station, that cuts in funding were leading to reduced numbers.
Mr. Ian Bruce: One can always bandy statistics about, but for the first time in many years, there has been a cut in police manpower and in auxiliaries in Dorset and, for the first time in five years, crime has increased. That shows that criminals, at least, think that it is now safer to commit crimes in Dorset because fewer police and fewer resources are coming from this Government.
Mrs. Lait: I would not go so far as to argue that, but it is an interesting point. One is conscious that hardened criminals are as astute and aware of the potential for crime and not getting caught as the general public are aware that, as they believe, there are not enough police on the streets.
The constables will describe the increased pressure that they are under because of what they believe are shortages in numbers on patrol. One of their principal concerns is that, when they are in trouble—they could easily suddenly find themselves in a fracas on a hot day like today, when people's tempers are short—there might not be sufficient back-up to help them out of it. Indeed, that already happens. If the police feel vulnerable and lose confidence, they will not do their job to the best of their ability and constituents will complain.
As I said to the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), I acknowledge the argument—I am sure that she shares it—that modern and effective policing is intelligence-led. It is effective and it works. We have seen how successful Operation Bumblebee has been, for example, in targeting criminals and ensuring that continual troublemakers are taken off the streets or warned that they are being watched. Intelligence-led policing contributes enormously to modern policing, but I return to the fact that the British public do not believe that it is working because they do not see police on the streets.
The Police Federation also does not see police on the streets. Fred Broughton, the chairman, was quoted in The Guardian of 18 May. The article said:
"Violent crime has increased because police forces are having to cut the number of officers on the beat.
Mr. Broughton said successes in tackling burglary and car crime had been bought at the cost of a failure to patrol the streets.
'It is clear to every force that the uniformed presence is reducing on a monthly basis. That is while the government and chief police officers are talking about an alternative. All the indications are that it will get worse.'"
Ms Blears: The hon. Lady has made the point that intelligence-led policing works, but that the public do not believe that crime is being tackled unless they see bobbies on the beat. If she accepts the argument that there are better ways in which to spend our resources to tackle crime, is she in favour of spending money on, say, a medicine that does not work simply because the public believe that it does? Is it not her task and our's to lay out the facts and convince the public of what actually works

969
in tackling crime—contrary to their perception? It is surely down to people such as us to play a role in ensuring that the public believe such things.
Mr. Ian Bruce: They do not in Dorset.
Mrs. Lait: As my hon. Friend says, people in Dorset do not believe it—nor do people in Bromley, the Police Federation or, as I am about to quote, the Association of Chief Police Officers.
John Newing said that the 1999–2000 settlement
"leaves the Police Service well short of what it needs."
Even though the Home Office has said that the 2 per cent. efficiency savings can be reinvested, and even though the police forces can keep the income from property sales, the forces are facing the need to spend much more money on new communications systems.
Anyone who has been into a police station will have seen the variety of computers and how they are not linked to one another. Work is duplicated because the custody officer may enter information into one computer, while upstairs the detectives are putting the same information into another system. That shows the need to spend money on communications. I am not arguing about the need for that; however, the public must also be reassured. If they are not, the whole basis of policing by the consent of the community will disappear.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the phenomenal clear-up rate of the Victorian police force was primarily not because their methods were less fastidious, but because they lived in, and were part of, the community that they policed? As we have withdrawn forces into almost fortress-like police stations and police officers into panda cars, we have lost the proximity of the community, which was the source of success.
Mrs. Lait: I can see my hon. Friend's point, although the whole purpose of the Scarman and subsequent reports was to try to develop the role of the community police officer, who builds up the intelligence that was enjoyed by the Victorian police force. We have not lost that form of policing; the problem is that we do not have sufficient police officers to be able to conduct it as effectively as one would wish. That is why I am linking the two subjects—even though the Home Office and the Audit Commission doubt the correlation between police funding and numbers. Such a link needs to be made because we must ensure policing with the consent of the community.
I pointed out the need for new communications systems and the cost of them. There is also the cost of the pensions problem facing all police forces. We must acknowledge what a large proportion of their budgets is going on pensions—about 17 per cent. in the Metropolitan police and 20 per cent. in Greater Manchester. Obviously, if we were starting again, we would not start from here. A pay-as-you-go pension fund and an historic inability to control it has left forces with a huge demand on their slender resources. John Newing said last week that if additional funds are not forthcoming, there will have to be cuts in the numbers of officers in operational roles.
As a great believer in the development of the pensions industry and the provision that we have managed to create, I would say that it is time for the Home Office
970
and police forces to get to grips with the pay-as-you-go pension scheme and reform it. That would be a most effective way of reducing the pressure on budgets. I know that that will not be easy and that it is a very long-term solution, but it should certainly be considered closely.
Despite the demands on budgets for things such as communications systems and pensions, I return time and again to the importance of the Home Office recognising the inextricable link in the minds of the British public between funding and proper staffing. The public cannot believe that there is no such correlation. As I have—I hope—shown, nor can many who work in the police, even when crime is coming under control. The position has clearly worsened recently and the forecasts are deeply pessimistic.
The police force is in a unique position to make its views known and clear to every member of the public. That will only reinforce the public's fears. The police, particularly if they are involved in community policing, are talking day in, day out to our constituents. If they are fearful of their future, they will make the public—our constituents—fearful, too.
The Home Office must ensure that the public are reassured that the thin blue line will hold. At present, the public believe that the line is under significant pressure. I very much hope that the Minister can reassure us that there will be a greater police presence on the streets, so reassuring our constituents.
11.18 am
Mr. David Drew: I am pleased to participate in this important debate. I shall restrict most of my remarks to the issue of funding.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) realised that the crux of the apparent contradiction is due mainly to the perception of crime. In the past couple of days, the Women's Institute has referred to the importance of police on the beat in rural areas. However, that is not necessarily the same as catching criminals. We must ensure that we put resources where they really count, and invest in intelligence and the most effective policing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made clear. I should be worried if we went away from the debate believing that the contradiction was easy to solve. The Government have got the balance right. I shall explain how that can be enhanced and how it can be made clearer to our constituents that the funding situation is right and reasonable.
I shall restrict most of my remarks to funding, which is at the core of the debate. I have been engaged in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister about the needs of Gloucestershire. We shall be having a meeting shortly to discuss those matters in greater detail. It was a little disingenuous of the hon. Member for Beckenham to refer to the pensions problem, because the Conservative Government signally failed to grapple with the issue. They have left us an incredibly difficult legacy. Let us be honest. No police organisation wants to renegotiate the pensions situation, because they could not get a better deal. I may be wrong on some of the details, but I believe that a police constable retiring from the force today after 30 years' service would take about £60,000 in cash, plus half his current salary. With the best will in the world, that cannot be improved by a renegotiation of the pension terms. However, we shall have to deal with that dilemma.

971
I do not want to speak for very long, because I know that others want to contribute to the debate. Many factors, including the pension situation, affect the funding requirements. I am grateful to the Government for addressing Gloucestershire's funding problems in respect of the number of royal households in the country. The problem with the 2 per cent. efficiency savings is that they have to be found from those areas, as well as from the wider budget. That causes us some grief in Gloucestershire. Perhaps that requirement should be reconsidered.
We need to fund policing properly, but we must also ensure that we are policing in the right way. We welcome the progress on the public safety radio communications project—a phrase that does not slip off the tongue easily—but we have to find a means of funding it, which is difficult. In Gloucestershire, there will be an annual leasing cost of £750,000, which is the equivalent of 40 police constables. I hope that the Government will come up with some good news on that. It is a project that we not merely want, but have, to implement. Gloucestershire has been bedevilled by a problem of hills. The communications network has never functioned properly, because people on one side of the Cotswolds cannot communicate with those on the other side. I try to go out with the local police on a Friday night. They have to switch wavelength regularly because that is the only way in which they can communicate with each other. That is a bit ramshackle at the end of the 20th century, when we are looking for the most effective way to deal with law and order issues.
We welcome the drug strategy, initiatives on youth offending and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, but we must find ways to fund those ideas. Our old friend information technology will have a part to play and a lot of money is being put in that direction. We all agree that such spending should not be at the expense of front-line policing. People have a perception of crime and want to see their bobby on the beat, but they also want the most effective means of catching criminals and following up the more deviant members of society. We have to find ways of doing that.
We can argue about the statistics and what they mean, but we were disappointed with the 1.4 per cent. increase in funding in Gloucestershire, which was below the national increase of 2.3 per cent. We responded by putting up our budget and raising our precept. I could argue that Gloucestershire's precept was too low, but we had the fourth-highest increase of all police authorities, and there is a limit to the number of times that we can do that. We may now be more in line with the family of authorities that we all lovingly compare everything to in these days of benchmarking and the rest of it. I hope that the Home Office and the Treasury will look favourably in future at how we can make good our funding needs.
We are looking to the future. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for our success in achieving funding for the tri-service control room project, which brings the police into line with the ambulance and fire services to make best use of our control rooms. There are ways of taking that initiative further forward. It is an efficient way of using our funding. That may be special pleading, but I hope that the Home Office will have more to say today or in the future about making more effective use of such funds.
972
We do not pretend that funding is not an issue. I am one of three Gloucestershire Members here today, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) beside me and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). We have regular meetings with police authority representatives, who tell us their problems. Funding is always at the top of their agenda, so there is no point in pretending that it is not. However, the situation did not start with the election of a Labour Government in May 1997. It is an historic problem. In the debate on 18 March—which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned—I talked about having separate police authorities, some of which, including mine, are small. That has its benefits, but it also has its downsides, because there are no economies of scale and we were bound to have difficulties with the separation of administrative costs and overheads resulting from splitting police authorities from county councils.
Within reason, we are doing what we can. We need more funds. We need help from the Home Office and the Treasury to get the special projects up and running and to make them as effective as possible. That is as true in rural Britain as in urban Britain, as the recent report of the Women's Institute says. A report by the Back-Bench group of Labour Members published a couple of weeks ago contains an interesting article by Simon Anderson of System 3 about people's perceptions of crime in rural areas and how the globalisation of crime has a special impact on more isolated communities, because they want to see the police presence, but they also want to know that the policing is as effective as possible. That is the essence of the problems with getting the funding formula right. There is a need for more help in rural areas, because the funding formula is not as effective as it could be.
Ms Tess Kingham: We have heard a lot about the perceptions of the public and the desire for more police on the beat. However, we should also recognise that the Government have done a great deal in looking at other ways of preventing crime and taking the stress off police forces by ensuring that there are always police on the beat to deal with the after-effects of crime and clear-up rates. We have had the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and there is a duty on local authorities to have local crime prevention partnerships. We had a big launch of that in Gloucester, which included all the stakeholders. The initiative was greatly welcomed by every section of the community involved. The police said that they felt that it would have a great impact on the public perception of crime and on preventing crime, which would take the stress off the police.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady must sit down when I get to my feet. That is the first thing that she must learn. The second is that she should not make a speech during an intervention.
Mr. Drew: I acknowledge the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) in her constituency, both now as a Member of Parliament and before coming here. She has much to offer, and she made a valid point.
We will not hide from the funding issue. We welcome many of the initiatives and we recognise that there must be a balance between urban and rural areas. All the figures show that the majority of crimes are committed in urban

973
areas. The incidence of reported crime is four times greater in urban areas than in rural areas, but we have seen a relative increase in rural crime. That is due partly to globalisation, because people can move about more quickly. People in rural areas feel very vulnerable.
I hope that all that is recognised in the formula. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have some good things to say about how all that can be rectified and about the most appropriate use of the overall funding package.
11.31 am
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing this debate and on the detailed way in which she gave examples of where police funding is inadequate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who made the case for extra funding for Gloucestershire. I want to mention that. The fact that there are three Members of Parliament from Gloucestershire in the Chamber suggests that things are not well with police funding in that county.
The general funding of public services leaves something to be desired. The Labour party spent 18 years telling the public how the Conservatives had underfunded public services, but, now that we have a Labour Government, we still have similar problems. It is not only the police who are suffering in Gloucestershire. Despite the high-profile figures about health service spending, the health service in Gloucestershire is having to make £5.5 million worth of cuts because of inadequate funding. Tewkesbury borough council has had its grant reduced, causing it to increase the council tax. It has been named and shamed by the Government for reacting to a problem that the Government brought about. The same is true of police funding.
The national pay award, over which each force has no control, was 3.5 per cent. for 1999–2000. Price inflation was 2.2 per cent. Yet Gloucestershire constabulary has been given an increase of only 1.4 per cent. Again, as with the health service, the Government have made a high-profile pay award, with which very few people would disagree, but they have not funded it. That causes a big problem.
Why has Gloucestershire been given such a derisory award? Is it because the Government are diverting money from the shire counties to areas in which their more natural supporters might live? Every shire county apart from two has suffered real-term cuts. The Minister might find that amusing, but it is not amusing to those who live in shire counties. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, Gloucestershire has suffered the fourth largest real-terms cut to its operational budget. I am aware of the problems in the Labour areas to which the Government seem keen to divert money, because I was not born in Tewkesbury, but I am also aware of the problems in rural areas.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend is being over-generous to the Government. In Dorset, we also saw a real-terms cut in the operational budget. Was there not also in Gloucestershire, as there was in Dorset, a massive stealth tax because the Government ensured that local tax payers were paying for all the additional money that came forward? Not a penny extra came from the Home Office or the Government.
Mr. Robertson: I would be called to order if I went too far down that route, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
974
There are difficulties with crime in rural areas. For example, all Gloucestershire Members have received a note from the chief constable about drugs and drug-related crime. That is becoming as much of a problem in rural areas as in urban areas. The sparsity of policing in rural areas encourages that crime.
Mr. Richard Allan: I do not wish to spoil the hon. Gentleman's argument, but if he believes that money is going to traditional Labour areas, which mine used to be, he is wrong. We are not seeing that and dancing in the streets in my area. The police are reporting just as many problems in areas such as South Yorkshire as they are in rural counties.
Mr. Robertson: Perhaps I have underestimated the funding problem.
The 2 per cent. efficiency saving is being taken into account when grants to constabularies are being calculated. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, the 2 per cent. target includes police pensions and security elements, over which chief constables have no control. A 2 per cent. saving nationally may be achievable, but it is difficult for each force to achieve it locally. For example, the police force in Gloucestershire has to provide security for the royal family. We are delighted that they live there and the force receives a grant to cover the cost, but, given that minimum standards of security must be provided, that should not be taken into account when calculating the 2 per cent. efficiency saving.
Gloucestershire has already made many efficiency savings. It has one of the lowest figures in the country for officers retiring through ill health, sickness levels are below average and it has the smallest number of superintendents. Given all that, why has Gloucestershire received a real-terms cut? Where is the money to come from? As we have already heard, Gloucestershire police have had to increase the precept by 19 per cent. That makes it look as if it is a local problem, when it is not. Also, the chief constable has told all the Gloucestershire Members of Parliament that cuts are having to be made in operational areas. Is that what the Government intended? I do not remember their claiming at the election that there would be cuts in the operational services provided by the police. The Minister must look at what is happening on the ground and not just at statistics which may appear to be okay on the surface, but do not reveal all that happens in the policing of counties.
11.36 am
Ms Hazel Blears: I am delighted to have a further opportunity to speak on policing, police funding, police numbers and the Government's drive to tackle crime. It is the top issue for the people in my inner-city constituency. I believe firmly that unless we tackle the problem of crime and disorder, all the other social exclusion initiatives on which we are engaged will not be as successful as we would like. If people do not feel safe and secure in their communities, all our other measures to provide jobs and opportunities will not yield the results that we want.
We need some facts in this debate. Over the next three years, the Government will be spending an extra £1.25 billion, which has been gained from the comprehensive spending review. In addition, there is an

975
extra £400 million for crime reduction projects, extra funds for CCTV partnerships between the police, local government and business to try to tackle crime, a major anti-burglary initiative and anti-car crime projects. We have set rigorous targets because we want to see the outcomes.
It is all very well to talk about perceptions, feelings and ideas, but what really matters to the people whom I represent is whether we are preventing, reducing and detecting crime and locking up those who commit crime. We aim to cut vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by the year 2002. That is a tough target, but the Government do not shy away from tough targets because they know how important those issues are for local people. There is no point spending money without tying it to targets. I know that the Conservatives have recently become a tax-and-spend party, but I do not see any point in spending money without the right outcome.
We must not forget the Tory record. I know that it is uncomfortable to be reminded of it, but, under the Tory Government, recorded crime went up from 2.5 million cases in 1979 to 4.5 million cases in 1997. Constituents such as mine bore the brunt of those crimes. A total of 40 per cent. of crime in this country happens in 10 per cent. of areas, and 4 per cent. of people are the victims of 42 per cent. of crime. Those are staggering and scandalous statistics and we must tackle them.
Under the previous Administration, the figures were up for violent crime, burglaries and assault. Crime and disorder was out of control, with young men running wild on estates, making people's lives a misery. The Government's plan to tackle all that is one of the top issues for the whole community.
We are beginning to tackle those problems. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) accepts that intelligence-based policing is the way to tackle crime, detect crime and ensure that convictions are secured, but I ask Conservative Members to use their brains and recognise that, in addition to intelligence, we have to use a little creativity and imagination. The Conservatives appear to be on a tramline of thinking that the only one way to tackle crime is to increase the number of bodies, but I want to increase the number of brains in our crime and disorder system as well.
Let me give some examples of new projects that are being carried out in my city to try to get maximum added value from our investment. Crime reduction partnerships bring together local government, the police, the business sector, the chamber of commerce, voluntary organisations and the local community in an effort to identify the problems of crime and how best to work together to tackle them. Are the police always right for a certain job, or could it be done better by, say, the housing authority? Is it better to bring in the youth service to intervene early in youth crime, rather than always look to the police to provide solutions? Without that partnership, we shall be unable to sustain the regeneration that we all want.
We have also drawn in resources from other areas, through projects such as Operation Victory, which has taken place in Greater Manchester in the past few months. It is the biggest police operation that Greater Manchester has ever known: in Salford, Trafford and Manchester on one day, more than 65 people involved in burglary,
976
handling, theft and the laundering of drug money were arrested. It was a massive operation and, not only did it succeed in taking those people off the streets and locking them up—which was a great relief to my constituents—but it sent a message to the community that they could have confidence that the police were able to tackle those problems and that we are not sitting back and allowing ourselves to be overwhelmed by a wave of crime.
We are going out there, tackling crime and using our intelligence. The information used in Operation Victory was gathered over a period of 12 months—the operation was not here today, gone tomorrow. In often difficult and dangerous circumstances, officers gathered evidence and information to use in prosecutions.
Mrs. Lait: Will the hon. Lady tell me what is the difference between Operation Victory and Operation Bumblebee, which was instituted in the mid-1990s and which achieved exactly the same ends? Is not Manchester's action a little late?
Ms Blears: Not at all. Operation Victory was incredibly successful and, although similar programmes have happened before, it was the largest programme yet, being carried out on such a scale that the impact on the community was enormous. It was an excellent project.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Lady is extremely enthusiastic and we love to hear such enthusiasm. However, my son is a police officer in the north of England and I have to tell her that her speech seems to reflect more closely the views of the Treasury than those of police officers on the beat, who know about their lack of resources and overtime and their resulting inability to get out there and do all that the hon. Lady wants them to do. Will the hon. Lady go back and listen to police officers in her constituency rather than to the Treasury?
Ms Blears: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listen to police officers in my constituency. Three weeks ago, as the local Member of Parliament, I personally called a crime and disorder forum in my constituency, because I believe that we have a role to play in crime and disorder partnerships. I called together the police, the voluntary sector, business, social services and the youth service to meet me and talk about the new Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I asked them to tell me whether the Act is working and what the difficulties with it are. I asked how best we could institute the anti-social behaviour orders and what sort of protocols were needed to get the evidence to enforce the orders.
I am in daily contact with local police officers. They have inner-city beats, which is hard and challenging work—yes, it is tough out there. However, we have just introduced sector policing, whereby officers are responsible for their own neighbourhood and so are in close, daily touch with their communities. They monitor crime, know where the criminals are, and are able to direct resources into tackling crime in their own neighbourhood. I completely support local police officers, who have a demanding, difficult and challenging job.
We are trying to ensure not only that police officers have the resources that they need, but that they use them in such a way that they get results. If we do not, we are just sending them out on the streets, they do not get results

977
and they see the same criminals day after day, making the same people's lives a misery. The Labour Government's policies are about using intelligence and creativity to give police officers the tools to do the job.
The other example of local action in my city is a massive truancy project. I feel passionately that instead of spending our money on mopping up the results of failure, we should prevent that failure from occurring in the first place. In 1997, 40 per cent. of burglaries, 25 per cent. of robberies, 20 per cent. of thefts and 20 per cent. of criminal damage were committed by children aged 10 to 16. Those children should be in school. We have set a tough and challenging target—that, by 2001, exclusions from school will have been cut by one third—and backed it up with £500 million of extra resources.
We have to consider more than police funding. Look at all the extra resources that are being put into education through education action zones and truancy projects; that will help to prevent crime. Look at the money for the new deal, which gives young people the opportunity to work rather than become involved in crime. The Opposition have a one-track mind and do not see all the different parts of the jigsaw that is being assembled by the Labour Government. Four hundred thousand more people are now in work than were in work under the Tories. The hon. Member for Beckenham recognises the link between unemployment and crime: having more people in work means less crime on the streets.
The Government have set tough targets for efficiency savings, but those savings are being made. The briefing from the Association of Police Authorities—the very people who constantly ask for more funding—states:
"this year alone, cashable efficiency savings have been identified totalling £107 million…an additional £75 million of expenditure has been redirected into frontline policing activities."
That is what my constituents want to hear—resources redirected into reducing crime, detecting crime and convicting criminals. If the Government are able to shift the emphasis from simply having bodies on the street to intelligent policing that actually reduces crime, the people whom I represent who are repeat victims of robberies, burglaries, assaults and theft will be mightily relieved.
I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Beckenham about pensions. We have to tackle that issue. Nationally, about 13 per cent. of revenue budgets are eaten up by pensions; in Greater Manchester, that figure is 20 per cent. That cannot be allowed to go on. The Government must tackle the issue of pensions.
I believe that the best way to get added value from the resources that we put in is to work in partnership. It is easy to quote statistics and figures, but, in communities such as mine, we are only now beginning to count the true cost of the policies of the previous Government. Conservative Members do not like to hear it, but crime, unemployment, poverty and the breakdown of family life are the true price of Tory government. That is the Tory record, and my city is counting the cost. If the Labour Government are able to tackle crime and make Salford a safer place for people to live, work and bring up their family, we shall have done a great deal. I believe that the Government are up to the task.
11.48 am
Mr. Richard Allan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing a debate on police funding, which is one of the Liberal Democrats' main home affairs hobby horses. We need to move the debate on from the well-worked theme of whether there is a direct correlation between funding and police forces' effectiveness. I do not believe that there is such a direct correlation, but to suggest that there is no correlation at all between police funding and police numbers is ludicrous.
It is strange and interesting to hear Labour Members argue that tight public spending settlements lead to efficiency savings and improved services—a view that differs from that which was expressed for many years by their colleagues in local government. In fact, their local government colleagues are still expressing that view, even thought they now have to do it quietly, for fear of embarrassing the Government. We might hear next that the Government decline to abandon local government capping, but merely intend to replace it with a slightly more complex system of capping. Instead of allowing local government to spend what it needs to, perhaps it will be suggested that more efficient social services or education services would be the result of tight and challenging settlements.
I should like to touch on the issue of police numbers, especially the number of special constables, which is of particular concern to the Liberal Democrats. I shall also refer to funding pressures, some of which have already been mentioned and about which the police are extremely concerned. I shall also briefly explore the Government's longer-term strategy, especially in respect of private security. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify comments heard in recent months about the role of private security which appear to be a response to a Government squeeze on funding. It is important that we explore those issues before policies emerge that cause us even greater concern.
The number of full-time police officers has fallen by 1,043 since the general election. We have heard various arguments about whether or not that is a problem. When the Labour party was in opposition, it was ingenious in not giving a specific commitment on numbers, although it gave a clear general impression that it was concerned about the falls in numbers under the previous Government, and launched attack after attack on them. It can now get out of that one by saying that it gave no specific commitment to increase the police numbers so the new falls are acceptable.
The number of special constables has fallen by 3,250 in two years. That is a 16 per cent. fall from 19,500 in March 1997 to 16,500 in March 1999. I know that the Minister has a particular concern about special constables because he said in January:
"Today's special is a police officer trained to professional standards commanding full confidence of regular colleagues and the public.… We believe this is an excellent use of a valuable resource available to chief officers and support this continued development of the Special Constabulary for the foreseeable future."
It gives us concern, and I hope that it concerns him, that we have seen a fall in numbers at a time when the Government seem to advocate increased use of that resource.
The Liberal Democrats would like to see an increase in police numbers. We suggest an increase of 6,000 as a useful way forward. The Government have helpfully

979
costed our proposals in answer to a parliamentary question from one of their Back Benchers. In a written answer on 6 July, they said:
"The estimated annual cost of 6,000 additional constables would be around £150 million."—[Official Report, 6 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 487.]
That would work out at about 5p a week for every citizen, or less than a penny a day. I feel that people would be willing to pay that to have an extra 10 constables in every constituency. People can relate to less than 1p a day and they would be happy to stump up.
We should not talk simply about a conflict between intelligence-led policing and police constables on the ground. There is a possibility of both if people are willing and able to pay. It is valid and legitimate to put it to the public that we need both to combat crime effectively by intelligence-led policing and to combat the fear of crime by providing uniformed officers as a point of contact. The two are not mutually exclusive. I should like us to consider funding both.
I am hesitant to talk about falls in numbers in any area, having heard from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) how intelligent our criminals are these days. I fear that they may browse through the pages of Hansard, discover where police numbers have fallen, and target their efforts there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman sees no influx of politically astute criminals into Dorset, although that may be one way to describe his campaign team.
I hope that the Minister will respond to the report published by the police service expenditure forecasting group in June. If he does not respond to Opposition concerns, he must respond to the group's comments that
"the revenue support grant settlement for 1999/2000 was insufficient even to meet inflationary pressures and other spending commitments. In itself, it provided no scope for investment to improve service quality and deliver."
That is the view of the professionals. They have made an assessment, and given us their honest opinion that the pressures are significant and are causing police forces problems in delivery of services.
The group has suggested that police forces have a particular problem with long-term projects such as the public safety radio communications project. We need to examine funding for such projects. The PSRCP will cost £23 million next year, but I understand that, as it rolls out in the following three years, it will cost even more. My force in South Yorkshire says that a major alarm bell is ringing on that issue. It simply does not have the money. There are two possible ways forward, both of which would be a problem. The first is to go forward with the full expenditure and cut front-line services. The second is not to take up all the options within the project, in which case the force will end up paying for a more expensive system without deriving all the benefits because it cannot afford the total package. The Government must look into that.
Pension changes are likely to cost more than £64 million next year, but concerns have been expressed that the changes needed in the pension system may end up costing more rather than less in the short term. We need to be assured that the Government are willing to make the changes in a way that does not impact on front-line services, given that the changes need to be made.
980
It has been estimated that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will cost about £15 million in the next year. We have welcomed the Act. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) referred to initiatives such as crime and disorder partnerships. We are fully behind such initiatives, but there was an expectation that the Act would be revenue neutral in its impact on the police. Yet I know from my police force that it is putting a significant amount of senior officer time into it. That is quite proper, but it gives the police a short-term funding pressure estimated at £15 million over the next year. That is £15 million well spent, but I hope that we shall not simply ignore the police authorities when they say that the legislation is costing them more than expected.
We must also take into account specific events such as the millennium. Police forces have flagged up a serious problem in funding police support over that period.
Mr. Paul Keetch: Certainly, the West Mercia constabulary has expressed to me its concerns about funding police support at the millennium. However, the millennium is a foreseeable event—we have known about it for 1,000 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the policing of unforeseeable events such as the demonstration at Consort Kennels in my constituency by animal rights activists places enormous additional burdens on the police? That demonstration diverted police officers away from their normal activities. The police do not believe that they receive adequate Home Office support for unforeseen events that crop up from time to time.
Mr. Allan: That is a general problem. In my constituency, we had the tragic circumstances of the Hillsborough disaster. Continuing legal battles are costing the police service money. It is receiving conflicting advice. It is a huge political minefield, but, whoever is right or wrong, the police have faced unexpected expenditure. The demonstrations at Shoreham also created a policing requirement. We do not want local police forces to feel that they cannot provide the required level of policing. Some form of ability to respond would be helpful.
We accept that efficiency savings can be made in the police force, but we do not accept the Government's denial that there is any problem. The hon. Member for Salford referred to an increase of £1.24 billion over three years. The Government's comprehensive spending review presentation has been wonderful. They announce, announce again and then announce again. They multiply any figure by three to give a better appearance to their public spending figures. However, when we unravel the Government's ingenious accounting methods, we find that the increase over three years is £675 million, not £1.24 billion.
We should consider funding over the whole Parliament. We were critical of the Government for accepting Tory spending limits. The House of Commons Library has shown that, over the Parliament, there will be no real-terms increase in central funding for the police. In 1998–99, there was a real-terms fall in central funding for the police. That was only the second time that that had happened in 20 years.
Police force reserves are another problem. Police forces often dip into their reserves for specific events, such as the millennium. That increases the overall cost to

981
the force. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy has shown that 11 forces are now running reserves below the recommended level.
The hon. Member for Salford said that police officers faced challenging times. That was also the word used in the Home Office press release on its spending settlement. It said:
"This is a fair but challenging settlement for the police".
Everyone who has watched "Yes, Minister" knows that "challenging" is a Whitehall euphemism for "much lower than needed". One could say that local government had challenging settlements from the Tory Government in the past 18 years, and we know what impact that had on it.
We do not accept that there is a one-to-one relationship between funding and improvements in the police service, but we do not accept that there is no relationship whatever. That point is important and needs to be examined.
I wish to refer to the future direction of the police force. It is not a total coincidence that, at a time of tight police funding and falling numbers, the Government have opened the debate about the future of police patrolling. We are concerned about the Government's intentions. The Home Secretary has openly welcomed and encouraged the debate about the role of private security in patrolling the streets, and he has made public comments to that effect. We do not wish to see the private security industry ignored, as it has a significant role in private spaces, such as shopping centres, where one can define clearly who is responsible for that space and who should properly pay for the security.
There is a difference between that situation and sending people out on patrol, and we are concerned by talk about private security officers patrolling estates. There are two distinct services. Police forces are made up of accountable, professional, trained, disciplined and sworn police officers, who provide a distinct public service. Private security officers—we regret that the Government have not moved further on regulation for them—do not conform to the same disciplines. I hope that the Minister will indicate that there will be further regulation for private security officers.
The Government must ask themselves the crucial question—if private security provides a cheaper service, why is it cheaper? We believe that it is cheaper precisely because the industry does not have to maintain the same standards as the police. There is a lower quality, in that the industry is not an accountable public service with sworn loyalty to the Crown. I hope that the Government will make it clear that it is not their intention to civilianise police patrols. While there are proper arguments for civilianisation of non-front-line policing functions, we believe that they do not apply to police patrolling.
I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the specific concerns about funding issues, identified by the police agencies, and to some wider policy issues. That would shed far more light than simply repeating the mantra of the over-inflated and oft-repeated comprehensive spending review figures.
12.1 pm
Mr. Steve McCabe: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and to other hon. Members for being unavoidably detained and missing the start of the debate.
982
I will make a brief speech, concentrating on two themes. First, the West Midlands police force—one of the largest in the country—is not suffering under the misapprehension that it has had a resource cut; in fact, the budget for 1999–2000 shows a total revenue expenditure increase of about 2.3 per cent. It is significant that, in its budget planning, the West Midlands force has been able to put an extra 50 constables out on direct patrol on the streets. It has been able to do that because, as in Manchester—as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) explained—the force is engaged in a radical exercise in sector policing, which is designed to cut out wasteful bureaucracy in the police force.
The West Midlands police force has the highest percentage of constables to other ranks in the country, and the lowest management costs in the country. That theme is extremely important in terms of police funding.
As resources are made available, there are particular aspects of policing and projects to which we would like to see more money directed. Personally, I think that there is more scope for the use of technology in DNA processing, which would be an investment worth making. It is important that we get value for money. The key to that is to reduce management costs and to get a greater ratio of constables to other ranks.
The hon. Member for Beckenham said that numbers matter, and I understand her point. However, it strikes me as significant that the Audit Commission reports have pointed out consistently that, even where the numbers are high, there are forces which, at any one time, can call on only 5 per cent. of their total force to patrol the streets. One must ask what kind of organisational structure pertains where, out of a force of huge numbers, only 5 per cent. are doing active policing. The lessons from Manchester and the West Midlands must be taken on board by other forces if we are to get greater value for money and efficiency.
My second point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). In this day and age, it is difficult to understand how it can be reasonable—with all the amazing technological advances, and the inevitable costs that they impose—to have 43 police forces spread throughout the country, ranging in number from 950 officers to 29,000. We have 43 authorities that are duplicating the costs of chief constables, personnel departments, research and development departments, payroll departments and purchasing departments. That seems to me to be an extraordinary waste of money.
I would not urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take direct action to compel forces to reduce overall numbers, or to rationalise the size of police forces. However, where improvements can be made by sharing at least some of those activities, there is scope for amazing cost savings, and that would be a significant step forward. I would particularly like to see a regionalised police force—the time has come when we can afford to reduce the number of forces from 43.
I am not concerned now with the question of a democratic deficit because of two significant developments. The first is sector policing. Local superintendents are now accountable to the local population, so there is direct democratic accountability. That is the great strength of sector policing. The second development is that the introduction of police authorities

983
in itself removed directly elected accountability, in the way that it was understood traditionally. Having made that step, we do not need to rehash the old argument.
We must look for the maximum efficiency for the money we put in. That cannot possibly be achieved by 43 authorities that are duplicating every activity endlessly, and are wasting money on bureaucracy that could be spent on patrolling the streets and protecting people from crime.
12.7 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) about police forces. Dorset is a relatively small force, but it is efficient and commands public support. I do not wish to see vast county or regional forces, or a national force. The British system of doing things, with a degree of local accountability, is the best. The county forces, including some of the smaller ones, have a good record. Problems have tended to occur in some of the larger forces, particularly the West Midlands force and the Met. The smaller forces have delivered a good service over the years.
I wish to refer to the overall concern about funding and numbers. I know that "more funding and more numbers" is not the only answer, but it helps in terms of the management of the police. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made an intelligent speech—apart from her political points at the end—and made some good points. However, the reality is that, in Dorset, we are struggling with pensions—as are all forces. Over the last 10 years, police pensions as a proportion of budgets have risen from 7 to 13 per cent—an added strain without additional budgets. That is a problem with which all Governments have had to deal.
Apart from pensions, there is the problem of the millennium, which—as the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) pointed out—is a predictable event. Major public services, whether police or hospitals, will have to make extraordinary arrangements to deal with that.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has said that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will cost £20 million. Much of that Act has been welcomed by my local force, and it may have a positive role to play in policing. However, there are resource implications that have not been addressed fully within budgets.
The fear of crime must be addressed. People are reassured when they see bobbies on the beat. I have a well-developed network of neighbourhood watch groups in Poole, whose members are extremely good at getting on to the police and asking, "Where are the bobbies on the beat? What is going on?" We should pay attention to the public relations aspect, which is particularly important to older constituents.
12.10 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing the debate and introducing it with such skill. Although there are undoubted differences between hon. Members across the Floor of the House, all of us, regardless of party, are united in acknowledging how much we and our constituents owe to the professionalism, dedication and constant vigilance of our police service.
984
My hon. Friend sensibly drew attention to the fact that there is no straightforward correlation between police numbers and police effectiveness in tackling crime. However, like my hon. Friend, other hon. Members pointed out that police numbers do matter.
For example, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) noted, it is a matter of concern, especially to people in rural areas, that they may at times have to rely on a response time target from a relatively remote urban centre, rather than having officers on duty, particularly over the weekend or through bank holidays, in the police office or police station in their own village or market town.
The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) demonstrated all the passionate, born-again zeal for tight budgets that one would expect from the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. With a cut of 113 police officers in Greater Manchester since the general election, I am not surprised that she steered clear of that subject.
More generally, there is a difference between a considered decision by a chief officer to deploy more of his officers to intelligence gathering, problem-solving policing, surveillance and targeting known villains and repeat victims—for which there would be support across the House—and chief constables and police authorities feeling compelled to reduce the numbers on their establishment below the level that they would regard as satisfactory, simply because of budget constraints resulting from spending decisions imposed by central Government.
The Home Office's figures show that there has been a reduction of more than 1,100 police officers since the general election. The biggest losers include London, where the figure is down by about 680; Sussex, where the figure is down by almost 240; and West Yorkshire, which has lost more than 200 officers. Of the 43 forces in England and Wales, 29 have cut their police numbers since 1998.
The Government's priorities for spending were made clear in their comprehensive spending review. The figures that I have seen suggest a cash increase of 2.7 per cent. in the current year, plus the hoped-for efficiency savings. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, the Government's published spending plans involve real increases of no more than 0.7 per cent.
As four fifths of police expenditure goes on pay, a tight budgetary settlement inevitably means that there will be an impact on manpower. That has been recognised by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association, which have all vigorously drawn attention to the fact that such a tight settlement will make it extremely difficult for them to deal with the priorities that they have been set by the Home Secretary, and to provide the quality of service that they want to give to their local communities.
ACPO has said that an increase of 6.1 per cent. in police spending is needed in order to stand still in the provision of service. If the Government disagree with ACPO's assessment of necessary expenditure, I hope that the Minister, in his response or in writing subsequently, will spell out in detail the methodology that the Government have used to reach a different conclusion from that of ACPO.

985
As time is short and to enable the Minister of State to respond, I shall concentrate on three topics related to resources, on which I hope the Minister will comment. The first topic is patrols. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) expressed concern about problems affecting the special constabulary. The Minister knows that there has been considerable disquiet among police officers at the idea that, partly as a consequence of constraints on resources, the Government may be considering greater reliance in the future on ancillary citizens patrols or private security patrols of some sort.
Concern about that is not confined to those on the Conservative Benches. A Labour peer, a distinguished former officer, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, warned in another place of
"substitute, second tier public or private patrols, which certain chief constables are flirting with."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 723.]
We on the Conservative Benches have no problem with voluntary initiatives in support of the police. Neighbourhood watch was a great success story of the 1980s, and I am delighted if those on the present Treasury Bench have been converted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to the advantages of "walking with a purpose". It is always pleasant to see Labour Ministers swallowing the words that they expressed in opposition.
What powers would those patrols have? Would those on patrol hold the office of constable? What would their relationship be to the police? Would there be disciplinary procedures if the powers of those patrollers were abused?
The second topic is pensions. The inspectorate of constabulary concluded that police pensions will cost about 14 per cent. of police expenditure by the financial year 2001-02. It is just over a year since the Home Office published its consultation document on police pensions. Lord Burlison, another distinguished Labour peer, said in another place:
"We intend to publish soon specific proposals on the future of police pensions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 737.]
I hope that the Minister will tell us how soon that document will be published and over what time scale the proposals will be implemented.
My final point concerns the public safety radio communications project—PSRCP—to which other hon. Members alluded. I am sure that the Minister of State is aware of a letter of 17 June from the chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, Dr. Henig, to the Home Secretary, in which she wrote.
"It is already clear…from the indicative prices that many authorities will face very serious problems if the full cost of this service is to be met from existing funding allocations."
She continued:
"The police service cannot afford to finance PSRCP within the existing level of police grant, without a direct effect on the availability of officers for frontline policing."
My own authority in Thames Valley told me that its estimates suggest that the reality of absorbing PSRCP costs within current baselines set by the Government would result in the need to reduce police officer strength by 167.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give answers to some of those questions. He and his colleagues now have the responsibility for making budgetary decisions and
986
setting priorities for a service that all of us in the House support. I hope that he will deal with the concerns that have been expressed not merely by hon. Members in the Opposition parties, but by senior representatives of the police service.
12.19 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): This has been a useful and largely good-humoured debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on raising an important subject that the whole House will want to be tackled. She was wearing her sensible shoes today; to be fair, she always does. Unfortunately, those sitting behind her—the bovver boys of Dorset and of the New forest—were determined to put her off track. They were true to form; she rightly talked about the importance of sophisticated argument and sensibilities in respect of numbers. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) knows nothing of sophistication, and sensibilities are hardly the stock-in trade of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). We heard from them a crude party political response to the debate which did them and their party no service whatever.
The truth is that the Government have made available to the police resources far over and above those made available by our predecessors. The figures speak for themselves: estimated total revenue expenditure on the police service in England and Wales for 1999–2000 is £7.426 billion—an increase of £225 million, or 3.1 per cent., over 1998–99. Let us look at police numbers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Beckenham. Police numbers fell between March 1992 and March 1998—by an average of more than 340 officers a year on the basis of a Conservative budget in each and every one of those years—and the Metropolitan police lost 2,060 officers throughout that period. We have stabilised the position and the Met lost only 21 officers in 1998–99. Those are the facts and she must give credit where it is due. Under the Government whom she supported, police numbers fell by more than 340, year on year.
The hon. Member for South Dorset complained about the budget of the Dorset police, but it has increased in the current year by 5 per cent., or £77.4 million, which is above the national average of 3.1 per cent. The people of Dorset would not have had that money spent on policing had his party been returned to government. It was not returned to government and, as a result, expenditure on police in Dorset is greater than under our predecessors.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: No.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) also complained, saying that the presence in the Chamber of three Members representing Gloucestershire seats showed that Gloucestershire's police funding was in crisis. On the contrary; that is a sign of diligence, not of crisis, and it is no accident that the Conservatives were outnumbered. One Conservative and two Labour Members representing Gloucestershire seats were present, and the House can draw its own lessons from that. The contributions of those Labour Members, as well as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Ms Blears) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), recognised the real gains being

987
made in policing on the ground resulting from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Those gains were reflected in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham).
All my hon. Friends recognised that the 1998 Act has provided a totally different context for policing and the reduction and prevention of crime in our country, and that it has enabled partnerships to be established on the ground. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who wears his sensible shoes on almost all occasions, was good enough to give due credit to all those good folk in Dorset who are taking advantage of that Act, which the Labour Government passed, to build effective partnerships between the private and public sectors, which is the best way of bearing down on crime and disorder.
We heard the usual Liberal rant from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan): money, money, money, money, more resources, more resources, more resources. Some absurd figures were picked out of the air and it was suggested that if only we would take another penny out of our pockets and give it to the police—it could have been two pennies, but one never knows with the Liberals—all would be well and police officers would suddenly spring up like dragon's teeth. My response is that he really must get real. Why are the Liberals so afraid of recognising the benefit that private-public partnerships can bring?
The hon. Gentleman attempted to raise the spectre of neighbourhood wardens as if the House should be frightened of them. The reverse is true and I am sorry that, in an otherwise unremarkable maiden Front-Bench speech on these matters, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) saw that same spectre. He suggested that neighbourhood wardens somehow presented a threat to traditional policing values. They do no such thing, because community patrol and neighbourhood warden schemes do not provide substitutes for police officers. On the contrary; their role is to add value to the work of police officers, not to replace them. The benefits of that
988
are being experienced by local communities up and down the country. If the hon. Member for Hallam listened to communities more rather than always having the next edition of Focus in mind, his party would be much better sighted on these issues.
Two serious points relating to police pensions were raised by my hon. Friends and echoed on occasion by Conservative Members. We recognise the difficulties faced by police authorities—they are part of the poisoned legacy left to us after 18 years of neglect of these issues and this part of public policy. We have increased the proportion of revenue funding to be allocated on the basis of pension commitments to 14.5 per cent. in 1999–2000 in recognition of the increased burden of pension costs. I assure the hon. Member for Beckenham that we have been prepared to confront those difficult issues in our review of this matter.
There are no easy answers to the problem of the cost of police pensions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford said. We have not yet made final decisions on the detailed content of the firm proposals that we intend to introduce, but we shall do so shortly. The House will then have an opportunity to consider them, as will the police service and the wider community, in terms of the decisions that we shall have to take.
The public safety radio communications project is important because it relates to new technology, and to improving and enhancing police capacity in that area. Negotiations are taking place between the police information and technology organisation and BT, the putative contractor. They will soon produce outcomes and it will then be possible for us to consider a proper response to the funding challenges.
These are challenging times, but partnership between the police and the public—not simplistic solutions, but recognition of the importance of efficiency and effectiveness—is at the heart of our policies. If we recognise the complexity of modern policing, and if we do not accept simplistic answers to simplistic questions, we shall go forward successfully.

Grimsby Fish Market
12.30 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I hope that you are sitting comfortably, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is also sitting comfortably, because I am about to retail a horror story that is worthy of the Hammer house of horror—apart from the fact that, in this horror story, Anglian Water plays the combined role of Baron Frankenstein and Count Dracula.
At the beginning of this year, the Grimsby fish merchants who buy and fillet fish in Grimsby's market—Grimsby's wonderful new fish market, I should say—received a shock. These merchants, who carry out what could be described as the primary process, were given estimates by Anglian Water showing the scale of the increase in charges that would take effect from June. The increase had been imposed to pay for the new treatment station at Pyewipe, which was to come on-stream in that month and, indeed, has come on-stream. The existing charge for Macklam's was £738 a year; it was to increase to £20,400—an increase of 2,600 per cent., at a time when inflation was running at about 2 per cent. The current charge for Arthur Bacon was £2,700 a year; that was to increase to £49,000, an increase of 1,735 per cent. The current charge for Cheek House was £7,000 a year; that was to increase to £63,500, an increase of 790 per cent.
Those horrendous increases were due to the urban waste water treatment directive, which requires urban waste water from coastal towns to be collected and treated prior to discharge by the end of 2000—next year, in other words. Grimsby was to have the pleasure of pioneering the measure and of paying the full charges 18 months before the deadline. That was because Anglian Water happens to have a new treatment station—originally intended to remove discharges deposited on beaches in Cleethorpes—which was planned and started before the directive. The station was to be financed by the charges, although what is discharged by the fish merchants—the primary processors—is organic biodegradable waste.
The Sea Fish Industry Authority tells me:
"The direct discharge of this effluent to the open sea is relatively harmless, it simply returns the fish nutrients back to their origin."
Indeed, generations of fish in the Humber estuary and its environs have been reared on exactly such discharges. Anglian Water says that the discharges, although organic and biodegradable, are polluting; but that is only because they are mixed with human and other industrial waste before being treated. If the material were discharged directly into the sea—that would be possible, with consent, and it is being considered in north-east Scotland—there would be no threat of pollution.
Anglian Water imposed the charges on Grimsby before imposing them on any other fishing port. I am talking about ports with which Grimsby is in direct and increasingly intense competition. For instance, it is competing with Hull for landings. Hull has no processing plant, so no charges will be imposed in that regard—if, indeed, charges are imposed at all. If they are imposed, they will be imposed in 2001, or perhaps later. Grimsby must also compete with north-east Scotland and parts such as Aberdeen and Peterhead. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) will know, the North of Scotland Water Authority intends to set up a
990
plant under the private finance initiative, but bids will not come in until next year and we do not know when the plant will be completed.
The competition is intense. Because of the shortage of fish, Grimsby market's throughput has fallen by 25 per cent. since its establishment. The problem is that this is a mobile industry. The merchants and traders can do their business anywhere. Grimsby merchants buy in Hull; Hull merchants buy in Grimsby. If there is a threat of much heavier charges in Grimsby, the merchants will simply transact their business elsewhere.
Fish can be landed anywhere. Why should they be landed in a place where charges will be so much higher than they are in every other fishing port?
The strength of Grimsby market lies in the fact that a large number of merchants are competing, and they set good prices. The competition sets good prices. If a substantial proportion of merchants go bust because of these charges—20 or more firms may go bust—there will be less competition to set the prices. The possibility of bankruptcy is imminent for several. Anglian Water says that the increase amounts to no more than 1 per cent. of annual turnover, but the Sea Fish Industry Authority estimates that in 1994 processors' profit amounted to only 1.5 per cent. of sales, so most of the industry's profit will be eliminated by the charges. Bankruptcies will result, and firms will go under.
Grimsby's ability to set a good price will be lessened, as will its attraction in regard to fish landings. The charges will deal a blow to our competitive position in the United Kingdom, and, when they are imposed everywhere—as they will be—will deal a blow to the competitive position of British fishing, as opposed to the European position. The directive leaves it open, but I have no doubt that if charges are imposed everywhere, they will not be imposed in the same heavy-handed fashion elsewhere. Other countries do not have the hard-nosed water companies that we have.
Other countries are helping their fishing industries to adjust. Denmark, for instance—
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mitchell: I will in a minute, when I will be making a point directly relevant to my hon. Friend's constituency.
Denmark is giving its industry relocation grants. France is giving its processors 70 per cent. grants to enable them to install treatment equipment in their plants; 35 per cent. comes from the chamber of commerce, while 35 per cent. is provided by European grant money. Other countries are coping without higher charges, and that will deal a blow to the competitive position of Grimsby and the British industry as a whole. It will also deal a blow to fishermen, because the cost of fishing will increase. Fish is already experiencing difficulties in the supermarkets. Demand is down because the price is up: people are turning to alternatives such as chicken. As a result, there is surplus capacity on the processing side. We are already seeing manufacturers restructuring and jobs being lost, and the charges represent a further prod in that direction, because they will increase the cost of fish in the supermarket.
As soon as this became known, I was confronted by an outcry. I began corresponding with Anglian Water. The joys of corresponding with Anglian Water must be

991
experienced to be believed: I really ought to publish the correspondence on the internet. It involves all the pleasure of corresponding with an "I speak your charge" machine that replies only, "We must do this in order to clean up the environment. Charges will go up. You will enjoy it later."
Anglian Water has pretty much refused to budge. It did agree that its initial sampling procedures, on which it has based its charges, were wrong. I am glad that it agrees about that because the procedures were wrong, so Anglian Water has made no great concession in that respect.
I arranged a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. He urged compromise. Anglian Water said, "In that case, we will start the charges one month later." That, too, was no great concession because Anglian Water could not have started the charges in June anyway. It also said that it would limit the increase this year to two and a half times the existing charge, or 250 per cent when inflation is 2 per cent., provided that the full charge—up to 500 per cent. for smaller merchants, which will amount to about £250,000 for one of our biggest processors, Bluecrest come in—next year, so Anglian Water gets the merchants into its net, and then closes the trap.
Anyone who protests about the charges is now being referred by Anglian Water to its legal department. Such is Anglian Water's desire for accommodation and compromise. There is still to be an increase of 2.5 times, and a damaging blow is still to be dealt to Grimsby—and it is based on inaccurate information. Samples of the effluent that is discharged vary widely. The Sea Fish Industry Authority has carried out checks, and its findings are very different from those of Anglian Water, whose findings from surveys and spot checks fluctuate wildly.
There is no legitimate basis for these charges. It is a basic principle that charges should reflect the actual costs. Anglian Water does not know the actual costs, and it therefore has no legal or reasonable basis for the charges.
There has been no co-operation with the Fish Merchants Association, because Anglian Water has been unhelpful on the "divide and rule" principle. Indeed, Ofwat wrote to me on 28 June saying that
"Anglian Water did not properly consult fish merchants". properly.
That was a crushing indictment of Anglian Water.
Fish merchants have had no time to implement changes in their procedures to reduce effluent. All sorts of changes could be made, but they all take time, investment and planning. Merchants could use less water—which they use at the behest of their customers, who want the product to be clean and not to be filleted in dirty water—or they could arrange for primary treatment of effluent, or they could remove solids, which could be collected by the council. The big processors could construct a dissolved air flotation plant—which would cost £250,000, so it really is only for the big boys. Consents for direct sea discharges could be obtained. Small business men could be grouped, so that they might better cope with the charges or install plant to reduce effluent.
The Sea Fish Industry Authority is prepared to advise on alternatives; even Anglian Water could help and advise, but it has done nothing. The fact is that there has been no time to act on any alternative, because Anglian wants its money—its pound of fish—now.
992
The fishing industry in north-east Scotland has brought in environmental consultants—CORDAR—financed by local authorities, to tell it how it might reduce effluent and, therefore, the charges that it pays. In Grimsby, we have had no time to take similar action.
Anglian Water has not even considered the regulator's suggestions. The Environment Agency told me that
"scope exists for Anglian to present an argument to OFWAT that Grimsby fish merchants are a special case and their costs should be phased in."
To which, in a letter to me, dated 6 July, Anglian Water simply replied:
"Using the economic argument would set a precedent applicable to other groups".
Gosh—how awful it would be if people were able to contest charges on economic grounds!
On 7 April, the Office of Water Services suggested to Anglian that
"charges should be delayed until waste minimisation and agreed sampling procedures have been put in place."
There was no response.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has finally been stirred, and realised that the charges will damage the industry. MAFF urged caution in applying the charges, which are only one of many burdens being imposed on the fishing industry. MAFF has received no response from Anglian on the matter.
Grimsby is on the front line of this issue, as all the other water companies are waiting to see what happens there before imposing their own charges elsewhere. Some companies, such as Yorkshire Water, are being a little more sensible about the issue. However, South West Water is proposing increasing water charges from 3'7p to £5 per cubic metre. North-east Scotland's pelagic industry is facing a 28-fold increase in water charges. Therefore, everyone is waiting to see what happens on the front line.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) is interested in related events in Lowestoft, and I hope that he will lead the resistance to similar charging there.
Mr. Blizzard: Fish merchants in Lowestoft are watching the situation with great trepidation, as Anglian Water is just about to commence work, just north of Lowestoft, on a new sewage works, and we fear that the same charging regime may be imposed in my area. My hon. Friend has made the point very well that no business can face such crippling charges, and pointed out the irony that fish merchants' waste itself does not harm the marine environment.
I also tell my hon. Friend that my experience of Anglian Water is essentially the same as his—Anglian is arrogant and insensitive. Moreover, Anglian itself was recently fined £14,000 for polluting the beaches at Lowestoft, resulting in the loss of a European blue flag.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which reinforces the argument.
I should also emphasise that these Grimsby merchants are new Anglian Water customers. Previously, Associated British Ports added 18 per cent. to its charges, and then divided up those charges and billed individual businesses. When ABP discovered the size of the charge increases, it decided to let Anglian Water cut out the middle man and

993
crucify its customers directly. Those Grimsby merchants are therefore new customers, for whom Anglian should allow a one-year moratorium in applying the new charges so that a proper and legal charging basis may be agreed, and customers advised on how to reduce charges. After the moratorium, the new charges could be phased in.
I also ask the Government to consider how they might assist the British fishing industry, the competitiveness of which is being affected by a massive increase in charges. Our industry needs help and support which has been made available in Europe, but not in the United Kingdom. Something has to be done to encourage our industry. It needs encouragement and advice on training, and proper investment in new procedures to reduce effluent—which, consequently, would reduce bills. I am sure that no other European Union member state would insist that the new charging regime should be implemented as fully and rigorously as Anglian is trying to do.
Despite the temptation—as hon. Members will see, I am labouring under strong feeling on the issue—I shall not apply John Edmond's two-word description, one word of which was "greedy", to Anglian Water. I do not want to call Anglian greedy—its behaviour will prove whether it is. Nevertheless, Anglian Water has the power to do anything. It has the power to establish a moratorium and to phase in the charges gradually. It should exercise its power for the benefit of our fishing industry, which has been very hard hit, and to create good relations with its customers. It is a monstrous and unforgivable tactic for Anglian to use its legal department to threaten customers who express doubts about the size of the charge increases.
Anglian Water's only defence is but a sophisticated form of the Nuremberg defence. Anglian tells me, "We're improving the environment—everyone wants that". Anglian said:
"We are merely seeking payment for the services we are providing".
The Nuremberg defence was, "I have killed you for your own good and for the good of others", and Anglian has taken the same line.
Our fishing industry accepts the need to clean up the environment. It has cleaned up its own environment by using an enormous amount of water. However, it cannot absorb such a huge increase in charges. We are not at the 11th or the 12th hour—it is 12.30. Nevertheless, I tell Anglian Water that the charges will be resisted. I cannot advise merchants to pay the charges, or say, "You've got to behave reasonably towards Anglian Water because Anglian has behaved unreasonably and inconsistently towards the fishing industry."
I tell Anglian Water this, "If you persevere in blind, unaccommodating, inconsiderate and greedy behaviour, you will irreparably damage the fishing industry and—specifically, and in advance of the rest—the Grimsby fishing industry. You'll kill the goose that lays your golden eggs. If you do that, I'll not forgive you, Grimsby will not forgive you, and the fishing industry certainly won't forgive you."
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate. It is a very important debate not only because of the
994
importance of the United Kingdom fishing and food processing industries, but because of the importance of the communities in the areas represented by my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the Chamber.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, but also to other Labour Members for attending the debate. It is noticeable that only Labour Members have attended this very important debate on an issue affecting not only Grimsby but many other fishing communities across Britain. I am sad that Opposition Members have not bothered even to be here.
My hon. Friend has a long history of supporting and expressing the concerns of the fishing industries. I remember that, long before I was elected to the House—even before my hon. Friend was a Member of Parliament—in the mid-1970s, he was campaigning on issues affecting the fishing industries. Similarly, some of my other Friends in the Chamber, in their short time in the House, have expressed in the House concerns about food processing and fishing companies in their constituencies. My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) persistently raise their concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) also raises matters of concern frequently, but fishing is a devolved matter in Scotland, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who deals with these matters in Scotland, is present in the Chamber.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I ought to point out to the Minister, as the Chair has frequently had to do to hon. Members, that half-hour Adjournment debates are the property of the hon. Member who introduces them. They are not wide-ranging debates, and the absence or presence of other hon. Members has no significance for them. The debate is a matter between the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister.
Mr. Meale: I appreciate that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I referred to my hon. Friends because of the enormous number of representations made to me before the debate. I realise that the debate is narrow and time limited, but I recognise the concerns of many of my hon. Members.
This is a serious matter, but I must disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby by saying that the Government do not have the power to intervene in the charges set by Anglian Water this year. Under the law, we cannot tell Anglian Water what to charge. Neither Ministers nor Ofwat have the power to control charges, provided companies do not discriminate unduly and remain within price limits. Our only power—we have used it as best we can—is to encourage all parties to search for an agreed solution.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment recently met a delegation led by my hon. Friend. We have not been able to achieve an agreement, but I am more than willing to meet my hon. Friend, and others, to discuss their concerns. We shall use our best endeavours to gain some movement.
The Government value the fishing industry, and substantial grants for a range of improvements have been made to fish processors under the European Union fish processing and marketing scheme. Since the processing

995
and marketing and port facilities teams were launched in 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made grant awards totalling more than £8 million to English fish processors, markets and fishing ports. The Sea Fish Industry Authority, which is sponsored by that Ministry, recently produced a 50-page guidance note on water and effluent minimisation, which has been sent free of charge to fish processors. The document contains guidance to fish processors on how to identify areas of wastage and minimise increases in costs.
We support the determination of our fishing industries to be fully competitive internationally. My hon. Friend suggested that we should do more than other countries to improve the environment, and he said that firms abroad receive financial help for environmental improvements. Each EU country supports its industries in different ways to suit local arrangements, but there are legal limits on assisting industries financially without falling foul of competition rules.
If my hon. Friend has any evidence that other EU states have supported their fishing industries beyond the limits of competition rules, it would be a matter for the European Commission to investigate. Other member states have different priorities and contribute different shares to the EU budget. Their fishing industries are in different stages of development and vary in their relative importance to national economies. It would not be appropriate to seek to match the spending of other countries in these areas. Spain, for example, receives a much larger allocation than anyone else, because of the size of the Spanish fishing fleet and the relative poverty of the areas concerned.
To provide decent services and to protect the environment, it is reasonable to expect all users of services to pay their way. In particular, charges should broadly follow the principle that the polluter pays. Producers—including the fish processing industry—of trade effluent hitherto discharged with little or no treatment have benefited for many years from relatively low charges.
Mr. Frank Doran: My hon. Friend mentions the polluter pays principle, but one of our major difficulties is that different water authorities apply the rules differently. The industry is highly competitive, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) talks of possible job losses in Grimsby, I have to hope that some of those jobs might come to Aberdeen, but the playing field is not level.
Mr. Meale: I take that point, and I sympathise on the points made about the introduction of new charges. That is why I have offered to broker a deal.
996
Although the average bills of fish firms have been lower than average household bills, the firms produce much more effluent than households do. Consequently, their bills per cubic metre have been lower on average. According to Anglian Water, the previous charges to fish firms in the Grimsby area were about 25p per cubic metre. The increased charges work out at about 66p per cubic metre—just over half the volumetric price that domestic customers pay. Given the volume of fish firms' effluent, it is remarkable that previous trade effluent charges for some firms were as low as £112 when the average household sewerage bill in Anglian Water's area was £164 in 1998–99.
A few fish firms have claimed, as a reason for continuing to pay low charges, that they produce natural waste. However, fish processing includes processes such as battering and crumbing. It also produces discharges with a high content of putrescible solid waste. By its very nature, the industry is dirty, and effluent can contain blood, offal, oil, flour and other residues. The effluent is comparatively polluting and expensive to treat.
In England and Wales, since before privatisation, trade effluent charges have been calculated according to the Mogden formula, under which charges are set partly according to the nature of the effluent and partly according to the level of treatment undertaken. That is in line with the polluter pays principle, which we fully endorse.
Fish firms are being asked to meet the higher costs of treating their effluent to at least secondary standards, as is required by the urban waste water treatment directive. We support the directive's main aims, and I shall outline some of the main improvements that it requires. There should at least be minimum requirements for the treatment of all significant discharges of urban waste water from the sewerage network to fresh waters, coastal waters and estuaries. Secondary treatment—that is, treatment by a biological process—is required as the norm for urban waste water discharges.
The directive requires that the most potentially polluting urban waste water discharges—in other words, those into sensitive areas—should have been treated by the end of 1998. Those serving communities of 15,000 people or more must be treated to secondary standard or higher by the end of 2000, but treatment of smaller discharges can be deferred until the end of 2005. We consider that all of that is right, and we want improvements to be introduced as quickly as possible—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now begin the next debate.

Plymouth and Torbay (Objective 2 Bid)
1 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I am tempted to move to the Dispatch Box, given the absence of Conservative Members, but—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is the second time I have had to intervene. These half-hour Adjournment debates are the personal property of the hon. Member introducing them. The relevance of any other hon. Member attending them is not at issue; they are a matter only for the hon. Member introducing the debate and the Minister replying.
Mr. Sanders: The south-west region suffers from an outdated conception of its prosperity that is based either on an old-fashioned view of current conditions—often resulting from people's childhood experience of pleasant summer holidays—or a view that the east of the region, which is prosperous, is somehow typical of the entire region. In a sense, we are the victims of our own marketing strategy. We spend thousands of pounds marketing the area to the rest of the nation and overseas as a place that is good to visit, with a high-quality environment, good standards of accommodation and plenty of attractions. That tends to hide some of the social problems that lie behind the facade of the marketing strategy.
Cornwall's designation as an objective 1 region demonstrates that there are substantial problems in the west of the region, but those problems do not end at the Tamar bridge. My Cornish colleagues may even agree with me when I say as a Devonian that parts of my county are indistinguishable from the county of Cornwall: the tin mine ruins of west Devon, the chapels of north Devon, the fishing port of Brixham and, linking both counties as a main centre of education and employment, the city of Plymouth, which provides thousands of jobs, as well as education and health services, for people who live in Cornwall.
The Plymouth-Torbay-Devon arc essentially represents a dividing line between the prosperity of the main south-west region and the Cornwall-Devon periphery, where unemployment is significantly higher and GDP per capita considerably lower than the national, regional or European averages. Indeed, 56.5 per cent. of people in the arc area are economically active compared with 62.6 per cent. of people in the south-west generally, and 16 per cent. are recipients of income support, compared with just 12 per cent. in the rest of the region. Average earnings are 84 per cent. of the UK figure and our GDP per capita figure is 82 per cent. of the European average. The figure for my constituency of Torbay is equivalent to that for Cornwall, at 71 per cent.
The area's historic economic rationale and its recent problems derive from its natural environment. Inland, the importance of agriculture and the natural environment dominates, while, on the coast, the traditional industries of tourism, fishing, defence and support services have been in decline for some time.
The decline of dominant sectors has affected every part of the north, west and south of the county, and includes a substantial decline in industrial employment in Plymouth, the slow and inexorable decline in agriculture-related
998
employment throughout the rural part of the area, a continuing decline in the service sector, particularly resort tourism employment in Torbay and other coastal locations, and a decline in fishing and related industries.
Mr. John Burnett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a powerful case. We in Devon are delighted that Cornwall has received objective 1 status. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that if the Devon arc does not achieve objective 2 status, investment and jobs will go to Cornwall or remain in the prosperous areas to the east of the Devon arc, leaving us with a corridor of neglect?
Mr. Sanders: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is already evidence of that. A prospective call centre that wished to locate in my constituency is now looking at Cornwall rather than Devon because it has objective 1 status. There could be more such cases in future if our bid is not successful. One of the criteria laid down by the European Commission—which is also part of the Government's remit—is to assist areas adjacent to those that receive the maximum objective 1 support.
Ms Candy Atherton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will know that we in Cornwall were very grateful for the support of colleagues from Devon for our bid for objective 1 status. Is he aware of how much we recognise the importance of Devon's objective 2 bid? It is important to acknowledge that we are not in competition here. One reason for Cornwall's success was the unanimity across the wider south-west that we needed objective 1 status. It is vital that the message gets through that Cornwall is also calling for objective 2 status for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, just as Devon called for objective 1 status for us.
Mr. Sanders: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Other partnerships of support are emerging throughout the south-west. I was very pleased about the support from Somerset, Gloucester and Bristol and from right across the south-west, as well as from Cornwall.
Our economic problems did not occur overnight with the loss of a major employer or an industry such as steel or shipbuilding, but the social and economic effects are just as severe. The question that has to be answered is not whether the area should receive assistance but when.
The Plymouth-Torbay-Devon arc bid is not an immediate reaction to a new set of events, but a considered response to a long-term trend. Traditional employment opportunities have been in long-term decline, new sectors have failed to emerge and low-wage and often part-time employment dominates the labour market.
The trend towards low-wage and part-time employment has increased in recent years. The majority of jobs in sectors under threat, such as fishing and defence-related industries, have been full time and higher paid. As those jobs have declined, they have been replaced by predominantly part-time and lower-paid service sector jobs. Even in lower-paid industries, such as agriculture and tourism, there has been a move away from year-round, full-time jobs to more seasonal part-time jobs.
Even though there is a strong and vibrant hotel and catering industry in the region, and especially in my own constituency, it supports far fewer people in the area than it

999
did in the past. Gone are the days when a small guesthouse could generate enough to provide a sole income for the owners. Gone are the summer months when family-owned local shops would get a boost in trade that stopped the business from going under in the winter months. Gone are the week-long, bucket-and-spade holidaymakers in their thousands, whose holiday pay circulated in the local economy for months after their visit.
Today's visitor will spend more, but less of that money will stay in the local economy. It will be spent in national accommodation chains, nationally owned petrol stations and superstores, nationally run entertainment centres and tourist attractions and nationally franchised fast food outlets. Nationalisation in the literal sense has seen to that. Globalisation has had similar effects in fisheries, agriculture and defence—the other main south-west industries.
One of the main consequences of those changes is that well-educated, trained and skilled labour is fast becoming our main export to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Our problems were recognised under the far south-west objective 5b programme, the Plymouth objective 2 programme, through funding drawn down under European social fund objective 3 and Community initiatives such as PESCA, LEADER and KONVER.
The far south-west has an established track record of successfully implementing a number of European programmes, but the nature, mechanics and scale of previous programmes have only slowed the economic decline of the region. The 1994–99 programmes can be regarded as the start of the process of reversing decline, but it is far from complete.
The intention behind the new objective 2 bid is to build on past programmes. Already, a comprehensive partnership of local councils, businesses, community groups and voluntary organisations have come together and identified the main drivers for change. They include competitive small and medium enterprises. The long-term prosperity of the region is dependent on a strong, outward-looking and competitive business sector.
Technology and knowledge-based industries are also important. The growth of industries in which physical location and accessibility are less important presents opportunities for the far south-west. For example, 70 per cent. of all internet traffic in north America is transported on equipment made in south Devon. With our skilled work force, clean environment and strong university bases in Plymouth and Exeter, the area is very well placed.
We need to support sectors in transition. Adjustments in the agriculture, fisheries, defence and tourism sectors have hurt the local economy. With support from all four of the strands in the objective 2 programme, we can help those industries to create new opportunities and improve their competitiveness.
Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Gentleman is wise to have given way to me, because I intend to support him on this occasion and say what an excellent initiative he has taken in securing this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and I share his sentiments and support his case, and we hope that the Minister will be able to give us some good news.
1000
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the major factors in getting new money into Devon is that we should have a good transport network? Does he share our concern about the lack of railway development and agree that, without good air and rail transport, new industries will not want to locate in our area?
Mr. Sanders: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and agree that transport links are crucial. We may be able to tackle some of the transport problems through objective 2 funding, so it is doubly crucial that we secure it.
Community regeneration is another important economic driver. The major task will be to tackle the severe deprivation in the region's major urban centres as well as in some of the smaller towns. The failure of trickle-down approaches to the regeneration of deprived communities is now widely accepted. The region has a strong track record in community-led and co-operatively structured initiatives, with wealth and job creation centred on local needs, local labour markets and local solutions.
I think that the case has been made. It is one with which the Minister is familiar, as he has taken the trouble to visit the region and sample the reality of our economic circumstances. For that, we are grateful, and we assure him that a warm west country welcome awaits him should he want to make a return visit.
We await with confidence the Government's decision on which areas will qualify for the new objective 2 programme. There is all-party support for our case, and a wide partnership of councils, businesses and voluntary organisations is working together and hoping for the best. We know that we meet the criteria and we can demonstrate that we have the networks and partnerships to maximise the opportunities that objective 2 designation will bring.
We would like a hint that we are moving in the right direction, that the Government recognise that there are structural problems behind the marketing image that we create to attract visitors to our area, and that assistance is at long last on the way.
1.12 pm
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for securing this debate. We are trying to bring more sense to the way in which we spend public funds in the English regions and to consider more strategically all the elements that need to be put together to tackle the problems in areas such as his, which, as he says, I visited a few months ago. The regional development agencies have a role to play in advising Government on the disbursement of the single regeneration budget, on the development of our assisted areas map and regional selective assistance, and on the structural funds.
We are genuinely trying not only to formulate joined-up policies for the regions but to get joined-up money to implement them. The representations of the RDAs have made this an interesting period.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). This debate is as important to my constituents as it is to his.

1001
The difficulties of the economy in Plymouth are deep-seated. Is my right hon. Friend saying that we will be able to tackle the disparities through that joined-up thinking? The Treasury's public expenditure statistical analysis shows that the south-west is among the three regions receiving the least identified general Government expenditure. As he probably knows, in 1996–97 Scotland got £4,756 per head; Wales £4,553; the north-east £4,235; and London £4,601. By contrast, the south-west got only £3,651, or a whole £1,000 per resident less than Scotland. I hope that we will be able to begin to redress that, and the importance of objective 2 in that respect cannot be overstated.
Mr. Caborn: I cannot answer directly, because I do not know the composition of all the figures, but my hon. Friend makes a telling point.
We must take a strategic approach, and land use and transport planning are major parts of that. I hope that when the examination in public for the regional planning guidance for the area takes place we will be able to factor in some of the problems. One of the RDA's first actions was to underline its support for the extension of the runway at Plymouth airport: a decision clearly taken with an economic as well as an integrated transport perspective.
The hon. Member for Torbay eloquently put the case for his area and for Plymouth. As the Minister with responsibility for the English regions, I welcome the opportunity to reply to the points that have been made.
At the Berlin summit in March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured a very good deal on European funding for the regions in Britain, and many areas of the United Kingdom will benefit from funding for economic development and regeneration over the next seven years. We have always accepted the need for member states to take cuts in the size of their population covered by the funds to make enlargement affordable—that has been generally agreed in the House—but the cuts have to be fair. We are pleased to say that we have negotiated an outcome that we believe to be fair and affordable for all future and existing member states, including the United Kingdom.
Figures released by the Commission on 1 July confirm that the UK got a good deal at Berlin. UK regions will get funding of more than £10 billion for 2000-06 for economic development and regeneration. That funding will be good for jobs and investment in the regions. Money will be spent on projects involving business support, education, transport and the environment. We aim to target the support directly to the UK's neediest areas.
That deal shows the Government's commitment to maximising the benefits of European Union membership for the people of Britain.
Mr. Steen: As the Minister probably knows, a third of Torbay is in my constituency.
Mr. Sanders: A quarter.
Mr. Steen: A quarter, is it? I thought a third.
The Minister mentioned the most needy areas. Does he accept that the area under discussion is a needy area?
Mr. Caborn: I shall come to that in a minute.
1002
A unique package of support for Northern Ireland was secured at Berlin, as well as a special deal for the highlands and islands; both areas will continue to receive generous support of about £1 billion in total. Cornwall, West Wales and the Valleys, and South Yorkshire—my area—will receive objective 1 funding for the first time, and Merseyside will continue to be eligible.
It is not a great accolade to get objective 1. I think that I said that when I was in Cornwall. We do not aim for objective 1 or 2. We want to be at the top of the wealth creation league in Europe. That is what we have to strive for. I hope that, if I still have this job in seven years' time, I will not have to read out a catalogue of areas that have got objective 1 or 2 funding.
Mr. Burnett: The Minister is making a powerful point about market forces, but does he concede that, in our part of the world, there are, rightly, significant planning constraints, and that objective 2 would help us to get the seed corn investment in jobs that we so urgently require?
Mr. Caborn: I take that point, and it is why we are in the process of modernising the planning system. I have explained our new planning guidance on housing to the House several times, and have just done so to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. When I was in the Torbay area a few months ago, 350 workers had just been made redundant at Nortel. However, I spoke to the firm yesterday and was told that 500 people have been taken on to work in a new development. The Government want to assist wealth creation by business, through transport, land-use planning, and the economic benefits stemming from the regional development agencies.
Perhaps the most notable success in the Berlin summit discussions on the structural funds was to secure the two thirds safety net for most UK regions. Given the cuts in funding coverage, the safety net will be of significant benefit to the UK, as it will maintain two thirds of the existing population coverage under objectives 2 and 5b, which have been amalgamated. The original plans were not fair, and we had to negotiate hard to secure the safety net, which means that about 13.8 million people—rather than the 6.5 million originally proposed—will be covered between 2000 to 2006 under objective 2. That shows the extent of the Prime Minister's success in the negotiations.
On 30 March, the Government issued a public consultation paper, announced to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, to determine eligible areas for objective 2 funding. My hon. Friend invited interested parties to submit their views on possible eligible areas, as well as comments on preferred geographical areas—the NUTS areas to be covered—and outlines of the criteria that might be used to determine eligible areas.
That consultation ended on 25 May. More than 360 submissions were received from a wide range of individuals and organisations—indeed, 41 Members of Parliament wrote in support of their constituencies. I am very aware of the importance of the structural funds to the regions, as underlined by the response.
My hon. Friend and I have seen an enormous number of delegations over the past few months. As I said earlier, I have met the RDAs and representatives from each of the regional and local partnerships to discuss their objective 2

1003
proposals. That has all contributed to the process of drawing together priorities for the proposed areas. The work of the RDAs has been a significant contribution to what has been a mature discussion in Whitehall about dispensing public funds, and I am grateful for it.
We also need to bear in mind the fact that this is just one of a range of instruments to address need at regional and local level. The Government are committed to providing a strategic and co-ordinated approach to tackling need, however it is manifested. That means matching the instrument appropriately to need.
During my meetings with regional delegations, I have emphasised the need to ensure that their objective 2 proposals are inclusive of other forms of funding, such as the single regeneration budget and the new deal for communities. The structural funds should be part of a funding package for the next seven years, led by the regional economic strategy. It is unfortunate that the RDAs will not produce their economic strategies until the end of the year, but they became operational only on 1 April. However, the RDAs' emerging economic strategies have contributed to their thinking, and they have been able to factor some of that thinking into their representations to Government about how the regeneration funds should be dispensed.
My Department, in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments, is now looking at the criteria and areas for funding based on local and regional representations, to help draw up the UK's list of areas eligible for objective 2 status, with a view to submission to the European Commission in the summer.
However, I stress that no decisions have been made yet. All areas will be considered equally for inclusion on the basis of need and against objective criteria, whether they are industrial, rural, urban or fisheries areas. The Commission's proposed breakdown of percentage covered by each strand—10 per cent. for industrial areas, 5 per cent. for rural areas, 2 per cent. for urban areas and 1 per cent. for fisheries areas—is indicative at EU level, not at member state level.
The Commission's definitive position is not yet known. It has released the amounts of money involved, but it has not yet clarified the criteria. We are waiting for that clarification, and we shall start work on the various maps as soon as we get it.
Mr. Sanders: Does the Commission have to make that decision before any announcement of which areas qualify can be made? Will the Minister say who will make the decision, and how? Will it be made known first to the House?
Mr. Caborn: I would hope that the announcement will be made to the House, but of course that cannot happen if the House has risen for the summer recess. As soon as we get the information from the Commission—and we hope that that will be sooner rather than later—we will make the announcement, but the timing is not altogether in our gift. I hope that the Commission can be hurried up a little, but we shall have to wait and see.
Discussions will take place with the Commission after we submit our proposed areas to it. We expect that
1004
agreement will be forthcoming in the autumn. An announcement will be made of those areas that we propose to the Commission for eligibility under objective 2.
As I said, areas losing full objective 2 and 5b status will receive continued funding, at a reduced rate. They will have the flexibility to profile spending across the six years of transition that we have negotiated. The transition fund will be worth about £450 million, and will ensure continued funding for many areas that currently benefit from the structural funds.
I am sure that all hon. Members welcome objective 1 status for Cornwall. I hope that the county uses this unique opportunity effectively.
Ms Atherton: May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the people of Cornwall? I know that they are universally grateful for the work that he has done to secure objective 1 status for the county.
Mr. Caborn: I thank my hon. Friend, and can tell her that I shall be going to Cornwall for my holidays this summer, as I have done for the past 15 years. When the beauties of Torquay and Torbay were described earlier, I was reminded of my honeymoon, which was spent in Torquay. I have fond memories of the area.
Cornwall will receive about £315 million over seven years from 2000, which will go towards the regeneration of its infrastructure and economy. That will be a much needed and welcome boost for the area.
I referred earlier to my meetings with delegations from the regions. During my meeting in May with the south-west delegation, led by Jill Barrow, chief executive of the RDA, we discussed, among other things, the case for Torbay and Plymouth's eligibility for objective 2 status. As I said, well before that meeting I had visited Torbay in October 1998, at the invitation of the hon. Member for Torbay. I was made very much aware then of the importance of gaining objective 2 status for the economic and social regeneration of the area.
I have taken note of what has been said in the debate, and of the powerful case that has been made for objective 2 status for the Plymouth and Torbay area. As I have said, the Government have not yet finalised their proposals for the new map.
Mr. Steen: Does the Minister accept that Torbay is a needy area and requires objective 2 status?
Mr. Caborn: The representations made on behalf of the area have placed it in its rightful position in terms of the needs of the south-west as a whole.
Mr. Steen: It is not what it was on the Minister's honeymoon.
Mr. Caborn: That is true, but we shall consider the whole picture. I therefore cannot predict the outcome of the consultation for any area, and it would be wrong to try. We have been objective and transparent in the way that we have considered the wider issues of regeneration, beyond the structural funds. However. I can assure the hon. Member for Torbay that the case for Plymouth and Torbay—as for all areas in the UK—is being carefully considered.

Gas Industry (Regulation)
1.29 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: It is just over a year since I first had occasion to bring to the attention of the House the bullying and anti-competitive practices of Transco, a division of BG plc. I cannot decide whether my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry is more likely to begin his remarks by saying, "We must stop meeting like this," or with the somewhat less comradely, "Oh no, not you again." In the hope that it will be the former, let me start by bearing some good news.
Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure to stand with my constituent, Mr. Andrew Duffield, outside the High Court, where his solicitors had read a statement in open court announcing that BG plc had made an out-of-court settlement of £101,000 plus costs to Mr. Duffield and to his company, EGS—Exoteric Gas Solutions—in respect of the libel perpetrated against that company, which I had brought to the Minister's attention in last year's debate. That is indeed good news. I take the opportunity to thank him for his close and continuing interest in the case. But for his interest, BG plc might have taken even longer to capitulate. BG plc has deep pockets and it is hard for any impartial observer to do other than believe that it attempted to use its huge financial resources to bully a fledgling business into submission by forcing EGS to incur massive legal costs before settlement of the case.
If all I had to report were good news, however, I would not have presumed to detain the House this afternoon. In fact, I will expose lies and prevarication at the highest level in BG plc and Transco, and what must either be incompetence or a shameless lack of resolve on the part of the supposed regulator in the industry, the Office of Gas Supply.
Beneath all that, I will show that Transco's illegal and anti-competitive practices continue unabated, despite an enforcement order that was issued by Ofgas. Most disturbing of all, I will provide evidence that public safety has been jeopardised by Transco's change in response-time targets and in procedures for handling uncontrolled gas escapes.
I must provide the House with some background. The Gas Act 1986, which was amended in 1995, introduced competition to the business of connecting premises to the mains gas network. Previously, the market had been a monopoly controlled by British Gas-Transco.
In January 1997, Mr. Duffield, who had been a senior manager at Transco, left to set up a specialist gas connection company, EGS, to compete against Transco. Under the Gas Act, Transco is charged with custodianship of the gas mains network and all competitors such as EGS must apply to it for a quotation for the final-stage connection of any new development.
Without that information, EGS cannot provide an accurate quotation to the end customer for the cost of the scheme. For that reason, Transco has a statutory obligation not to abuse its position by delaying a quotation to its competitor to advantage its connections team, which is competing for the direct business. Nor may it over-quote for the final connection to EGS in order to raise the price quoted by EGS to the end customer, thereby making its bid uncompetitive.
1006
It was those statutory obligations that I accused BG plc of ignoring in the debate of 9 June last year. I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Richard Giordano, chairman of BG plc, to Mr. Duffield dated 24 June 1998. It says:
"I am fully aware of the statements made by Mr. Gardiner M.P. at the Adjournment debate in the House of Commons having received a full transcript from Hansard of the debate including the Minister's reply. BG plc is furnishing the Minister with a statement on the main issues that were raised, a copy of which will be passed to you."
That was a lie. Despite three reminder letters, no such statement was ever passed to Mr. Duffield.
I have a copy of an affidavit sworn by Mr. Christopher Lefevre, a director of Transco, in which he deals with the circumstances surrounding the production of the libellous e-mail, the same e-mail in respect of which BG plc has had to pay £101,000 plus costs. That e-mail was headed:
"BG plc Transco Memorandum from the Area Directors to all Managers of District Operations."
In the affidavit, Mr. Lefevre recalls that
"Phil Nolan, who was then Area Director for East Area, assumed the role of acting Area Director for South Area."
Thus, Mr. Nolan, in two capacities, can be said to have sent the e-mail that was from all the area directors.
More than that, in the affidavit, Mr. Lefevre recalls that
"Phil Nolan asked me to deal with a letter sent by OFGAS".
He continues:
"I had a general discussion about the issue with David Ashbourne, the Manager of Legal Services and decided to issue the e-mail of 27 March 1997 instructing staff not to deal with the Plaintiffs"—
that is, EGS.
On 1 September 1997, the same Phil Nolan wrote to Mr. Duffield specifically to confirm:
"I have issued no such instruction and there are no such instructions to that effect in place."
That, too, is a lie. Phil Nolan has since been promoted to become managing director of Transco. Like the chairman of BG plc, Mr. Giordano, he remains in post.
The Minister is aware that, in February, Ofgas finally issued a decision document relating to its investigation of Transco. The document concluded that
"there have been unacceptable delays in Transco's quotations for connections, that there has been overcharging and that Transco's behaviour is anti-competitive".
It goes on to say:
"There is a likelihood of continuing breaches, if action is not taken",
and states unequivocally that
"information provided by Transco in the course of the investigation has proved to be untrue".
At last we have some tough talk from the regulator. It is two years too late perhaps, but, despite the fact that Ofgas stubbornly refuses to interpret the Gas Act as allowing it to punish past action, at least it insists on compliance with statute and the introduction of a system of compensation for any future breaches. The order states:
"The scheme shall provide as a minimum for payments to be made in such amounts in such circumstances and on such terms as are provided in Attachment 2 to this order."

1007
Let us examine attachment 2, which deals with claims for compensation. Paragraph 7, subsection (ii) provides that:
"If, before the expiry of five working days from the submission of the claim the quotation is adjusted by Transco so that the reason why it was thought to be excessive has been addressed to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who submitted the claim no compensation shall be payable by Transco".
That may not pass the crystal clear standard of plain English, but the effect is devastating. It means that Transco has every incentive to continue overcharging in the certain knowledge that, even if it is caught out, all it will need to do is agree to reduce the charge to the proper level within five working days. It will then not have to pay any compensation at all—not even the client's costs of showing that it has overcharged. That is not regulation, but a fraudster's charter.
The case of Mrs. Moyies provides an example of Transco's racketeering and of Ofgas's total ineffectiveness as a regulator. She lived in an area of Cumbernauld that was not supplied from the gas mains. She obtained a quote from Transco to have her home connected at a cost of £2,730.17, an exorbitant sum, but she calculated that, within three years, the savings on her Calor gas bills would have recouped that enormous investment. She borrowed the money and got connected by Transco.
Over the next few weeks, Mrs. Moyies's supply was cut off by Transco as it connected neighbouring properties. Those were connected for £146 per house. When she complained, her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna), who is my good friend, took up her case and brought it to the attention of Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council. Transco insisted that the charge was correct. Mrs. Moyies had to pay for the extension of the mains and it was then permissible for Transco to spur off that extension to neighbouring properties. Neither Ofgas nor the Gas Consumers Council had the expertise to show that Transco had overcharged.
Fortunately for Mrs. Moyies, Mr. Duffield heard of the case on Radio 4's "You and Yours" programme. He was able to demonstrate that Transco had overcharged by 120 per cent. Mrs. Moyies's bill was reduced from £2,730.17 to £1,231.14. Transco had overcharged in accordance with its own statement of charges, which it published and which were provided to the Director General of Ofgas herself.
In a letter of 5 May 1999, some six months after the original complaint to Ofgas, Mr. Graham Boorer, gas distribution engineer of Ofgas, wrote:
"Transco accepts that the charge was not in accordance with its Condition 5 charging methodology and that it overcharged for the connection."
What did Ofgas do? It looked carefully at condition 5 paragraph (7) of the Department of Trade and Industry's standard conditions of public gas transporters' licences, which states:
"Where a statement in respect of the determination of such charges as are mentioned in paragraph (3) has been furnished to the Director under paragraph (3) or (4) then unless and until it has been superseded by a subsequent statement under paragraph (4), the licensee shall not make such a charge or agree or offer to make
1008
such a charge as is so mentioned other than the one determined in accordance with the methods and principles shown therein, unless the Director otherwise consents."
Transco made a charge other than the one determined in accordance with the methods and principles shown therein. This was Transco's own statement of charges as mentioned in paragraph (3), which provides:
"The licensee shall comply with any directions given by the Director to furnish him with a statement showing the methods by which, and the principles on which"
such charges are to be made.
Ofgas argued that although the statement had been sent by Transco to the Director General of Ofgas, although Transco had published and accepted it as its basis of charging and although it accepted that it had contravened that statement and overcharged Mrs. Moyies, Ofgas could do nothing because the director general had never asked for the statement as per paragraph (3). Of course she had not done so. One does not ask for something that one already has. Ofgas is supposed to be the rottweiler regulating the industry. In fact, it is the industry's lap dog, or more accurately, it is Transco's.
The Ofgas connections steering group has collected statistics from Transco itself, which show that out of 77 responses to inquiries during September and October last year only 57 per cent. were within Transco's own standards. That record is appalling enough, but the strange thing is that it improves so dramatically—to 86 per cent. within standard—if one excludes responses to Mr. Duffield's company EGS.
Only 21 per cent., or one in five, of Transco's responses to EGS were within standard. An objective observer might regard that as clear evidence of blatant discrimination against EGS. Ofgas continues to regard those responses as a series of isolated and unconnected mistakes on the part of Transco.
In a letter dated 25 February 1999, Mr. William Sprigge, Ofgas's legal counsel agrees that:
"BG has on occasions treated EGS differently to other businesses requesting quotations."
However, he is quick to add:
"Whether this has been deliberate is uncertain. We therefore cannot say that BG has not deliberately treated EGS differently to other businesses requesting quotations; nor can we say that it has."
For such a shameless display of fence-sitting, I simply express the wish that all Mr. Sprigge's fences be henceforth topped with razor wire.
Finally, I must make good my claim that there is evidence that Transco has prejudiced public safety by its changes to the procedures for handling gas escapes and the reduction in response time targets for such incidents. Prior to the establishment of Transco in 1994, BG responded to more than 99.99 per cent. of uncontrolled gas escapes within one hour. Since Transco took over, its performance has fluctuated between 97 per cent. and 92 per cent. Given that there are more than 1 million calls a year, that means there are tens of thousands of occasions on which the public has been exposed to a significant danger for longer than would have been the case under the old British Gas company.
In May 1997, Mr. David Varney, BG plc's chief executive, wrote following a challenge at the company's annual general meeting that:
"concerning the figure of 96 per cent. performance against the applicable regulatory standard of attending uncontrolled gas escapes within one hour, the information, as best we know it, is accurate…

1009
In terms of your query as to the former standard of 99 per cent. within one hour, I confirm that we are working to improve performance in this area. However, we are not in a position to disclose information relating to the 1997 target at this time."
Changes in response times are not the only adverse changes in safety standards that Transco has introduced. New working practices mean that teams attending uncontrolled gas escapes are often unsupervised. In some cases, the line manager is 100 miles away and yet different workers at the site believe that other members of their team have a supervisory role, which they do not.
I ask the Minister to raise those matters with the Health and Safety Executive and to establish what percentage of responses Transco currently meets within one hour, its current target response figure and the steps that it has taken to ensure proper supervision at the site of uncontrolled escapes and clarity and responsibility among the teams attending.
I said what steps Transco "has taken" because the safety issue is not new to Transco. Indeed, a report was prepared for the area directors of Transco in December 1996 by a senior manager who had particular expertise in the investigation of incidents and the formulation of policies and procedures to minimise the risk of further escapes. That investigation revealed that safety standards had fallen substantially from those inherited in 1994. In particular, the investigation revealed that procedures developed in response to previous incidents had lapsed into disuse. A serious question was raised about whether a single one of Transco's directors possessed the necessary skills and operational experience to carry out the proper review of incident trends.
The original draft of that report caused such a stir that its commissioner, Mr. Lefevre, phoned its author, who was buying a sandwich in his lunch hour. On answering his mobile phone in the supermarket, the author was curtly asked to destroy the report. He refused to do so, but eventually agreed to modify some of the language contained in it. The author of that report, which caused such embarrassment and disquiet to Transco, was of course Mr. Andrew Duffield who had been assigned that as a final project before his departure to set up EGS.
Some people might venture that the extraordinarily poor service that EGS has received from Transco in the past two years—the constant delays in quotation, habitual overcharging, and the refusal to pay the prescribed penalties for statutory breach even where it is admitted that they are due—has been in no small way related to the embarrassment that Transco felt at Mr. Duffield's report on its company safety.
Be that as it may, the fact that Ofgas has either not possessed, or failed to apply, powers to protect Mr. Duffield is just as serious. It must be the concern of all hon. Members that assurances are sought and received from Transco about public safety, that anti-competitive behaviour in the industry is eradicated and that Ofgas begins to take seriously its role in regulating that industry and protecting consumers such as Mrs. Moyies and companies such as EGS.
1.50 pm
The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for raising this matter again and for securing this debate. I welcome the debate; he should not
1010
apologise for returning to the matter. It is the role of us all as Members of Parliament to persist in drawing attention to injustices and flaws in the structure of our laws and budgets. He has done so assiduously. He has raised serious matters on behalf of his constituent.
Although the Government do not run energy industries—all the companies operate privately in the marketplace—the gas and electricity industries are subject to competition regulation, to tackle both abusive market power and anti-competitive market practices. The independent regulator—there is now one regulator for the gas and electricity industries—operates within the relevant Acts of Parliament.
When we came into office in 1997, we inherited the Gas Act 1995 and the Electricity Act 1989, which set out the parameters for activities. We decided that, although they were okay as far as they went, they were flawed. We are updating them, and, when we have an opportunity, we shall change them through primary legislation. Indeed, we have already acted to change the terms of operation under the licence conditions.
My hon. Friend asked some detailed questions about the interpretation of conditions of standard. If I cannot reply now to all his points, I shall ensure that he receives a detailed response in a follow-up letter.
The gas and electricity industries occupy a crucial position in the United Kingdom economy, accounting for 2 per cent. of the gross domestic product. They provide essential services to millions of people. Our intention is to ensure that consumers come first and that the regulatory regime reflects that. We accept that the system is far from perfect and have already implemented a better and fairer one, which re-emphasises the consumer.
We issued a Green Paper on the regulation of utilities last spring, which laid the foundations for a better and more efficient regulatory system. We proposed to improve and align gas and electricity regulation under a single energy regulator, to separate electricity distribution and supply, and to provide a new basis for delivering policies to encourage energy efficiency and generation from renewable sources.
In response to our consultation in July 1998, we announced the intention to merge the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Office of Gas Supply. They now fall under a single energy regulator in one body. We also announced that the new regulator should organise the appropriate structure in which all energy industries are regulated. We have made a fresh start, with the appointment of one person to the posts of Director General of Gas Supply and Director General of Electricity Regulation—not least because electricity companies are now selling gas, and gas companies are now selling electricity.
Such a structure needs to be reinforced by law, and, when parliamentary time allows, we shall align the regimes of electricity and gas regulation, which were out of sync under the legislation that we inherited.
We have also taken action to change the rules when they do not work immediately in favour of the customer. As a result of complaints that I as a Minister and many other hon. Members have received about door-step selling, we inserted a marketing clause into the gas suppliers' licence to challenge bad practices and improve them. We intend to use the proposed utilities Bill to sort out regulation at the earliest opportunity.

1011
My hon. Friend has pursued the case of Exoteric Gas Solutions with me and my Department. We have had many meetings and much correspondence on the issue, which was raised in the House in June last year. Following his constituent's complaint, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—Ofgem—carried out a thorough investigation into Transco's connections business, and found Transco to be in breach of standard condition 11(1) of its licence and section 9(2) of the Gas Act.
Ofgem consequently made an enforcement order against Transco, requiring it to introduce systems for handling quotations for connections to its pipeline system and to achieve the International Standard Organisation 9001 standard for the systems. Transco also had to introduce a liability scheme for failures to meet standards of service. Ofgas, as it was then, imposed the enforcement order on Transco on—I think—19 February, so things have moved on significantly since last June.
To be in breach of an enforcement order is a serious matter. It is the first time that such an order has been made against Transco. It takes the form of a public notice and the company must take responsibility for it. I know that Transco is taking it very seriously.
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the particular case of Mrs. Moyies's connection. I cannot answer it in detail in the House, but I will ask for a thorough investigation of the practice in order to draw out implications for the structure of the entire connections industry.
My hon. Friend mentioned that legislation allows the Director General of Gas Supply to make provision in a final enforcement order for a monetary penalty. In addition, if an enforcement order is made and not complied with, the legislation confers the right of action on persons who suffer loss or damage as a result of that non-compliance, subject to certain defences.
That describes the situation under the regulatory regime that we inherited from the previous Administration. We are considering those arrangements very carefully to see whether improvements can be made for future cases of alleged breach of licence conditions. It may be possible to give the regulator powers to impose monetary penalties that are proportionate to the circumstances for past as well as continuing breaches of licence conditions. I know that that is what my hon. Friend has consistently and persistently campaigned for, and I hope that we can give him some solace in the not too distant future.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on bringing this important matter before the House and particularly on highlighting the lack of
1012
expertise available to assist consumers in pursuing such issues. In the forthcoming utilities Bill, for which we hope, and the follow-up to the review, will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that the Gas Consumers Council or its successor body has the resources to make such expertise available?
Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She has championed energy consumer councils in her time in the House. In the revised regulation that we hope to introduce under the utilities Bill in the not too distant future, we hope to give consumers a much strengthened voice through the consumer councils. As she said, that means that they ought to have the resources to enable them to do the job well and properly.
I should mention the important question of safety, which is paramount. Under the licence condition, which is tighter than the general condition, a response must be made within one or two hours. I should emphasise that the National Audit Office, a body entirely independent of the Government, published a report on competition in the domestic market on 12 May, and some of its headline points were encouraging.
As we know, prices are down; all suppliers are offering lower tariffs. Customers have a choice; 26 companies are active in the domestic market. Crucially, safety has been maintained and the quality of service to customers has on the whole improved. I shall keep a close eye on safety, although the NAO's report was encouraging and I was heartened by the fact that it was, in the main, so positive.
On the downside, the report pointed out that many customers do not have sufficient knowledge of changing structures. There has been a maelstrom of change since the days of one nationalised gas company. Companies have proliferated, with new entrants to the marketplace as well as the separation of former nationalised industries. People do not know how much the market has changed or know what to expect. It is all right saying that they all have choice, but if they do not know of what, life is made incredibly difficult. There have been complaints of poor selling techniques and lack of information on what to expect. That in turn can drag down quality and performance. I am determined that that shall not happen, and I am sure that the regulator cannot tolerate it either.
I shall look in detail at all the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North has made. We must consider how we shape the market's regulatory structure for the future. That is precisely the point of our White Paper—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

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

    Tourism
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the state of tourism in Wales, with particular reference to raising standards of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. [88521]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I had responsibility for this matter until 1 July. In difficult circumstances, the industry in Wales has performed well. We have allocated an additional £1 million to the Wales tourist board. Quality standards in the bed-and-breakfast sector—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister said that he had responsibility until 1 July. It is 7 July. Is it not a devolved matter?
    Mr. Hain: I understand that, Madam Speaker. I was just explaining that it is a devolved matter, but I was talking about what had gone on until 1 July.
    Madam Speaker: Yes, but if it is a devolved matter, we must pass on.
    Mr. Hain: It is indeed, from 1 July.
    Madam Speaker: Thank you.

    Welsh Legislation
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: What plans he has to introduce amendments to legislation dealing specifically with the needs of Wales with regard to (a) the Government of Wales Act 1998, (b) the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, and (c) the Welsh Language Act 1993; and if he will make a statement. [88522]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): None.
    Mr. Wigley: I believe that this is not a devolved matter. I thank the Secretary of State, who also doubles up as First Secretary, for that comprehensive answer. Does he agree that there will be times when legislation to deal with Wales alone, such as the three Acts referred to in the question, will need amendment—perhaps relatively minor amendment—to enable the Assembly to undertake its work and to allow other activities in Wales to go forward? Does he agree that it would be helpful to have a fast-track procedure to deal with such legislation? Is he involved in discussions about the possibility of the Welsh Grand Committee being reinvented to enable such relatively small changes to go forward?
    Mr. Michael: The Assembly is free to ask the UK Government to amend primary legislation. In another
    1014
    place, the right hon. Gentleman and I might well discuss where it was appropriate for those requests to be made. If the Government agreed, the Secretary of State for Wales would steer the amendments through Parliament. It is for this House to decide how it would deal with such matters. I am sure that the appropriate authorities understand the right hon. Gentleman's point and will consider it.
    Mr. Llew Smith: My right hon. Friend's predecessor as Secretary of State for Wales said that we needed a Welsh Assembly because Wales was increasingly run by quangos. I was not a great supporter of the Welsh Assembly, but I am certainly opposed to quangos. The previous Secretary of State also gave a commitment to end the quango state in Wales and make a bonfire of the quangos. Will the present Secretary of State give us a date when the commitment will be met and the bonfire will happen so that we can all attend?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend should attend regularly as we remove quangos. The Cardiff Bay development corporation will wind up its affairs by the end of March next year. A number of organisations, have already been folded. It is important that the Assembly is taking on its responsibilities. During the Assembly's short time in being, a lot of which has been devoted to preparing the ground for future action, Members of the Assembly and the Assembly Cabinet have been engaging with the policies and activities that have previously been the responsibility of quangos. The underlying trend of my hon. Friend's question is being pursued.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: As the Secretary of State has said, the National Assembly for Wales has been running effectively for only a week. It is no surprise that the nationalists are looking, under the Government of Wales Act 1998, for further transfers of power. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment to the House of Commons and to the people of Wales that there will be no more transfers of powers from Westminster to Wales, particularly tax-raising powers, until the people of Wales have been given their say in a referendum?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. He attacked the nationalists for wanting to go further, but his party did not want to go anywhere and has made a sad lack of contribution to date. The job of the National Assembly is to make the current devolution settlement work. It is good settlement, which provides an opportunity for those who have been elected to the Assembly by the people of Wales to bring accountability and creativity to bear on policies directly affecting Wales. That is what is happening in Cardiff bay now.

    Beef Industry
    Ms Jackie Lawrence: When he next intends to meet the Assembly Secretary responsible for agricultural issues to discuss problems in the beef industry. [88524]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, but I am delighted to see that Christine Gwyther,

    1015
    as the Assembly Secretary with responsibility for agriculture and the rural economy, has taken up her duties with such strength, integrity and determination.
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the Minister announces that it is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, I cannot allow the House to trespass on those responsibilities. [Interruption.] If the Minister tells me that it is a matter for the Assembly, it cannot be a matter for the House, correct?
    Mr. Michael: Correct.

    Abattoirs
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What representations he has received regarding the number of European Union export approved abattoirs in Wales. [88525]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): None.
    Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister undertake to launch an investigation into the administrative and regulatory burdens that are faced by abattoirs in Wales as compared with the rest of the European Union? Will he undertake to publish the findings of those studies? Can he assure the House that the studies will be carried out by impartial and proper sources, not vegetarians?
    Mr. Jones: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or, in Wales, for the National Assembly.
    Madam Speaker: Order. In that case, it is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. It cannot be the responsibility of both this House and the Assembly.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I cannot take points of order in the middle of Question Time. Once we break our rules, there will be no end to it.

    NHS Funding
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: When he last met the Assembly Secretary with responsibility for health to discuss the funding of the NHS in Wales. [88526]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): I am delighted to see that devolution is working through in the way that Jane Hutt has taken up her role as Health Secretary in the Assembly. She is one of four women appointed to the Assembly Cabinet. This is already making a significant impact on the serious problems of the NHS in Wales, which is in a parlous state owing to the incompetence of the last Government. The Assembly will make a significant impact towards improving that situation.
    Miss Kirkbride: I am delighted to see that, after the farce we have just experienced, the national health service
    1016
    is still a matter for this House. According to the Secretary of State's answer, the Government still have responsibility and they have a great deal to answer for when it comes to the NHS in Wales. The Secretary of State will be aware that, on 31 March 1997, the waiting list for the waiting list—people diagnosed by their general practitioner as needing treatment and waiting to see a consultant to be put on an official waiting list—was 5,956 in the Principality. By 31 May 1999, 26,094 people were waiting for their initial hospital appointment. That is an increase of 400 per cent. as a result of the Government's policies for the health of the people in Wales. Is it not time that the Government admitted that, under Labour, the health service is getting worse?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady clearly does not understand the damage done by the previous Conservative Government, for which she and her hon. Friends should apologise. The hon. Lady also does not understand that these matters are now the responsibility of the National Assembly, which is seeking to tackle them.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend remind me whether the amount of money spent on the health service has increased substantially ahead of inflation? Is anything being done about the burden of debt that faced the health service before 1997 and which it is taking so much time to get grips with?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the period up to 1 July, strenuous efforts were made to prepare the ground for the Assembly's taking over the NHS in Wales and to enable it to tackle precisely the problems my hon. Friend raises. A stocktake that I set in motion will be available to the Assembly as it takes up its functions, to inform it as it tries to improve the parlous situation that he describes.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Today, it would seem that the Secretary of State for Wales is hardly responsible for anything to do with Wales. Welsh questions will increasingly become a laughing stock if that is allowed to continue. However, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the total block grant out of which health spending comes, so perhaps he can say whether he believes sufficient resources are being spent on the NHS in Wales.
    The Secretary of State knows that waiting lists for admission to hospital are getting longer and that each extra person waiting means stress and pain for those involved. On 16 June, David Davies, an Assembly Member, wrote to the right hon. Gentleman about a Newport man who has been told by his consultant that he needs a quadruple heart bypass and that he could die within six months. The man is now on a 10 to 12-month waiting list for an operation at Morriston hospital, Swansea. What will the Secretary of State do? What action will he take to ensure that that life-saving operation is carried out as soon as possible? Is it not time that the Government woke up to the fact that it is waiting times that are important, not merely waiting lists?
    Mr. Michael: It is the hon. Gentleman who is a laughing stock—his synthetic anger is pathetic. The Conservative Government failed the NHS in Wales. He is right to say that there is a responsibility on the Secretary

    1017
    of State to provide resources. Massive additional resources have been provided, but the problem is the state of administration and the financial chaos in which the Conservative Government left the NHS in Wales.
    The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not matters for this House, but matters for the Assembly. That is why he quoted an Assembly Member raising the question.

    Assisted Area Map
    Mr. Barry Jones: When he intends to meet Assembly Secretaries to discuss the assisted area map of Wales. [88527]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): That is a matter for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has lead responsibility, but, as Secretary of State for Wales, I was directly involved in those discussions until 30 June. The Assembly Cabinet will take the matter forward with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Jones: Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend has discussed those matters with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? May I persuade him that it is absolutely vital to my constituency that we retain assisted area status and that we have restored to us objective 2 status, which was taken away five years ago by the previous Administration? Does he accept that Airbus, Raytheon and the many companies on Deeside industrial park need to know that, in the years ahead, my constituency will have assisted area status and objective 2 status, so that we can continue to obtain investment—especially investment from abroad—and the grants available to indigenous industry? May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that Deeside remains on the assisted area map?
    Mr. Michael: My right hon. Friend always makes the best possible case for his constituency. With him, I have visited both Airbus and Raytheon and I am impressed by their work. Through him, I congratulate the workers at Raytheon on their successes in recent weeks. I can certainly confirm that the best possible case for Wales has been made within Government and that Cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, have listened carefully and sympathetically.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: As we know, this is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. In his discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has the Secretary of State for Wales emphasised the importance of obtaining assisted area status for the upper Swansea valley, which has been badly hit by unemployment? Can he give us any idea when an announcement will be made on assisted area status, which would give a much-needed injection to such areas?
    Mr. Michael: Both I and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), as junior Minister responsible have done everything possible within the powers of the Welsh Office and in co-operation with other colleagues to ensure that the enormous problems in the upper Swansea valley are understood and that everything possible is done. I cannot say more than I have
    1018
    about the short period that we have to wait before the full details are available, but the hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that we fully understand and share his concerns.

    Beef Exports
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: When he expects exports of beef products to resume from Wales. [88528]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): A great deal sooner than would have happened under the previous Government. I am pleased with the progress that our Government have made to date towards achieving the lifting of the beef export ban, but these are matters for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in future he will involve the National Assembly for Wales in his deliberations.
    Mrs. Winterton: Despite the Labour Government's boast about the lifting of the export ban way back in November 1998, no British beef has yet reached the continent. The Government have failed to remove any further barriers set up by the European Union. What discussions has the Minister had with the Agriculture Secretary in Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the future of the calf processing aid scheme? Does he agree that it is vital that that scheme be extended until the export ban is lifted and beef is exported and until the market has righted itself again?
    Mr. Jones: We are very near to persuading the EU finally to allow beef to be exported from this country. We expect the first beef to be exported in the very near future—this summer, I hope. The hon. Lady claims that the Government are not succeeding where her Government lamentably failed. They produced the difficulty in the first place, and I think that she should have some shame.
    Ms Jackie Lawrence: The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has asked a question which I hoped to ask under Question 3. In any meeting with the Agriculture Secretary in Wales will the Minister stress the mature and responsible attitude of the National Farmers Union in Wales, which stated this weekend that any unilateral moves to remove the ban on beef on the bone in Wales could damage the efforts to get the export ban on beef lifted?
    Mr. Jones: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. The NFU has acted extremely responsibly. This is a difficult issue. We are working towards an objective that all the industry would share—the lifting of the export ban.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister makes much of the lifting of the ban. He says that he hopes to see exports in the summer. Let us cut the waffle. The Minister knows that the beef farmers will be listening to what he has to say. Not a single carcase of beef has gone abroad from Wales or anywhere in the United Kingdom for that matter. Will the hon. Gentleman give Welsh farmers a date on which the first beef will be slaughtered and exported from Wales to the rest of Europe?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman asks for a specific date. I recall that when the Labour party was in

    1019
    opposition, the Conservative Government constantly referred to a date—a November, I believe it was. The lifting of the ban never came and no beef was exported. The Conservative party seems more interested in renegotiating the treaty of Rome than renegotiating the rights of British farmers. The beef ban will be lifted under the Labour Government soon and farmers know that they can trust the Government to act in their interests, while the Conservative party let them down extremely badly.

    Concordats
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: If he will make a statement on the preparation of concordats between the National Assembly and Whitehall Departments. [88530]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The UK Government expect to send a draft memorandum of understanding and related concordats to the Assembly Cabinet shortly for its consideration. These documents will set out administrative arrangements designed to secure the smooth operation of the devolution settlement.
    Mr. Rowlands: During the referendum debates, we made a clear commitment to the people of Wales that there would be a Secretary of State for Wales in this House answerable for all oversight matters in Welsh affairs and other Government Departments. Given the shambles that has occurred this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Secretary of State for Wales will be accountable and answerable in this House for oversight matters in other Government Departments when they relate to Welsh matters?
    Mr. Michael: The only shambles this afternoon has been that hon. Members—mainly Opposition Members—have not understood that devolution has taken place and have asked questions on matters that are for the Assembly, and not for this House.
    The answer that I gave indicates that concordats will deal with the relationships between Government Departments and the Assembly, and that will provide the necessary clarity. In many cases, it will be a matter for the Assembly and the Secretaries of State with other responsibilities. However, there is an important role for the Secretary of State for Wales and that will continue.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not a fine state of affairs when a former Welsh Office Minister of the status of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) sees fit to describe the present arrangements as a shambles? Does not that only go to show what happens when a Government impose, for ideological reasons, a system that is not wanted by the majority of the people in Wales and which squeaked through by only 6,000 votes in the whole country on a tiny turnout, despite the Prime Minister begging his Labour supporters in Wales to let the proposal go through?
    Mr. Michael: That question was asked with the flavour of bitterness, arising from the hon. Gentleman's knowledge that his party was swept away so completely at the general election that it does not have a single representative in Wales. Events this afternoon have
    1020
    demonstrated that the Conservatives have not understood the responsibilities that have been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales, where they are being taken up with vigour. The settlement was not imposed—it was voted on by the people of Wales in a referendum. The hon. Gentleman waving his arms in the Chamber will not change that fact.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: When the Secretary of State for Wales next meets the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, will he convey the happiness and congratulations of this House on the splendid start made by the National Assembly, which has resulted in growing approval for the idea of devolution in Wales, a new sense of pride and identity in the Welsh nation and, to our great satisfaction, the marginalisation of the Tory party?
    Mr. Michael: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I will make sure that they are passed on not just to the First Secretary, but to other Members of the Assembly. His remarks will be appreciated.

    Ministerial Duties
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What proportion of his working time is taken up by his duties as Secretary of State for Wales; and how he separates his responsibilities to this House and to the National Assembly. [88531]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): At the present time, my key priority is to achieve the smooth transition from the previous role of the Secretary of State, as it was until 1 July, to the role of the Secretary of State following devolution on the one hand, and to the role of First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the other hand. In both roles, I serve the interests of this House, the interests of the Assembly and the interests of the people in Wales.
    Mr. Bruce: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that it seems extraordinary that a person can be responsible within Cabinet as Secretary of State and as First Minister, where he has a clear responsibility to the Assembly in Wales. Surely this should not continue constitutionally. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman immediately resign from at least one of those posts?
    Mr. Michael: That shows the hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding of the process that we must go through. Obviously, he does not understand the versatility that we are able to demonstrate on this side of the House. I have always said that I would step down as Secretary of State for Wales after weeks rather than months, but the experience to date confirms that it was wise to combine the two roles during the period of transition. That is obvious from a Welsh perspective, but not from the jaundiced point of view of the hon. Gentleman.

    Barnett Formula
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What representations he has received with regard to the Barnett formula in relation to Wales; and if he will make a statement. [88533]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): There have been a number of presentations, mainly during my predecessor's time when the Government of Wales Bill was under consideration in this House.
    The principle behind the formula—that Wales gets a population share of changes in the comparable programmes in England—is clear and easy to understand. Most criticism of the formula confuses the absolute size of the block with the formula for changes. They are two different things.
    Mr. Llwyd: I wish to refer to the additionality principle in terms of bringing in further moneys to bring forth objective 1 projects. I seek the Secretary of State's assurance that his office will adhere to the additionality principle, and that any moneys coming in will be over and above those already provided for in the Barnett block.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman goes off at a tangent. I think that he is referring to structural funds. I can reassure him that the principle of additionality is an obligation on the UK Government, which they will seek to fulfil, as they have in the past. As the Prime Minister stated when he was asked a similar question in Cardiff, the Government will not let Wales down.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the Secretary of State agree that, before we even begin to think of devolution as a process, not a change, the Assembly must be seen to exercise its existing powers effectively? Does he further agree that it can do so only if Wales is sufficiently funded under the Barnett formula, and if sufficient attention is given to matched fnding, particularly in relation to objective 1 funding?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend goes off on another tangent. Those are matters that must be dealt with in the process of the comprehensive spending review, when the burdens and the opportunities available will be considered. My hon. Friend refers to the fact that we achieved objective 1 status, which is so important for the valleys of south Wales, for mid-Wales and for north Wales. That achievement was brought about through the success of a Labour Government fighting for Wales. Over the next few years, the Government will continue to pursue the opportunity that it represents, and I am certain that the Assembly will make a massive contribution to ensure that it brings success to the economy of Wales.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the Welsh Development Agency's support for the manufacturing sector in Wales. [88534]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The Government are giving considerable support to manufacturing in Wales, but the specific measures being undertaken by the Welsh Development Agency are, of course, a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that somewhat inadequate reply. Does he agree with many business men and women in Wales, as well as business
    1022
    men and women throughout the United Kingdom, that it is one thing for a development agency to offer some support, and quite another thing for the Government to load industry and business with huge additional on-costs, which totally counter that support and make it more and more difficult for manufacturing industry in this country to compete with countries outside Europe that are not loaded with the huge on-costs so typical of the European Union?
    Mr. Hain: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's interest in and support for manufacturing throughout Britain, and I am sure that that includes Wales. Will he acknowledge that there is now a better climate in Britain for business, including manufacturers, than there has been for generations? That contrasts starkly with the massacre of manufacturing that the Conservative Government carried out in the early 1980s and again 10 years later. Such a policy destroyed manufacturing. This Government's commitment to a healthy business climate to build a high-skill, high-quality economy throughout Britain, including Wales, is achieving success.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Development Agency provides invaluable support to companies throughout Wales, including a company in my constituency, Cambrian Consultants, which last week was presented with the Queen's award for export achievement? Will he join me in congratulating that company on its outstanding achievement?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I will. I acknowledge that success as one of the many successes that businesses are enjoying in Wales, as they strive to turn Wales into a high-quality world-class economy with the backing of the Government's policies.

    Care for the Elderly
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: What discussions he has had with the Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services on the provision of care for the elderly. [88535]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on asking that question during Alzheimer's week. Before the transfer of functions, I had a number of meetings with Jane Hutt, the Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services. During those meetings, we discussed a wide range of issues that are in her portfolio.
    Mr. Öpik: Does the Minister accept that funding on care for the elderly is still far too low in Wales? Indeed, the availability of provision for the elderly in Wales has fallen below that in England. Will he carry on making representations to try to equalise investment in elderly care provision in England and in Wales?
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the Assembly will be very sympathetic to the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but it is for the Assembly to decide on the allocation of resources.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Minsterial Visits
    Mr. Nigel Beard: What plans he has to visit Bexleyheath and Crayford.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Beard: I am sorry that the Prime Minister will not be coming to Bexleyheath and Crayford. If he were able to do so, he would meet members of a community, which is a cross-section of the whole country, who admire and applaud his strenuous efforts to bring peace to Northern Ireland. When he next meets Unionist and nationalist leaders, will he tell them of the incomprehension, impatience and anger that will be felt in such communities if the best prospect for a settlement in Northern Ireland this century collapses because one side has made no gesture in many months to recognise legitimate concerns for arms decommissioning and the other side is too intransigent to wait 30 days for decommissioning to begin?
    The Prime Minister: There are difficult decisions for all sides in Northern Ireland. All I ask is that people keep an open mind and carry on discussing the nature of the legislation with the Government so that we can put proposals that are agreed by everybody to the House next week. I very much hope that that will be the case.

    Engagements
    Mr. Paul Marsden: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister: 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.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the health White Paper, which was launched yesterday and aims to save 300,000 lives over the next 10 years, will benefit everyone, particularly people on low incomes and those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds—the same people whom the Tories wrote off when they were in office through their two-tier national health service?
    The Prime Minister: We have targets to reduce the death rates from cancer and heart disease. We shall put £60 million directly into services for the three most common cancers and a further £150 million into providing state-of-the-art equipment for cancer treatment. There will be an extra 400 cancer specialists and increased spending on cancer drugs. All that will, of course, take time, but we will end up with a vastly improved service for people suffering from that disease.
    Mr. William Hague: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not mention that the waiting list to
    1024
    see a consultant has doubled since he became Prime Minister? Will he keep on blaming other people or will he and his Ministers take responsibility for that miserable failure?
    The Prime Minister: Waiting lists are down as a result of the Government's policies and we are putting an extra £21 billion into the health service—opposed by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Hague: It is a good job that there is not a waiting list for a straight answer, or we would be here for a very long time indeed. The number of consultants is down; the number of complaints is up; the waiting list to get on the waiting list has been doubled; junior doctors have been betrayed; the head of the MBA said in his speech on Monday—[Interruption.] The head of the—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hague: The head of the BMA said in his speech on Monday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurray!"] I am glad that everybody is listening; listen to the next bit as well. The head of the British Medical Association congratulated the Prime Minister on the fact that
    "Morale has never been so low".
    Will he give the House the figure for the number of people waiting to see a consultant?
    The Prime Minister: The waiting lists are 62,000 below the level that we inherited. The present figure is just over 1 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give the figures."] I am giving the figures. Average waiting times are now shorter. As for junior doctors' hours, when we came to office, 6,500 junior doctors were working for more than 56 hours a week—an unacceptable figure. Now the figure is 4,800. However, we will continue to bring the figures down. I am pleased to say that only one junior doctor in six works now for more than 56 hours a week, which means that five sixths work for less than that; nevertheless, we will continue to reduce the hours. There are now 2,200 more doctors in the national health service, and, over the next few years, we will introduce 7,000 more.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister should be concerned that his officials did not even bother to put the answer to the question in his folder. The answer is this: 456,000 people are waiting to see a consultant. That is 200,000 more since he took charge.
    Is not the emerging story of this Government, on this as on so many other things, one of simple incompetence? We have half a million people waiting to see a consultant, half a million people waiting for a passport, and half a billion pounds lost on the sale of the gold reserves. The Prime Minister's problem is that he has a Cabinet full of incompetents, but he can only have one candidate for the post of mayor of London. When will he get rid of those people, and secure people who will actually deliver for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman's figures for the waiting lists are wrong. Waiting lists have fallen by 62,000 from the level that we inherited.

    1025
    The BMA made three criticisms. Let me deal with each in turn. First, the BMA disagreed with the way in which the primary care groups had been set up—but, last year, they voted by three to one to support the reforms. Secondly, the BMA opposed the private finance initiative contracts for the new hospitals. I am proud that we are building those new hospitals, which will deliver better health care for people. Thirdly, the BMA opposed NHS Direct and the new walk-in centres. Those centres, and NHS Direct, are giving ordinary people better access to the health service than they have ever had.
    I understand the BMA's concerns, and we are prepared to talk to its members about them, but change is necessary for the improvement of the health service. We shall have 7,000 more doctors, 15,000 more nurses, 31 new hospitals and £21 billion more investment. That is a record of which we can be proud.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to protect the countryside and rejuvenate our inner cities—as suggested in the Rogers report, "Towards an urban renaissance"—we must deal with a massive anomaly? A builder can construct a new house on a green-field site and be zero-rated for VAT, while renovation of an empty property in an inner city is charged at the full rate of 17.5 per cent. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will take the matter seriously, and will act at the earliest opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we will take my hon. Friend's points seriously. As he knows, the problem of reducing the rate to zero has been caused by a European regulation. [Interruption.] It was signed by the last Government, I might add.
    We are, however, taking two other steps that I consider important. We have refocused the single regeneration budget, and we are putting some £900 million extra into inner-city areas, where we can develop more brown-field sites. Moreover, we have upped the target for brown-field sites to 60 per cent. I believe that those measures will make a difference over time. However, I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I recognise the anomaly to which he has drawn attention.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: When the Prime Minister talks of obstructiveness and resistance to change in the public sector, are doctors one of the groups that he has in mind?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am not attacking doctors, but let us take the example of the PFI, which they have attacked. We are going to deliver the largest hospital-building programme that the health service has ever seen. We will deliver it on cost and on time. I think that experience shows that such developments, delivered through the private finance initiative, are better for the patient, and therefore better for the health service as a whole. I am not attacking doctors, or any other group of workers; I am saying that we need change in our public services—and this Government, who are putting more money into the public services than has ever been put into them before, are entitled to demand real change in return.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Prime Minister not understand that doctors are concerned about future funding for patient
    1026
    care, as they worry about the much higher long-term costs of paying for hospitals through the private finance initiative? Over time, it costs more to do it that way. Does he understand that junior doctors are similarly concerned about their position? If the scars on the Prime Minister's back were real ones—if he had to go to casualty—would he really want to be treated by a doctor who had been on duty for 34 hours?
    The Prime Minister: That is precisely why we are reducing the hours that junior doctors work. We have significantly reduced those hours, but we have to reduce them more. However, we cannot go all the way now, because it takes considerable time to train a doctor—in some specialisms, it takes 10 or 15 years. We are putting in extra investment—which, after all, is the largest three-year additional investment that the health service has ever had. As I said, we are getting in extra doctors and nurses, but that takes time.
    I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point on the PFI. If he would go and talk to the people at the PFI site that I visited today at Greenwich, they would tell them that, because of the PFI, the contract will be completed on time and will not have a cost overrun. They would also tell him that care and maintenance are part of the contract, and that the fact that care and maintenance are not done properly in the public sector is one big reason why we do not have the health service that we need.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: I should like, first, to place on record the sincere appreciation of my party and the people whom I represent for the superhuman effort that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Taoiseach and his Ministers made last week to deliver peace and government in Northern Ireland. I should like also to apologise to the Prime Manor and the House for being absent on Monday and unable to play a supportive role. I hasten to add that my absence was due entirely to aircraft failure.
    Does the Prime Minister agree that the way forward document, which he and the Taoiseach produced, at this juncture, shows the best possible way forward for the future of Northern Ireland and for implementing all aspects of the agreement, not only decommissioning—which we all want, desire and need—but the devolved institutions, and other instruments of government, that would have been in place last September, had the spirit of the agreement been fulfilled? It is also the best possible way of ensuring that the process that has been endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland is brought to a successful conclusion, and to test the sincerity of those with arms on whether they will really decommission. The document shows the only way that we can test that.
    The Prime Minister: It is important that people should understand that this is the only chance—the only way forward—for Northern Ireland. The agreement allows us to get both devolution of power, which people want, and the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons—not only republican paramilitary weapons, but all paramilitary weapons. As we have said, we shall listen profoundly—we must do; it is our duty—to concerns raised by any group in respect of it. I do believe that it offers the best way forward, and I urge people—all parties—to accept it as such.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: At the end of March 1998, no junior doctor at the Royal Surrey hospital worked beyond the 56-hour limit set by the previous Government. Now, over half the junior doctors at our hospital are working beyond that limit. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Health Secretary that care for the old and the sick in places such as Guildford simply does not matter to the Government?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend never said anything of the sort. I do not know the circumstances of that particular hospital, but I shall look into them. However, as I said, the overall national figures show a reduction in the number of doctors working more than 56 hours a week.
    The one group of people from whom we shall take no lessons on the health service is the Conservative party. We are making up for 18 years of failure by the Conservative Government. Yes, it will take time to get the hospitals built and the technology in, and to get more doctors and nurses into the health service, but we shall get there because, unlike the Conservative party, we believe in the health service.
    Miss Melanie Johnson: As a former inspector for the Office for Standards in Education, I welcome today's Ofsted report on improving standards in our primary schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work of good teachers and the Government's introduction of the national literacy and numeracy hours have brought about the improvements that are benefiting our children?
    The Prime Minister: We were very pleased by the Ofsted results, and I believe that even more dramatic change will come over the next few years, partly because of the literacy and numeracy hours and partly because, although under the previous Government's plans spending was cut by £80 per pupil for the past three years, it will rise over the next three years by £200 per pupil. In addition, class sizes are falling for primary school children, and substantial capital investment will mean new buildings and new computer systems in schools. All that will transform the educational standards of our country.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Is it fair that some abattoirs in Britain are charged more than £50 an hour for veterinary supervision while others are charged less than £30? Does the Prime Minister recognise the vital role of small abattoirs, and that damage would be done to the rural economy if they were forced to close? Will he intervene personally to ensure that small abattoirs are not driven out of business by wholly disproportionate and unaffordable Government-imposed meat inspection charges?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Charging requirements were introduced in 1995, and they have caused a lot of concern to smaller abattoirs, although I understand that not all small abattoirs pay higher charges than larger ones because inspection charges reflect the cost of providing the service to each premises. However, we are reviewing the charges to ensure that they are fair and sustainable,
    1028
    and the results of that review will be announced in due course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be taken into account.
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I recently met representatives of the large Serbian community in my constituency who were angered and upset by the tarnishing of the proud name of Serbia. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than wasting money on an inquiry into the Kosovo conflict, the Government should spend more money and more time on support for the growing opposition in Serbia? Would that not prove that the conflict was conducted not against the Serbian people but against Milosevic and his actions?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot emphasise too strongly that the conflict was not aimed against the Serbian people, whose second world war heroism we remember well. I hope that people in Serbia recognise that a democratic Serbia, rid of Milosevic, would have a bright future, and that it could be part of the new Balkans that we want. The whole region is less stable while Milosevic remains, and it is in the interests of the Serbian people and the whole region that he should be removed.
    Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister personally guarantee that no grammar school will close under the Government?
    The Prime Minister: It is not for me to guarantee that. As a result of our proposals, the power to decide lies in the hands of parents.
    Mr. Hague: It is a pity that it is not for the Prime Minister to guarantee that. Two years ago, during the Wirral, South by-election, he wrote a letter to parents, saying:
    "Let me put the record straight. A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee."
    Now, however, campaigns to close grammar schools are run by Labour party activists, and he is the leader of the Labour party. Has the warranty expired on his guarantee, or just on what is left of his principles? My personal guarantee is that I will campaign against his party to save the grammar schools. Will he join me?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking complete nonsense, because the Labour Government are not closing grammar schools. At present, the power to close a grammar school lies with the local education authority. The decision then goes to the Secretary of State. Our legislation takes it out of the hands of the local education authority and puts it in the hands of the parents. The party that closed more grammar schools in Britain than any other was the Conservative party.
    Mr. Hague: Even if the Prime Minister is not motivated by conviction to help the grammar schools, one would think that he would at least be motivated by shame, because, when the Labour party made that election promise, it lied to people. Is it not time that, instead of hypocrisy, the Prime Minister called off members of the Labour party from destroying some of the best schools in the country, or is it that even he now has no respect for the promises that he made?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, as he knows perfectly well, the Labour

    1029
    Government have not closed a single grammar school. We have no power to close grammar schools. As I explained a moment ago, the power used to vest in local education authorities; it now vests in parents. It is a decision to be made by parents. So far, they have not chosen to close any grammar school so, I suggest that, rather than raising scare stories, the right hon. Gentleman concentrates on the difference between the Government's education achievements and those of our predecessors. This Government are putting money into all our schools, because we want not just some, but all, our children to get a decent education. As I pointed out a moment ago, the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet Minister, capped spending per pupil by £80 for all school children. We are raising it by £200 per pupil. That is the difference between a Conservative Government for the few and a Labour Government for the many.
    Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 1,200 jobs at Kvaerner in Govan are under serious threat? The people of Scotland, my constituents and the work force at Govan shipyard are looking to the Government to do everything in their power to save those jobs. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will provide all the necessary support to the work force, who are campaigning with passion, dignity and self-respect to secure those jobs?
    The Prime Minister: They certainly are campaigning with passion and dignity. As my hon. Friend knows, we have set up a task force specifically to try to secure the future of the Kvaerner yard. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is to meet the shop stewards and the task force this afternoon to see how we can plot a way forward for the shipyard. Everyone knows that those skills are valuable to Scotland and to the United Kingdom and we shall do all that we can to keep them.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Does the Prime Minister agree with Birmingham's chief education officer, Professor Tim Brighouse, that his Government's abolition of the assisted places scheme has widened social divisions in education?
    The Prime Minister: No. If he said that, I comprehensively disagree with him. As a result of abolishing the assisted places scheme and putting the money into reducing class sizes in primary schools, by September there will be about 240,000 fewer five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of over 30 pupils. I believe that that it is important not that we subsidise some children to get a good education, but that we provide a good education for all our children.
    Mr. Bob Laxton: I welcome my right on. Friend's announcement this morning of £650 million-worth of private finance initiative investment and contracts in the national health service. In my constituency and in Derby, South and Derby city, the £177 million-worth of investment that will bring together acute services, possibly on one site, will enhance and improve health care in southern Derbyshire. In addition—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House is getting very impatient because the hon. Gentleman is not putting
    1030
    a question. This is the first time that he has had the opportunity to put a question to the Prime Minister, and the House should be tolerant—but do put your question now, Mr. Laxton.
    Mr. Laxton: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree, that for the very first time in the city of Derby, a community hospital will be created on an existing site and that it is a much-needed—and will be a much-valued—facility?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. My hon. Friend is entirely right. Not only will there be a community hospital, but, as a result of the contract that has been announced today, all the acute services for the people of Derby will be on one site, so people will not have to go to different places to get acute service care. Our experience with the private finance initiative is that it delivers the contracts on cost and on time. The previous Government promised all the hospitals, but never started or delivered them.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite all the hype that we have heard about hospital PFIs, the people of west Kent and East Sussex are in despair over the failure to reinvest in one of the most decrepit acute hospital facilities in the country? What hope can he offer them? Why has every one of the major investments in the NHS announced in the past 24 months been in a Labour-held constituency?
    The Prime Minister: Well, there are rather a lot of Labour-held constituencies. The hon. Gentleman talks about the decrepit hospital in his constituency. Does he really believe that it has become decrepit in two years? The problems in the health service are of long standing. We are making a start on putting them right. We are getting new hospitals built, and new doctors and nurses, but it will take time. I say to his constituents what I would say to anybody in the country: if they want the health service rebuilt, they should look not to the people who ran it down for 18 years, but to the Government, who believe in it.
    Mrs. Christine Butler: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate nursery teachers, teachers and head teachers in my constituency on the enormous work that they have put into early-years development and numeracy and literacy hours in the primary sector? By this September, there will be fewer than 30 pupils in all classes of five, six and seven-year-olds, and there is enormous expansion in early-years education throughout my constituency. Does he look forward to the next Ofsted report, which will mark even greater strides forward in raising standards in basic skills in the primary sector?
    The Prime Minister: When we came to office, half a million five, six and seven-year-olds were in classes with more than 30 pupils, education funding was being cut and almost half our 11-year-olds were leaving primary school without proper literacy and numeracy skills. We are getting class sizes down and improving literacy and numeracy, which will mean a better-educated and more prosperous country for the future.
    Mr. Michael Jack: Britain's dairy farmers are in crisis, owing to the Government's failure

    1031
    to assist them over matters connected with the reform of the common agricultural policy, bovine tuberculosis and the lowest milk prices in Europe. When members of Milk Marque want to tackle that problem by investing in more dairy production capacity, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry appears to rule out farmers doing something to help themselves. Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter and ensure that our dairy farmers can invest in themselves?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, the Secretary of State has to take into account the recommendations of the
    1032
    Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the right hon. Gentleman would expect that. I understand his claim that we should put Government money into the dairy sector. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but dairy farmers will invest in the sector only on the basis that they have set out, which is contrary to the MMC report. If the Government failed to take account of the MMC report and ignored it, many consumers would rightly be angry with us. We will listen to the concerns of the dairy industry, but we also have to act on the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We would be wrong to ignore them.

Libya
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on relations with Libya. I am grateful to the Opposition for agreeing—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. This is an important statement. Those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber must please do so quietly and quickly, as those who are remaining want to hear the statement.
Mr. Cook: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You anticipated me, as I was saying that I was grateful to the Opposition for agreeing to this important statement being made on a Supply day.
For over a decade, two separate issues have prevented us from maintaining normal diplomatic relations with Libya. One of those was the refusal by Libya to hand over the two men charged with responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. As the House will be aware, the diplomatic stalemate over this issue was broken by our initiative in offering a trial under Scottish law in the Netherlands. Intensive and patient diplomacy produced an agreement by Libya in April to hand over both suspects. The two accused are currently held in the court complex at Camp Zeist, where we expect their trial to commence early next year. This will give the relatives of those who died and the public their first opportunity to hear all the evidence that we hold.
United Nations sanctions were imposed on Libya in 1992 as a result of its refusal to comply with the investigations into the Lockerbie bombing and the parallel UTA case. Following the surrender of the two accused, UN sanctions on Libya have been suspended.
However, diplomatic relations between Libya and the United Kingdom had already been broken off before the Lockerbie bombing. They ceased in 1984 when we broke off diplomatic relations over the refusal by Libya to co-operate with the investigation into the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot while carrying out her duties in front of the Libyan People's Bureau in St. James's Square.
In the weeks since the handover of the two Lockerbie suspects, we have been engaged in repeated exchanges with the Libyan Government in an attempt to secure their co-operation with the police investigation. Throughout these negotiations over some weeks, we have consulted fully with the Metropolitan police and, through them, with the Fletcher family. Earlier this afternoon, I met Mr. Obeidi of the Libyan Government, and we have finalised a joint statement.
In that statement, Libya accepts general responsibility for the actions of those in the Libyan People's Bureau at the time of the shooting. It expresses deep regret to the family of WPC Fletcher for what occurred and offers to pay compensation now to the family. Libya agrees
"to participate in and co-operate with the continuing police investigation and to accept its outcome".
I have placed in the Library a full text of the joint statement. It fully meets the objectives pursued by successive British Governments since 1984, and it is
1034
supported by the Metropolitan police and the Fletcher family. No amount of payment can ever compensate the Fletcher parents for the loss of their daughter, but the agreement to make compensation now is welcome as a recognition by Libya of its responsibility.
The way is now open for the police to pursue their investigation into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher. That investigation will be pursued as far as it can and we expect Libya to co-operate at all stages of the investigation.
The two agreements that we have secured open the way for us to resume diplomatic relations with Libya. I am upgrading immediately the British interests section in Tripoli to embassy status. We will, as quickly as practical, appoint an ambassador and bring the embassy up to full strength. As a result, the 4,000 or so British citizens who are resident in Libya will have restored to them full consular protection, and we will be able to provide appropriate support to British commercial interests. Full diplomatic representation will also enable us better to monitor Libyan co-operation with the Lockerbie trial and the police investigation into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher.
Today's announcement brings to an end 15 years throughout which relations between our two countries were suspended. I should like to thank the Government of Italy for their assistance throughout those years as the protecting power of British interests in Libya.
I ask the House again to pay tribute to Yvonne Fletcher, a young woman who gave her life in the service of law and order. Her family have suffered not only her loss, but the added pain of 15 years in which its investigation has been blocked. They have borne it with dignity and fortitude. I express on behalf of the whole House our deep sympathy to them. I hope that the agreement that we have secured today will open the way for them to learn more about what happened on that fateful day.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his kind words and his courtesy in providing advance notification of today's joint statement. Both the last Conservative Government and the present Labour Government have striven to reach this point. On behalf of the official Opposition, I therefore welcome the progress in Anglo-Libyan relations that is contained in the declaration, which, in effect, restores normal diplomatic relations between our two countries.
It has always been our view that Libya should express regret about, and accept responsibility for, the appalling murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, as well as co-operating in the investigation into her murder. The Foreign Secretary has announced that the investigation will be pursued. To what degree can he expect co-operation from Libya to identify the murderer? Does he believe that the murderer will now be brought to justice? If so, will he confirm that the procedures that are in place for the trial of the Lockerbie suspects could be used to try any person who is accused of her murder?
The relatives of those killed in the bombing of Pan Am 103 will follow developments closely. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with those relatives, and what has been their reaction to the compensation to Yvonne Fletcher's family, which is symbolic of the guilt of Libya?

1035
The Foreign Secretary has referred to United Nations sanctions against Libya, which are only suspended, not lifted. Does he intend to press for sanctions to be lifted? Has he had an opportunity to discuss that with the United States Government?
There has been undisputed evidence of Libyan support for terrorists, particularly the IRA. Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that all training of terrorists and material support to terrorists has now been stopped, including support to rebel groups in west Africa?
On the future, and the restored links between our two countries, will the Foreign Secretary clarify the status of the business delegation that has been proposed by the British Libyan business group? There was some confusion, I understand, between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry earlier this week. Does that delegation now have his support?
We welcome the fact that the 4,000 British citizens who are working in Libya will now have British consular protection. Conservative Members hope that the restoration of full diplomatic ties will prove to be a turning point in our relations with Libya and in Libya's relations with the rest of the world. Libya will be watched very closely.
Finally, we are pleased that the outcome has the endorsement of the Fletcher family. I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to them and to Yvonne Fletcher. Even now, although we are moving on to the next chapter, I do not believe that anyone in this House will forget the brave WPC who, in doing her duty, paid with her life.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her approach to this issue and I very much welcome the sentiments expressed in her closing remarks, which are shared by hon. Members throughout the House. The hon. Lady asked a number of questions and I will try to respond to them all as briefly as possible.
First, we expect Libya to honour its commitment to co-operate fully with the police investigation at all stages. That must include the final stage if any individual is identified by the police.
I do not think that it would be feasible or helpful to wrap up any proceedings with the trial that has been set up for the Lockerbie bombing. That was set up under the Security Council resolution that refers only to that bombing. In any case, there is the difficult question of jurisdiction. We have already managed to achieve legal history by carrying out a trial under Scottish jurisdiction in the Netherlands. We could not extend that to include English jurisdiction because of the killing of Yvonne Fletcher.
On the relatives of those involved in the Pan Am bombing, I assure the House that we contacted them in advance of the statement to inform them that we intended, in the light of the agreement, to resume diplomatic relations with Libya. Among British relatives of those who died, we are not aware of any dissent from the course of action that we propose to take. As the House will know, they warmly welcomed the initiative that we took to secure the trial.
On United Nations sanctions, those are suspended to all intents and purposes. When we reached agreement on the Lockerbie trial we undertook that if the Secretary-General
1036
reported that Libya had complied with the Security Council resolutions of 1992, Britain would support the lifting of sanctions. That remains our position. The Secretary-General has not yet been able conclusively to say so, but when he does we will support the lifting of sanctions.
On Libyan participation in terrorism, I refer the House to what is said in the joint statement that I have placed in the Library. In that statement, Libya condemns terrorism and pledges to co-operate in the international fight against it. The very clear statement that we have secured amounts to the renunciation of terrorism, which has been sought repeatedly in the past decade and has on previous occasions been volunteered by Libya. With our new diplomatic channels in Libya, we will do everything that we can to ensure that both countries fight against the support of terrorism.
On the British Libyan business group, the proposal for that visit was first put to the Government in May. Both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office took exactly the same position. The standard position of Governments throughout the years since 1984 has been that we will neither support nor discourage trade missions. That was the view that was clearly expressed to that group. Last week, when it became clear that we were getting close to an agreement, both the DTI and the Foreign Office relaxed our comments on the trip. I understand that the business visit is proceeding at present.
That is now history. As a result of the agreement that we have secured today and of the strengthening of diplomatic channels, we are in a position properly to support commercial interests and trading missions for the future.
Finally, I welcome the hon. Lady's welcome for the agreement that we have secured today. It marks a significant step forward. For the first time, Libya has acknowledged responsibility for what happened on that day. Libya has also offered compensation from the Libyan authorities, as opposed to an ex gratia payment without the acceptance of responsibility. Libya has for the first time given a commitment to take part in the police investigation and to accept its outcome. All those four points are substantial steps forward and give us a firm basis on which we can proceed to normalise our diplomatic relations.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having had various Adjournment debates on the tragic death of WPC Fletcher, I pay tribute to the courage and dignity displayed throughout by Queenie Fletcher, her husband and family. May I clarify something that seems unclear? In his statement, the Foreign Secretary said that "general responsibility" had been accepted by the Libyans for the actions at the time—I think that those were his words. The Opposition spokesman talked in terms of Libyan guilt. Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether the Libyans have accepted guilt? As I understand it, the testimony that was given on film by Huw Thomas, formerly the surgeon in Belfast, by George Stiles, the senior ballistics expert of the British Army, and by Professor Bernard Knight, the Home Office pathologist, at least raises questions.
I pay tribute also to David Veness and his colleagues, whom I went to see in Scotland yard. I see the Home Secretary nodding. Indeed, I pay tribute to my right

1037
hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Home Offices for the seriousness with which they have tackled this issue. Could there be clarification on the issue of responsibility and exactly what the Libyans have accepted?
I should like to ask a final question of which I gave the Foreign Office notice once the statement went up on the Board. Are there likely to be, along the lines suggested by Professor Robert Black, the educational and cultural exchanges that are yearned for?
Mr. Cook: When Mr. Obeidi called on me earlier today, he expressed voluntarily his appreciation of Britain's acceptance of a large number of students from Libya to study in Britain. Even under present circumstances, 500 students from Libya are attending full-time courses in Britain. I very much hope that, with the normalisation of diplomatic relations, we will be able to intensify that base, which is already strong. I assure my hon. Friend that I should imagine that the new ambassador will want to give high priority to promoting cultural exchanges where appropriate.
My hon. Friend mainly focused on the question of guilt. Guilt is of course a particularly narrow term, which identifies the criminal responsibility of an individual or individuals. We are dealing with the acceptance of responsibility by a whole Government for the action of their agents. In that sense, the statement that I have placed in the Library, which hon. Members may examine, is quite explicit. Libya acknowledges the verdict of the coroner's court that the bullet was fired from within the Libyan People's Bureau, and accepts general responsibility for those who were in the bureau at the time. That is a satisfactory acceptance of responsibility. The issue of individual guilt is one for the police investigation.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for allowing us to have sight of it before he announced it in the Commons. We of course welcome the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya and the terms of the agreement. That is very good news. We send sympathy to WPC Fletcher's family for what must have been terrible times for them.
Although we accept that the negotiations must have been difficult and sensitive, does the right hon. Gentleman understand the desire of British business not to lose out on trade to its competitors? Does he realise the confusion that surrounded the trip to Libya organised by the British Libyan business group this week? Will he reaffirm that, now that the agreement has been reached, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office will get their act together and give a clear signal and support to British companies?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to agree with the hon. Lady on what she says in respect of the Fletcher family. They will appreciate that those in all quarters of the House have expressed sympathy and support for their conduct over the past 15 years and the trial that that must have been to them.
I say bluntly to the House that the Government have nothing to apologise for on the question of the British Libyan business group. The visit was proposed in May, when we had only commenced discussions on whether we
1038
could reach a resolution of the matter of the killing of WPC Fletcher. It would have been quite wrong for the Government at that stage to encourage a parliamentary visit when we were still unable to get agreement from Libya on this question. Indeed, if we had done so, we would have been subject to much greater criticism in the House. There has been no confusion between the two Departments. Both Departments took that view in May and last week both decided that the time had come to relax it.
One consequence of that outcome is that we shall be better placed to support trade missions and our commercial interests. That is not why we sought the agreement. We sought it to do justice to the memory of Yvonne Fletcher. We sought an agreement on the Lockerbie bombing to take the course of justice forward. However, we should not regret the fact that one consequence of the agreements is that we shall be able to compete on equal terms with our trading partners in Libya.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I was shadow Home Secretary it was my responsibility to attend the siege of St. James's square, when a leafy part of central London was turned into a killing field, and that I later represented our party at the unveiling of a memorial to WPC Fletcher there? Is he further aware that when I was shadow Foreign Secretary it was intimated to me that if I were to travel to Libya, compensation for WPC Fletcher would be handed over to me, but I decided that it would not be acceptable to do that because we did not have diplomatic relations with Libya and because a behind-the-door approach to dealing with the problem would not entail Libya accepting responsibility, which it has now done? While we shall continue to mourn for WPC Fletcher, we have now seen a country that was outside the rule of international law voluntarily return within the rule of international law. Other countries, including Iraq, should pay attention to that.
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the part that my right hon. Friend played at the time. This morning I re-read his observations in the House of Commons at the time of the original statement. I am also well aware of the monument to which he refers, as it is within walking distance of my official residence and I have passed it many times. We should all recognise that we would not do justice to the memory of Yvonne Fletcher by allowing the matter to continue in abeyance without attempting to find a way of resolving it and taking it forward. The agreement that we have secured today is a good way of trying to establish the truth and making sure that, in honour of Yvonne Fletcher and the pain of her family, we can take forward our relations with Libya. I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is a message in what has happened. Even Governments who have put themselves outside the circle of acceptable international relations can be brought back in. The more we succeed in doing that, the more we shall be able to offer security to people around the world.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that an apology is not a new development? Many years ago, shortly after the tragic death of Yvonne Fletcher, the Libyans offered a personal apology, accepting responsibility and offering a

1039
payment to a police charity rather than to the family. By responsibility, did the Libyan authorities—Mr. Obeidi—in particular, say specifically that they accepted that the bullet came from within the embassy? That is desperately important, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). My understanding is that in all previous statements the Libyan authorities did not imply that.
I greatly appreciate the initiative that the Foreign Secretary has taken, as compared with what has happened in the past. Will he take every possible step to ensure that the agreed rules and safeguards in the trial at The Hague are carefully observed, particularly in view of the reports of one or two incidents over the past few days? Will he do all in his power to make sure that the safeguards that he offered are applied?
Mr. Cook: I assure the House that, as well as the Foreign Secretary, there will be a number of Scottish trial judges present who will certainly wish to insist on proper rules of procedure. I have every confidence in their doing so. On the custody of the two accused, I gently say to the House, without divulging the details, that the reported breach of security was of a minor and technical character. I remain confident of the security arrangements that we have prepared at Camp Zeist.
The hon. Gentleman asked to what extent the agreement was an advance on previous offers. I acknowledge that, in 1991, he obtained an offer of payment from Libya. The agreement that we have secured during these discussions goes further than that in the following ways. First, the offer in 1991 was for an ex gratia payment which was to be channelled, not directly to the Fletcher family, but through the police fund. This agreement is for something that is described explicitly as compensation and goes directly to the Fletcher family. It recognises the greater extent to which Libya now accepts responsibility for the killing of WPC Fletcher.
Secondly, in the text of our agreement, Libya agrees to co-operate with the police investigation and to accept its outcome, which is specifically stated. Whatever other facts may emerge from further police investigation, I do not think that anybody, including Libya, can be in any doubt that the police investigation will confirm the coroner's verdict that the bullet was fired from within the Libyan People's Bureau. I welcome this step forward. It has enabled us to make progress in our relations, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House, that this represents a significant step forward in agreements that we have been able to secure from Libya so far.
Mr. Roger Casale: I join hon. Members in welcoming the restoration of diplomatic links with Libya. On behalf of the British-Italian parliamentary group, of which I am chairman, I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the work of the Italian Government in protecting British interests in the intervening years. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the forthcoming British-Italian summit offers a good opportunity for our Government to renew their commitment and support for Italian initiatives within the
1040
common foreign and security procedures and other mechanisms to create an area of freedom, security and justice across the Mediterranean?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to what I believe is a new development in our relations, the British-Italian summit, which we will be hosting in Britain shortly. It will give us an unprecedented opportunity to take forward a number of the wider European issues.
I take this opportunity to echo the appreciation that my hon. Friend has given to the Italian Government for acting as our protecting power. In fairness to the Government of Italy, I do not think that they understood at the time how long that commitment might last, but, throughout those 15 years, they have never resiled from their commitment to act as our partner and friend within Libya. My friend and colleague, Lamberto Dini, was also helpful in interceding with Libya in part of the negotiations over the Lockerbie trial. I have written to him this week giving him advance notice of this statement and thanking him for all the help that Italy has given us over the years.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Libyan Government will co-operate with the investigation and abide by the outcome. It would be helpful if he could tell the House what is meant by that. Are potential witnesses to be questioned by officers of the Metropolitan constabulary? Are potential witnesses to come to the United Kingdom for that purpose or are officers of the Metropolitan force to go to Libya? If there is a prima facie case against one or more individuals, will they, if necessary, waive diplomatic immunity and submit themselves for trial in the United Kingdom courts?
The House will know that the Libyan Government provided large quantities of arms to the IRA. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether the Libyan Government are proposing to set up a fund to compensate the families of those murdered by those arms?
Mr. Cook: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his questions. I remind him that Libya's support for the IRA was dealt with by the Government of whom he was a member in 1995. That Government then said that they were generally satisfied with Libya's response and the information it had provided on previous links with the IRA. That Government regarded the matter as closed and I do not have a basis on which to seek to reopen it.
On diplomatic immunity, if I recall correctly, in 1984 the previous Government contested the right of those in the bureau at the time to demand diplomatic immunity and we would not seek to change such a view. The investigation is a matter squarely within the hands of the Metropolitan police. I can only tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that they have fully supported this statement and will be making their own statement of welcome today. Of course, a commitment to co-operate with the investigation must, by definition, mean making witnesses available for interview. I hope that that will take place. If it does not, we will remind the Libyan Government of their commitment.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I think that we should readily seize this window of opportunity to redevelop the historic relationship that we had with Libya before these recent difficult times. In that light, may I take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of the Inter-Parliamentary Union? Is he prepared personally to raise with the executive of the IPU the need to bring in a delegation of parliamentarians from Libya, so that they can mix with those here and recognise that, here in this Parliament, there are friends of Libya who want to put all these matters behind us as soon as possible?
Mr. Cook: I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. If we are to have successful diplomatic relations it is important that they do not consist merely of Government-to-Government contacts, but include contacts between our peoples, our cultures and our Parliaments. I am well aware from my experience in several countries around the world that contact between parliamentarians is an extremely useful parallel to my discussions with Ministers.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I join in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on the report, especially on the reference to co-operation in dealing with terrorism. As one who understands how a family feels when a serving member of a police service suffers and is killed, my sympathy goes out to the Fletcher family, and I am delighted that that chapter is closing.
However, in his response to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the right hon. Gentleman said that the previous Government had accepted Libya's earlier explanations about Semtex. I ask that that issue be kept open and that contacts continue to be made. It may be that we shall all have to face again the use of Semtex, either on the mainland or in Northern Ireland, so it would be helpful to know about sources and movers, so that they might be brought to justice.
Mr. Cook: If an occasion arises when it would be useful to seek information from the Government of Libya in that context, we would certainly do so. After today's statement and with the resumption of direct representation in Tripoli, we are better placed to do so. The previous Government noted that there were some omissions from the information provided in 1995, although it was generally satisfactory. I agree that, if further information can be useful in our fight against terrorism, it is open to us to go to the Libyans and seek their assistance.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a Back Bencher who has followed the difficulties between this country and Libya over many years, I congratulate the Foreign Secretary most warmly on his statement to the House this afternoon. I believe that objectives that are satisfactory to all the parties involved have been achieved, which might indicate that Libya is once again re-entering the civilised world.
Will the Foreign Secretary answer this direct question, which is of the utmost importance: does he believe that the agreement with Libya delivers a kick in the teeth or a blow to international terrorism, and that it may deprive international terrorism of supplies of weapons, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, South
1042
(Rev. Martin Smyth)? Would not such a blow to international terrorism be to the benefit of the world as whole?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman echoes a point put to me earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), which is that the more we embrace countries in the fight against terrorism, the more we isolate those countries that are prepared to support terrorism. One of the issues that have brought Libya to the present agreement is that it has become conscious that it, too, can be a victim of terrorism, and that it is in the interests of all of us to fight terrorism together with equal determination.
I have been informed that the Metropolitan police investigation will initially be carried out through written commission interrogatories. Those will include requests for written witness statements.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join in welcoming what the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues have achieved. Those who have kept the flowers at Yvonne Fletcher's memorial in St. James's square will understand the various considerations and the progress that have made his statement possible. Doubt remains in respect of diplomatic immunity: we do not believe that the people in the Libyan People's Bureau had it, but, if it is claimed, can it be waived by the individual who is charged, or can it be waived only by a Government?
On a broader point, does the Foreign Secretary understand that Governments and people opposed to Governments or people with political causes will continue to believe that London is a place where they can get publicity and public attention by committing the sort of violence that we witnessed at the Iranian embassy, the Libyan People's Bureau, the Israeli embassy and elsewhere? Will he confirm the continuing promise of British Governments that there will be an intensity and a persistence in pursuing those who use London as one of the world's killing fields so that people will not expect to get away with it?
Mr. Cook: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the Government will do everything possible to combat terrorism here and abroad. Britain has had too sad and too much experience of terrorism at first hand not to understand the importance to other Governments of our assisting them wherever it is possible to do so within the law in their fight against terrorism. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
I, too, have noticed that the flowers at the memorial to WPC Yvonne Fletcher have remained throughout the 15 years, and I am sure that they will continue to do so. They are a mark of the esteem in which she was held by her friends and colleagues. It is important that if we close this chapter, we do so in a way that does justice to what happened to her.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Are those suspected of the murder of WPC Fletcher resident in a country with which we have an extradition treaty? If so, will the authorities apply for her extradition? If they are not, what does the Foreign Secretary propose to do?
Mr. Cook: It is a bit premature at the start of the police investigation to identify those who may or may not be

1043
charged with individual responsibility for WPC Fletcher's murder. We have no extradition treaty with Libya. That has been precisely at the heart of our difficulty in the past 10 years in the case of the Lockerbie bombing, which we have now resolved through negotiation. I cannot anticipate what action will be open to us in the event that the police investigation concludes that charges can be brought.

Speaker's Statement
4.6 pm
Madam Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that I have received the following letter from Mr. Peter Jennings, our Serjeant at Arms:
"I write to confirm that I wish to retire on 31 December this year, when I shall be 65.
I have been highly privileged to serve the House for over 22 years, most recently in a senior capacity. I would like to thank all members of the House staff, particularly those in my Department who have so ably helped me to discharge my duties. I also include the Metropolitan Police Division whose staff provide security here and the Post Office staff who provide our mail services. It has been enormously rewarding to lead such a dedicated and diverse team and see how all those involved in it have developed to meet the ever increasing demands placed on them to meet the Departmental objective of providing 'the best possible service'.
May I finally record my appreciation for the many kindnesses shown to me during my time here and particularly for all the support which you personally have given me during my time as Serjeant."
There will be an occasion to pay formal tributes in due course. Meanwhile, consultations on the recommendation for a successor to Mr. Jennings are taking place through the House of Commons Commission.

Points of Order
4.6 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I raise with you the issue that arose in Welsh questions today, especially on Question 3 from my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence). The question was when the Secretary of State for Wales next intended to meet the Assembly Secretary responsible for agriculture. I did not quite catch all of my right hon. Friend's reply, but it appeared that he said that it was a matter for the Assembly. You subsequently intervened and said that we therefore could not continue to question him.
It is patently not a matter for the Assembly what action the Secretary of State for Wales in this House does or does not take. It is surely open to my right hon. Friend as Secretary of State for Wales to seek a meeting of any kind. As he is accountable to this House, we are entitled to ask him about such meetings.
The question was put to the Table Office and approved. I hope that you will give us a ruling that a question such as Question 3 will be perfectly in order in future Welsh Question Times and that future Welsh Secretaries of State can come to this House and answer questions.
Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a similar point of order.
Sir Patrick Cormack: We realise that, after 1 July, with devolution, we are entering uncharted waters. We are grateful to you for the guidance that you gave the House this afternoon, but, as the Welsh Assembly does not have primary legislative or tax-raising powers, Members of this House will obviously wish to ask questions and hold Ministers properly to account. I wonder whether you would be kind enough to give some thought to this matter, and to give some guidance to the Table Office so that inappropriate questions are not allowed on the Order Paper and so that all those that do appear on the Order Paper can be pursued.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I come to this matter as a Member of the National Assembly as well, and questions have arisen as to what competence lies where. Will you discuss the implications of this matter informally with representatives of the parties—and, perhaps, with the usual channels—so that we can have some convention, whereby we know where responsibility lies?
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If money is voted by Parliament, on what basis can there be any restriction on asking a Secretary of State questions on the use of those moneys?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked for a ruling, and I am always prepared to give a ruling. On more than one occasion today, I heard a Minister of the Crown say at the Dispatch Box that, as of 1 July, matters had been
1046
devolved; therefore, it was not possible for the House to trespass on matters that are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. Of course there are bound to be some problems when such changes are being made. I thought that I had had proper discussions with the Department concerned, and with the Table Office. Obviously, we have a long way to go to bring about improvements. However, the House can be sure that I shall use my best endeavours to see that the matters are dealt with efficiently and properly at Question Time in future.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I have a written, considered response to the question I asked of you—namely, the question of moneys voted by Parliament?
Madam Speaker: Certainly. I shall look at the precise wording of the hon. Gentleman's question and see that he gets a written response.
Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful for your initial response, Madam Speaker. However, my point is narrow and specific. Question 3 was about whether the Secretary of State for Wales would seek a meeting with X, Y or Z. That is a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales, who must be accountable and answerable to this House. I should have thought it possible for us to say that such a question was in order because it related directly to the activities of the Secretary of State, who is answerable to this House.
Madam Speaker: I understand, and am sympathetic to, the hon. Gentleman's point, but I repeat what I said earlier. If a Minister of the Crown tells the House that an issue has been devolved, it is for that Minister of the Crown to know whether it is devolved or not. I cannot intervene on that. I am trying to be helpful, and I will look at the matter to see that we run smoothly in future.
Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago, the Prime Minister, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), said that the number of junior doctors working more than 56 hours had fallen to 4,800, but we had established that the figure was 8,500—
Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order are matters with which I can deal. I am not a statistician—I do not know the figures. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to correct the Prime Minister, he must do so by means of the Order Paper and other questions, and not by means of a point of order.
Dr. Harris rose—
Madam Speaker: Is there a point of order for me as Speaker?
Dr. Harris: Yes.
Madam Speaker: Then I shall hear it.
Dr. Harris: What is the procedure for asking the Prime Minister to come back and reassure the House that if he has inadvertently misled—
Madam Speaker: Order. I thought that I had just explained that if the hon. Gentleman feels that the answer

1047
was not full enough or informative enough—or even if he feels that it might have been incorrect—there is an Order Paper by which he can put written or oral questions to the Prime Minister, or to the Minister with that portfolio. That is the way to proceed.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for your response to the points of order on Welsh Questions. Could you please copy to those involved the letter that you send to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and place a copy in the Library?
Madam Speaker: Certainly.

Royal Hospital, Haslar
4.9 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of the intensive care unit at the Royal Hospital, Haslar, in my constituency.
Since the Ministry of Defence announced in December its intention to close the only remaining military hospital, the whole area has been united in its determination to reverse the decision. There are two reasons for that. First, the area has the strongest defence links, and those who serve in the defence medical services and those who care for our defences are distraught that the announcement, which has already led to the resignation of 15 consultants, will have a devastating effect on defence medical services and on our defence forces generally.
Secondly, Gosport will lose its main hospital with superb facilities, on which £35 million has been spent in the past 10 years. The most emotive aspect is the fact that Gosport will lose its accident and emergency cover. There is absolutely no doubt that lives will be lost in ambulances on the congested roads between Gosport and the remaining local hospitals, if the accident and emergency unit at Haslar should close.
We heard this morning that the intensive care unit at Haslar is to close shortly because of lack of staff. The announcement could have been made last Thursday when we had a meeting with all those concerned, including the head of the Defence Secondary Care Agency. The announcement might have been made on Monday, when the Minister for the Armed Forces appeared before the Select Committee on Defence with all his staff to answer concerns about defence medical services. However, the matter was left for us to discover today.
This is the latest chapter in a sad story of botch and bungle. The Ministry of Defence failed properly to consult with the national health service before announcing the hospital closure. Caught out, Ministers at the Department of Health have given repeated promises that medical care will not deteriorate after the closure of Haslar hospital, but of course it will. It cannot do otherwise.
Words cannot express the anger and frustration felt by my constituents in the face of this terrible blow to their health care. I therefore ask for the House to adjourn to allow full debate on the matter, which is of such importance to defence medical services and to all people in the area.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and of course I must give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  RAILWAYS
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Michael, Mrs. Helen Liddell and Ms Glenda Jackson, presented a Bill to establish the Strategic Rail Authority and make other provision about railways: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 133].

Empty Homes
4.17 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for reducing the incidence of vacant dwellings; to extend the duties and powers of local authorities to that end; to require local authorities to publish empty homes strategies and to exercise their duties and powers in accordance with those strategies; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is my contribution to stopping the unnecessary building of new homes on green-field sites. We should first make the best use of existing properties standing empty. It is also my contribution to trying to ensure that all our citizens have access to decent homes that they can afford.
I know from a housing development that is taking place in Stafford just how strongly residents feel about new building on open fields on the edges of our towns and cities. Such developments detract from urban regeneration, encroach on our countryside and increase traffic.
According to the written answer to a recent parliamentary question from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), there are more than three quarters of a million properties standing empty. That figure has remained fairly constant for years. Six out of every seven of them are privately owned.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why more cannot be done to use existing housing stock, rather than building excessively on green-field land. I agree. I want more to be done, and the Bill represents my ideas for action.
Local authorities have a vital role in helping to bring back into use empty properties that are otherwise up to standard. The best authorities already have empty homes strategies that inform and direct their efforts. In its guidance to local authorities, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions encourages all of them to prepare and publish such strategies. Alas, a recent survey by the Empty Homes Agency of all 354 local authorities in England and Wales revealed that only about half of them have developed a formal strategy.
A good strategy can ensure that policies are based on reliable information about the scale of the problem and the opportunities that exist. It can raise awareness of empty homes as an issue that must be tackled. It can provide for targets and monitoring, and for liaison with housing partners and with residents. Such a strategy can bring together resources and priorities for using them. Help for owners can be made available through renovation grants, and help for people who intend to become tenants can be made available through rent deposit and rent guarantee schemes.
All authorities ought to set targets for reducing the number of empty homes in their areas. They should ensure that full and accurate information is assembled, that all their resources available for meeting the targets are identified and that the actions that will be taken are clearly defined and predictable.
As most of the empty properties are in the private sector, authorities must have comprehensive strategies. They must work with owners, letting agents and housing professionals; they need the support of the public; and they must set a good example by making sure that council

1051
houses are fully utilised and do not stand empty in excessive numbers or for excessive periods. Of course, they must also have sufficient powers of persuasion and compulsion, which is where my Bill comes in.
Under the Bill, every local authority would be required to designate an empty homes officer who would be responsible for the work of the council in reducing the number of empty homes. The officer would be important for co-ordinating the work of the council across all departments and between it and other organisations. The officer should have full power to obtain the necessary information from all sources, including council records such as council tax data. Every local authority would be required to prepare and publish an empty homes strategy setting out local housing need and the number of empty homes; the targets for reducing the incidence of homes standing empty; the actions to be taken to reduce the number of empty homes; and how success would be measured.
My Bill would also allow local authorities to vary the council tax payable on properties standing empty, depending on local priorities. I envisage a range from 50 to 200 per cent. of the standard tax. The empty homes strategy would set out the criteria that would be applied to determine what rate would be charged. Currently, we appear to reward owners for keeping property empty. They are entitled to a 50 per cent. discount on their council tax if a property stays empty. Indeed, the Government have recently moved to end an even bigger seal of approval—nil council tax when a property awaiting major renovation work has stood empty for more than a year.
Additionally, my Bill would extend local authorities' power of compulsory purchase to allow them to acquire properties that are kept empty for unacceptable reasons or for an unreasonably long period. Again, the strategy would set out the criteria that the authority would apply in deciding when to exercise that power. I have come across situations in my Stafford constituency in which property stands empty, but the existing powers of compulsory purchase are not wide enough to allow the local authority to step in and buy the property.
We should consider the effects on neighbourhoods and on the immediate environment of properties standing empty for long periods. They become targets for vandalism and a honeypot for crime. They lower the prices of surrounding property and attract fly tipping. Those are all deeply unattractive consequences for other residents. We should consider it socially unacceptable for good homes to be allowed to stand empty, to deteriorate and to bring down standards for neighbours as well.
In introducing the Bill, I thank those who have helped and supported me. The Empty Homes Agency, which is a charity, has given me enormous support through
1052
Ashley Horsey, its energetic chief executive and successor to the redoubtable Bob Lawrence. Similarly, the charity Shelter has helped—I should say inspired—me to keep up the pressure for housing policies that give everyone the chance of somewhere decent to live. I also thank the Law Society, which has assisted me with the drafting of my Bill, and of course my supporters, who come from all the main parties.
Will my ideas become law? I am sure that they will. Perhaps it is too late in the Session for the Bill to reach the statute book, but I have high hopes that much good will come of it. Since I proposed it, Lord Rogers has reported on the work of the urban task force. The report looks at the prospects for the Government meeting their target for 60 per cent. of new homes to be built on brown-field sites. I am delighted that all three of my main suggestions—the empty homes strategy, variable council tax and a wider power of compulsory purchase—appear in the 100 recommendations.
The task force has identified empty commercial property in addition to empty homes that could be used to provide homes for people. That raises to 1.3 million the number of homes that could be provided before we turn to new house building to meet the anticipated demand for more homes.
The Government have promised to produce a housing Green Paper later this year, which encourages me to believe that they may also produce a housing Bill. Such a Bill would, of course, be expected to deal with other important issues relating to homelessness, standards of fitness and an adequate supply of social housing; but I hope that the Government will also give careful consideration to my Bill, and to the suggestions that I have made.
Tackling the scandal of empty homes is essential for planning and for social reasons. It is also a priority that I believe would command widespread public support. Most important of all, it will help us to meet real, compelling housing needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Kidney, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. David Curry, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Andrew Love, Siobhain McDonagh, Ms Margaret Moran, Mr. Peter Pike and Mr. Jonathan Shaw.

Empty Homes
  EMPTY HOMES
  Mr. David Kidney accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for reducing the incidence of vacant dwellings; to extend the duties and powers of local authorities to that end; to require local authorities to publish empty homes strategies and to exercise their duties and powers in accordance with those strategies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 134].
Opposition Day
[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Dairy Industry
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
  "That this House notes that, since 1st May 1997, the farm gate price of milk has fallen by over a quarter, the price received by farmers for cull cows has fallen by over one third and the income of dairy farmers has collapsed; condemns the Government's failure in recent CAP negotiations to secure any immediate increase in milk quota for mainland Britain whilst conceding increases for other EU countries; deplores the delay in publishing the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque, thus needlessly damaging confidence in the industry; expresses concern that outbreaks of TB have risen substantially; and urges the Government to remedy this crisis by addressing these issues, ending its disgraceful neglect of the dairy industry, strengthening Milk Marque and implementing the Krebs Report without further delay".
  I welcome the presence not only of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is rare for not just one but two members of the Cabinet to attend an agriculture debate—although both represent urban seats. [Interruption.] Who knows? Perhaps in a week or two the Government will dredge up someone with a rural seat to speak on these matters.
  I shall have a word to say to the Secretary of State in a moment, but I shall start with the Minister. It is almost exactly a year since his appointment to his post, and I think even he would acknowledge that it has been a year of appalling crisis for agriculture. British farmers today face worse conditions than farmers have faced for a generation. Total income from farming has halved since Labour came to power, and the agony has been spread throughout the industry. Cereal prices have fallen by a third, livestock prices by a quarter and milk prices by well over a fifth. Collapsing prices mean collapsing incomes; they mean the destruction of family farms; they mean the loss of jobs in the countryside. There is not much of a new deal there.
  Astonishingly, during this year of crisis the Government have not arranged a single agriculture debate. The only debates initiated by them in which the Minister has taken part have been on quarantine and on the Food Standards Bill. Not a moment of Government time has been used to allow Parliament to consider the plight of British farmers. The Minister may be a good listener outside, but he has not been keen to listen to Parliament. I suppose that, in that respect, he is following the example of his leader.
  Although the Opposition control only a fraction of parliamentary time, this is the third occasion on which they have raised the problems of farming in a full-scale debate. Sadly, it is all too typical of Labour's attitude to the countryside that it should try to ignore this crisis completely. Labour's contempt for agriculture was exposed in its recent paper "Rural England: a discussion document", which set out the party's so-called vision for the countryside—a vision that occupied a whole page of
  1054
  that rather brief publication. Labour's vision for the countryside includes not a single mention of farming or of farmers.
  I think that, to be fair, we can partially exempt the Minister from these criticisms. Occasionally, I have heard him, both inside and outside the House, offering sympathy to farmers. He seems at least to have impressed the Duke of York. Perhaps that is why we read that the Prime Minister is to move the Minister on. Perhaps the Prime Minister fears that, if the Minister were to stay another year, his sympathy might even be turned into action; or his warm words might be matched by some daring deeds; or comparisons between his predecessor's extravagance and his own rather admirably frugal travel and entertainment spending may be causing embarrassment to the Cabinet enforcer.
  Today, we shall focus on the dairy sector. In spring 1997, just before the general election, farm gate prices for milk were about 14p per pint. The latest farm gate prices for milk are less than 10p per pint. In the past two years, the value of Britain's milk production has fallen by more than £750 million, and the impact on dairy farmers has been devastating.
  Ms Jackie Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman mentioned milk prices in spring 1997. Statistics from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food show that, in spring 1997, the price was 11.65p a pint; and that the current price is 9.96p a pint. That is a 10 per cent. decrease. Between July 1995 and the 1997 general election, however, the price per pint fell by a massive 24 per cent.
  Mr. Yeo: Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is quoting from exactly the same sheet from the Library as I am. She has chosen—if she cares to tell the whole truth—the April 1997 figure, which was 11.65p per pint. However, at no time in the previous three years—I have the monthly figure for every month of those three years—did the price fall below 13p a pint. In January, February and March 1997, the price was 13.7p, 13.5p and 13.46p per pint. Furthermore, as I said, for the whole of the previous three years, the figure was as I have just quoted it.
  If the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) is trying to make a point by so selectively using statistics, I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity of proving absolutely clearly that the milk price for the whole of the latter period of the previous Government was substantially above even the level that I have quoted.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is true that, when the previous Government were in office, farmers complained to me—as they complained to my hon. Friend—about many things. However, the one thing that they never complained about was dairy farming, as dairy farmers did incredibly well under the previous Government.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend must talk to different farmers, because I have never met a farmer of any type who does not complain about something.
  The Prime Minister likes talking about hard choices. Unfortunately, when it comes to farming, the choices that Labour makes are hard not for Ministers, but for farmers. Farmers in the dairy sector are used to long hours, but they are now having to get used to small rewards.

  1055
  Earlier this year, the Government had a chance to help dairy farmers. On 11 March, Agriculture Ministers completed their discussions on common agricultural policy reforms. I am sure that the Minister remembers it well—I think it was late at night. According to The Times of the next day, the Prime Minister's spokesman said that the outcome
  "is not satisfactory as far as we are concerned".
  I think that, for once, we can all agree with him.
  The deal proposed that milk quotas—which currently prevent Europe from responding to growing world demand for dairy products—should continue until 2006, and that, although Britain's milk quota should be frozen until 2003, four other countries—Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy—should enjoy higher milk quota next year. Increased Irish milk quota damages Britain. Imports of dairy products from Ireland will rise, and thereby undermine British dairy farmers. The deal was bad enough, but when the Prime Minister discussed it with Heads of other Governments later that month, they decided that quotas should stay not until 2006 but until 2008.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question that requires a simple answer? Is it the position of the Conservative party that milk quotas should be completely ended?
  Mr. Yeo: Yes. The position is clear. We believe that milk quotas cannot continue in the long term if we are to meet World Trade Organisation obligations and if Europe is to take advantage of increasing market opportunities for selling dairy products. Britain cannot continue to be penalised by allowing Ireland an immediate increase in milk quota next year while ours is frozen for four years.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No. The hon. Gentleman has been noticeable by his absence from agriculture debates over the past year. He has had his chance to intervene.
  The deal is bad for Britain. We have some of the best dairy-producing land in Europe, but our farmers are prevented from meeting the demand even of home consumers. In recent years, around a third of our butter and cheese requirements have been met by imports. More than 10 per cent. of dairy products are imported. Ireland, by contrast, produces four times the amount of dairy products needed to meet its home demand.
  Farmers might have hoped that the Prime Minister would bat for them and for Britain when he negotiated with his European colleagues, but he has bowled them out instead. With his eyes fixed on the headlines that he wanted about Britain's budget rebate, he allowed the deal, which his own spin doctors had already rubbished, to be made even worse. That is new Labour at work. If there is a chance to help the foreign farmer, new Labour take it. If there is a chance to hit the British farmer, new Labour take it. At the very moment the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was telling farmers that he supported them, the Prime Minister was bashing them.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Following his announcement about ending milk quotas, does the hon.
  1056
  Gentleman realise that removing all quota would make the milk price plummet? He would completely flood the market.
  Mr. Yeo: That is not necessarily so. Farmers will be allowed to produce where there is local demand. By their nature, milk products do not travel great distances, and transport costs make it uneconomic too. It is not satisfactory that Britain, which has the potential to produce high-quality dairy products, should be forced to import them because of quotas.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance. He has shown more interest in agriculture today than over the whole of the previous year.
  Labour's common agricultural policy reforms will mean more food imports against which British farmers cannot compete because of quotas. It is no surprise that Labour has not organised a debate about dairy farming. Previous Conservative debates have helped farmers, forcing the Government to act. On 4 November, during an earlier Conservative debate, the Minister heralded an announcement made 12 days later of an emergency aid package for farmers, worth more than £100 million. On 21 April, during our debate on the livestock sector, the Government announced that specified risk material removal charges would be postponed for a year, resulting in an extremely welcome £21 million reduction in the burden on slaughterhouses, even though the high cost of regulation continues to inflict serious damage.
  Today, the Government were forced to act even before the debate had started. Yesterday, the long overdue Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque was published. It had been delivered to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 26 February. More than 18 weeks later, the announcement of an Opposition Day debate was required before the report came out. Even the printers thought that it would come out earlier. The title page of my copy has a sticker on it, saying "July 1999"—but it is stuck over the words "June 1999". The publication of the report is welcome, but publication is not enough. So I trust that when the Minister speaks he will have more to offer.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that July was chosen rather than June, which may have been the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's preferred date of publication, because it is well after the European elections; and that spin doctors who were acting in party political interests blocked No. 10 and prevented publication of the report?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. There is no doubt that the Government realised that the report was likely to produce a hostile reaction in many rural areas where they were afraid of doing even worse than they actually did in the recent elections.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given that we have had to wait even longer for the publication of the MMC report than we customarily have to wait for the Prime Minister to provide a straight answer to a straight question—specifically, 130 days—does my hon. Friend

  1057
  agree that it will be an additional source of anxiety and damage to the British dairy industry that the Secretary of State is giving the Director General of Fair Trading some six months to come up with proposals for reforming the system? Does that not threaten a substantial increase over and above the existing forecasts of the likely decline in the number of producers in the sector?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is intolerable that yet more uncertainty has been heaped on the sector after having to wait for so many months. It is now one and a half years since the inquiry began.
  I now turn to the contents of the report, which has suffered from having spent too long addressing a fast-moving target. Milk Marque's share of the supply of milk in Britain fell from almost 50 per cent. when the MMC started considering the issue to under 40 per cent. in the current year. That huge reduction is continuing, yet the report's conclusions seem to be largely based on the 50 per cent. figure. In such a fast-moving environment, the long delay in publication has further devalued the document. Despite having wasted so much time, Labour has drawn the wrong conclusion, because the overriding need is for Milk Marque to be able to match its European counterparts and invest in processing.
  Producer organisations are important in most large milk producing countries. To remain viable in the face of international competition, they need the benefit of the vertical integration which is currently denied to all farmers who have voluntarily decided to remain in the co-operative that constitutes Milk Marque. Instead of allowing Milk Marque to compete with other bodies at home and abroad, the Secretary of State has dithered. He has stopped short of absolute refusal and is saying instead, "Well, no—unless the Director General of Fair Trading decides that Milk Marque can carry out more processing," thus creating more uncertainty and more scope for bureaucratic intervention.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I regularly take part in agricultural debates. I also know that the motion on the Order Paper was written yesterday. Given the fact that the MMC found that Milk Marque had exploited the situation, does he still believe that it should be strengthened, as proposed in the motion?
  Mr. Yeo: I certainly do, as I wrote the motion myself. I am not persuaded by the allegations in the report that Milk Marque has exploited the situation. Admittedly, I have not read all 580 pages of the report, but I have studied it overnight. I do not find the evidence compelling, nor do many of the people whom I spoke to this morning. I hope that the Minister will tell us what he thinks of that and what effect it will have on dairy farmers.
  While I welcome the commonsense decision of the DTI not to split up Milk Marque, which was scarcely necessary given the fact that its market share was declining so quickly, the whole thrust of the document and the Government's response to it is to put downward pressure on prices. Even farmers who are not part of Milk Marque will be astonished by the claim that its activities have kept farm gate prices artificially high. Instead of responding to
  1058
  an alleged but unproven monopoly, the Government should look at why processing costs are higher here than they are in Europe.
  Mr. Tim Collins: I invite my hon. Friend to ignore the comments of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Having spoken this afternoon to members of the Cumbrian NFU, I can assure him that the hon. Gentleman does not speak for Cumbria; indeed, on the basis of the local and European election results, he will not speak for Carlisle much longer either.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The swing in the local elections was indeed startling.
  The Government should examine why lower farm gate prices are not replicated on the supermarket shelf; why in some shops milk costs less than water; and why in British shops milk is often cheaper than abroad, unlike some other food items.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I want to reinforce a point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. Is he aware of the complaint of dairy farmers in my constituency that, having been prevented from operating a vertically integrated producer co-operative, their alternative now is to sell to a company that is a subsidiary of a Danish co-operative which has 95 per cent. of its home market?
  Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman is right, and the present situation will simply reinforce such absurdities.
  The Government should examine the disparity between the fall in farm gate prices and the much smaller fall in supermarket prices, even if it means upsetting some of their friends, old or new, in the retail industry. Lower farm gate prices mean more dairy farmers going out of business, others working for less than the minimum wage, and more reliance on imports, which could become more expensive if the pound weakens. That would not be in the interests of farmers, consumers or retailers.
  A Milk Marque free to invest in processing would improve competition; a weak Milk Marque, shackled by Government restrictions, cannot do so. Eventually, Milk Marque may no longer be able to act as the buyer of last resort.
  Mr. David Drew: I agree with much that the hon. Gentleman has said about Milk Marque. Why did not the Conservative Government of whom he was a member set up a slightly different system so that many of the problems that we have to deal with did not arise?
  Mr. Yeo: When Milk Marque started, it exercised a near monopoly. Because of its evolution in the past four years, we should move to the next stage and give it the commercial freedom to act as similar organisations in other European countries do, successfully and without detriment to competition.
  If Milk Marque is not able to act as the buyer of last resort, some dairy farmers may find that there is no one to buy their milk. We need a small number of viable producer groups competing vigorously, and Milk Marque should be one of them. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues to see sense.

  1059
  Dairy farmers have been damaged by the Government's failure to achieve a resumption of beef exports. Last November, the Minister triumphantly announced in the House that the beef export ban was being lifted, but eight months later not a single ounce of beef has been exported from the British mainland. The calf processing aid scheme is due to end at the end of July. Scrapping the scheme before beef exports restart is simply wrong. It will lead to huge calf surpluses and cut farmers' returns once again.
  Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister to consider extending the scheme. If he really believes, as he said a couple of days ago, that beef exports will start again very soon, why not allow the scheme to run if only for another three months? Does he not recognise that not doing so means that some farmers face the prospect of rearing calves that are worthless, which itself may have animal welfare implications?
  Another serious problem for dairy farmers is the growing threat from tuberculosis. Last year, there was a 45 per cent. increase in tuberculosis, but the Government have been slow to implement the Krebs report. Only two out of 10 triplet areas have so far commenced trials, which means that it will be 2004 before the trials are completed.
  That go-slow on Krebs is needlessly prolonging the period before decisions are taken on how to tackle the problem. The vast majority of farmers are law-abiding and responsible, but if they see years of delay ahead before the Government make up their mind, a few may be tempted to take matters into their own hands.
  Farmers are naturally concerned by recent reports that the European Commission plans to scrap school milk subsidies. The subsidy scheme allows primary schools to provide milk to millions of children across Europe. Although the response has been disappointing in other countries, the scheme has been taken up enthusiastically here.
  The European Commission apparently does not regard that as a sufficient reason to continue the scheme. Will the Minister say what the current position is? I hope that he will be willing to act on the matter, as he has not been willing to do on some other European issues. Belgium's failure to inform Britain about possible contamination of Belgian dairy food products passed almost without criticism from the Minister, except for a brief reference in his statement to the House on 8 June. After his missing weekend, the Minister himself was one of the last to know.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): In fact, I described the matter in the House as a scandal. My remarks were widely reported in the Belgian press, so the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it passed without comment is very wide of the mark.
  Mr. Yeo: I shall be interested to see the press cuttings on a matter that the Minister says was widely reported in Belgium.
  The new Food Standards Agency will not be able to do much to protect British consumers if other countries do not bother to tell us about the possible contamination of imports. If the Minister is so willing to criticise the Belgians, why has he not written a strong letter of protest to his Belgian counterpart? Can he imagine what would
  1060
  have happened if the roles had been reversed? Does he not realise that a written protest might at least encourage the Belgians to contact us more promptly in future?
  The issue of labelling has also featured regularly in debates about farming, and it is relevant to dairy farmers. Last month, The Daily Telegraph revealed that Sainsbury supermarkets were selling butter labelled as
  "pure, slightly salted English butter"
  when in fact it contained Belgian ingredients. That is just the latest in a long line of cases in which British consumers have been misled and British farmers penalised.
  I know that the Minister acknowledges that the need for better labelling is very urgent. British consumers are too often in the dark about the true origins and contents of the food that they buy and about the methods by which it is produced. Milk quotas prevent Britain from meeting its dairy product needs. Imports will be a fact of life until the quota system is changed, so let us at least have clarity and honesty about which products are imported and which are genuinely produced at home.
  Dairy farmers throughout the country will study the Minister's speech today. For some, his remarks will decide whether they remain in business. He must give the House five pledges today to reassure dairy farmers that they have a future. He should pledge that he will fight for an immediate increase in Britain's milk quota; that he will allow Milk Marque to invest in processing; that he will extend the calf processing aid scheme until beef exports resume; that he will start the remaining Krebs trials at once; finally, that labelling of dairy products will be simple, clear and honest.
  Any—and preferably all—of those measures would have the Opposition's full support if they were announced today. I commend the motion to the House.
  4.53 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the economic difficulties faced by the dairy industry; supports the Government's efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy during the recent Agenda 2000 negotiations in order to move towards a freer, more competitive market; welcomes the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of raw milk; notes its conclusions and looks forward to a new selling system being in place which meets the needs both of consumers and the dairy industry; endorses the Government's view that the industry itself must help shape its own future; and congratulates the Government for its support for industry initiatives to achieve this."
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Opposition spokesman, for again securing Opposition time for a debate on agriculture. He is right to say that Government time has not been used for such a debate, but, whenever I ask our business managers for a debate in Government time, they tell me that a debate in Opposition time is coming up and suggest that I make my announcements then. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that I have taken full advantage of that in the past, and the Government intend to do so again now—hence my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman.
  The shadow Cabinet is clearly approaching this topic in a singled-minded way. When I looked at the motion, I thought that the speed with which the shadow Cabinet

  1061
  was disowning the approach that the Conservatives adopted to these matters when they were in government was quite breathtaking. In his speech, the hon. Member for South Suffolk attempted to correct the Opposition's position, although their motion gives no hint of that.
  In any event, the debate gives us two important opportunities. First, it gives the House the opportunity to debate the way forward for the United Kingdom's dairy industry, which is our largest agricultural sector. Secondly, and more specifically, it gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the opportunity to deal with the questions that have been raised by the Competition Commission's report on Milk Marque, and to respond to it. The whole House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for winding up the debate on behalf of the Government and for referring specifically to that report. I will leave that aspect of the motion to him and concentrate on the other matters that the Opposition have raised.
  Before I do so, the House will want to know that I have agreed to meet Milk Marque on Monday and the Dairy Industry Federation later that day. I am meeting Mr. Ben Gill, president of the National Farmers Union, immediately after the debate. I also intend to hold discussions with agriculture Ministers representing the devolved Administrations, and with other producer representatives, particularly those from dairying communities.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Before he moves on to another topic, will the Secretary of State recall his warm words to me in answer to a question about the importance of encouraging the co-operative principle in agriculture? Will he draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to that important consideration, because it is absolutely fundamental to enabling Milk Marque to compete on a level playing field throughout Europe's processed dairy products market?
  Mr. Brown: I strongly believe in producer co-operation. I am an advocate of it. Indeed, I echoed my remarks to the hon. Gentleman in my comments at the royal show on Monday. I said that those points would be taken into account when the Government responded to the competition report and that a statement was imminent.
  Mr. Peter Luff: There is one important issue in relation to the forthcoming milk round. It is important to clarify it now, given that the Minister will not speak at the end of the debate. Will he confirm that the forthcoming milk round, in which only 36 per cent. of milk sold will pass from Milk Marque, will be unaffected by the recommendations that he announced yesterday?
  Mr. Brown: The short answer is yes. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intends to deal specifically with that point in his winding-up speech.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I am grateful for the clear consultation on which my right hon. Friend intends to embark, literally in the next few hours and days. Once he has met the industry representatives to whom he referred to earlier, will he agree to meet a delegation from west Wales and other parts of Wales, which have the highest proportion
  1062
  of Milk Marque members, who are clearly directly affected by the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report?
  Mr. Brown: I am mindful of the responsibilities of the devolved Assembly and of the Minister there. Nevertheless, if my hon. Friend wishes to bring a delegation of his farmers to meet me, I shall be willing to see them. I make the offer, in as much as I reasonably can, to other hon. Members as well. Although I am willing to meet representative groups, please do not place me under siege. I accept that it is my responsibility to get the industry through. I accept the responsibility that goes with my office.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I welcome what the Minister has said. He will recognise that Cornwall does fall within his area of responsibility—we have no delegated government there yet. I can confirm that, after possibly Pembrokeshire, Cornwall has the largest number of Milk Marque suppliers.
  Mr. Brown: I fully appreciate that. During my visits to Cornwall and the west country, that point was made to me over and again. I understand the anxiety. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to see me with some of his farmers—I can see what I shall be doing next week—I am willing to see them as well. This matter is important for the dairy industry because livelihoods are at stake. It is right that the Government not only set out their response to the report but help the industry to get through. I promised the dairy industry that I would work with it to get it through these difficult times, and that is exactly what I am doing.
  The Opposition motion begins by referring to the fall in milk prices, the prices received for cull cows and dairy farm incomes. Of course, those are not all one issue. As we have discussed, the problem is partly cyclical and partly structural.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before he moves on to the generality of the points that he has outlined, may I ask him about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report? He must realise the great significance of the report to the dairy industry, for which he is responsible. Is he mindful of the fact that, when we talk about milk, we are talking about a commodity? Does he realise how difficult it is, particularly in a modern, competitive world, to handle all the problems associated with a commodity? Having been involved in another commodity for most of my working life, I must say that it is now imperative that anyone in a commodity business is allowed to add value, otherwise, one simply cannot survive. The right hon. Gentleman must have strong words with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, make that point and win it.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say, in the general context of difficulties in the livestock sector, that one way forward is producer co-operation and co-operation to achieve added value, which means vertical integration. That issue is at the core of the problems that we are tackling. We need to see how that can be achieved in the dairy sector and be compatible with competition policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have more to say about that when he replies, but please do not think that I have changed my views, or that I will move

  1063
  from trying to help the dairy industry get through what I acknowledge are difficult times, as I have helped other sectors—the hon. Gentleman knows about the pig sector—to what I hope will be better times, to return to profitability and to ensure that those who work so hard in agriculture get a return on their investment and hard work. That is my objective.
  Miss Anne McIntosh rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will give way, but I am conscious that the Opposition were generous enough to allow a Government statement on an Opposition day, which is unusual. Obviously, it is an important statement. I will take interventions, as I know that there is much interest in the House, but I do not want to keep hon. Members out of the debate.
  Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. When he and my constituent, Ben Gill, meet, I am sure that the plight of dairy farmers in the Vale of York will not be far from their thoughts. Milk Marque has made a major investment in its first presence in the Vale of York. Will he ensure that that investment is secure for the foreseeable future?
  Mr. Brown: That matter is better left to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I want to ensure that Milk Marque gets through the competition report and that it is possible for dairy farmers to work co-operatively together, through producer organisations, so that, if they decide to do so—these are market judgments for them—they can take advantage of vertical integration. Having seen the report, I doubt whether they will be able to do so with Milk Marque entirely in its present form. I do not want to hold out hopes. However, those are matters for the Secretary of State.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this important issue. Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), is it not a fact that the industry desperately needs new investment in processing? Is not one reason for the state of processing in this country the fact that there has been no real investment? If we are to compete satisfactorily, we must have more investment.
  Mr. Brown: I certainly think that adding value and, therefore, investing in processing, is an important way forward for the domestic industry. I am not pessimistic about the industry's future. Part of the problem is cyclical, and part structural. Clearly, using the opportunities of vertical integration is one way for dairy farmers to proceed. What the hon. Lady says is right.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I would ask Opposition Members to allow me to complete my speech, unless some matter arises out of it.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will be aware that the long-term trend
  1064
  had been towards a 3 per cent. reduction in the number of dairy producers, until the Lloyds TSB report in 1997, which forecast that, between 1997 and 2000, the figure would be 14 per cent. In the light of the announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the Director General of Fair Trading will have six months in which to produce recommendations for changed procedures, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has discussed that matter with his right hon. Friend and made him aware of the possible increase in the number of producers who would go out of business in the interim?
  Mr. Brown: Views are shared within government, but decisions on this matter of the competition authorities are for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry alone. The responsibility is not shared. [Interruption.] I am afraid that that is how it works—and how it worked under the previous Government. Of course I am able to express an opinion within government, just as other Ministers can. What the hon. Gentleman says about the long-term trend is right. There is a tendency for farm businesses to amalgamate and to grow larger, and that is particularly pronounced in the dairy sector. There is nothing new about that. The economic cycle may exacerbate that trend. It is my responsibility to ensure that the Government have a policy that helps small and medium farmers get by where they can, as well as concentrating on more market-oriented business operations.
  Although the hon. Member for South Suffolk rightly set out the fall in farm incomes and related it to the dairy sector, he did not make very much of the Conservative Government's deregulation of the industry and the intensive competition among processors to secure supplies of milk, which was the immediate consequence of deregulation and which, of course, forced up milk prices. Those pressures have now eased and prices have consequently weakened in the marketplace.
  The motion uses the word "collapsed" in the context of dairy farmers' incomes, yet there is still a market for dairy quota. Agricultural land for dairy farming is still traded at a rate of about 2.5 per cent. of farms for sale per annum—a figure that has remained reasonably static since 1993. The size of the national dairy herd has declined only slightly in recent years. Indeed, agricultural land values are rising.
  The Government monitor total agricultural bankruptcies, which peaked at about 500 in 1992 and fell back to 222 in 1998. Bankruptcy is, of course, a measure of last resort. Most farmers leaving the industry do so in an orderly way by selling up and realising their assets, including the value of milk quota. There is a steady, long-term trend in the sector towards fewer large dairy farms.
  Mr. James Gray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should let me finish my point; I know what he is going to come back on.
  Many people envisage a future for the industry. There is a perfectly proper debate to be had about the industry's shape and structure, and the way in which the common agricultural policy and national Governments should provide continuing support to the sector, as the Government are committed to doing.
  Mr. Gray: The industry and the House will be appalled by the complacent nature of the remarks that the Minister

  1065
  has just made about the dairy industry. In my speech, if I am lucky enough to catch your eye Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall expand on the poverty and hardship among dairy farmers in my constituency. In the short term, does the Minister accept that the 8p a pint that farmers in my constituency get for their milk is the lowest price since Labour was last in power in 1979? Is not that a mark of how awful the situation is in the dairy industry?
  Mr. Brown: I have accepted that prices are depressed. Indeed, we explored earlier, with the hon. Member for South Suffolk, the Front-Bench spokesman, whether it was Conservative party policy to keep prices artificially high by accepting what is called the traditional European model of agriculture with quotas and tariffs, or to work towards a rational, market-oriented solution. To his credit, the hon. Gentleman endorsed the policy that the Conservative Government followed, which was to work towards a market-orientated solution.
  The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that, because I explained that there are people who still have confidence in the industry, the Government are complacent. There is nothing complacent about expressing confidence in an industry and saying that the Government will do their best to get it through difficult times.
  Mr. Gray: Farmers are going bust.
  Mr. Brown: The figures that I have just quoted—I checked the point about bankruptcy—show that farm bankruptcies were at a peak in 1992, not now. That responds to his point.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way first to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
  Mr. Tom King: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman on one problem. He is dependent on the information that reaches him. A lot of the statistics and information that he receives are out of date. In some cases, there is a considerable time lag before the effects of recent events become evident in the statistics. I have represented farmers in this House for 30 years and I have never been more deeply worried about the situation for dairy farmers. I have had the most distressing meetings in farmers' kitchens with farmers and their sons asking me about their future and whether they should stay in dairy farming or sell up now while they can, while their land, their animals and their quota still have some value. As there are no longer any regional advisory boards, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has a more immediate finger on the pulse of the dairy industry than the statistics that reach him. The industry may be facing a more serious situation than he realises.
  Mr. Brown: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. He makes his points sincerely and well. He is right to say that there is a lot of uncertainty in the marketplace, particularly in the dairy sector. My duty is to give as much certainty as I can about the public support regime and ensure that people are properly advised on what would be a rational business decision for their future. To say that the entire dairy sector faces ruin, which is the thrust of the Opposition motion, is wrong and goes too far. There are
  1066
  difficulties, we are going through a period of restructuring and the issues have to be dealt with rationally, but it is not right to go further than that and instil fear where it is not necessary.
  Mr. William Cash: I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). My dairy farmers in Staffordshire are deeply worried, but it is not just a local phenomenon. In the 15 years that I have represented my area, I have never seen anything as bad. Cheques are bouncing, people are in despair and young people are saying that they have no future. I am still waiting to hear something constructive from the Minister. He has given us a lot of words, but no policy. I have heard nothing in response to the charges made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). I have heard no answers to any of the questions asked by any of my hon. Friends. It is important that the Minister understands the urgency of the situation and the need for action.
  Mr. Brown: I understand the seriousness of the situation. Farm incomes have fallen for two years running and prices are depressed. That is the core problem. I have something to say about those points, but I have also been generous in giving way. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. David Lock: I shall be as brief as I can. I, too, have met farmers who are very concerned, but I am sure that they would be far more concerned to hear the Opposition's proposals to remove quotas and reduce prices to world levels. Does my right hon. Friend agree with paragraph 2.17 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, which suggests that a cut of 30 per cent. would be needed to bring EU prices down to world levels? Would not the removal of quota and a reduction to world prices inevitably produce the collapse in prices that the Conservatives are complaining about?
  Mr. Brown: What the motion says and what the hon. Member for South Suffolk has said are not quite the same. The motion refers to an immediate increase in CAP quota. I shall have something to say about that in a moment. We do not know what the world market price for milk is. The CAP supports production in the European Union. The other major suppliers also have support regimes for their products. The totally liberalised market in New Zealand cannot supply the entire world market at the competitive price that everyone says that it would. The big regimes in the United States and the European Union will continue to support the dairy industry, at considerable cost, for many years.
  Mr. Andrew George: The picture that the Minister painted earlier is not reflected in my constituency. The farmers whom I have spoken to in recent weeks and months are on their knees. I should be grateful for some advice. The conditions should be right. We have the highest average dairy farm sizes in Europe, the safest milk with the highest bacterial quality in Europe and an ideal environment for low-cost fodder production, yet we have the lowest farmgate milk prices. With the best environment for a competitive dairy industry, why is confidence at an all-time low?
  Mr. Brown: A range of factors is involved. The explanation is partly cyclical. People are also wondering

  1067
  where the outcome of the CAP round will lead the industry in the medium term. The point about prices being lower in the United Kingdom than in the rest of the European Union is true, but it has been true since 1985.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the response of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)? The hon. Member for South Suffolk made it clear that the Tories want to do away with quotas. When he was asked whether that would lead to a collapse in prices, he said that it would not, because farmers would be allowed to sell only in local markets. [HON. MEMBERS: "No he did not."] Check the record. He said that they would be allowed to sell in local markets, which implies a restriction. There is no conceivable restriction that can be used other than quotas. We have blown a hole in Conservative policy on milk pricing. I hope that the farming industry notices what the Conservatives are saying.
  Mr. Brown: The Government are not contemplating issuing end-user certificates with dairy quota. As I have explained before, I believe in a reformed dairy regime within the CAP, worked out in discussions with our major trading partners to restructure our support for agriculture.
  Mr. Luff: Am I right in saying that the Government—constructively and rightly—formed an alliance with other member states, including Italy and, I think, Denmark to secure the abolition of milk quotas in the most recent CAP round?
  Mr. Brown: I am going to move on to that. I see that Conservative Members are so eager with excitement that they are going to sit still, not intervene and let me get to the point.
  The flaw in the Conservative motion—although not in what the hon. Member for South Suffolk said to the House, which was closer to the position that the Conservatives adopted in government—is that it complains about the weakness in the domestic market and the fall in the milk prices, then goes on to demand that more dairy quota should be issued immediately in Great Britain, which would increase supply and bring prices down. The motion contradicts itself.
  Mr. Yeo indicated dissent.
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman believes that issuing extra dairy quota would somehow put prices up, I am willing to hear his explanation.
  Mr. Yeo: The purpose of including that in the motion was to draw attention to the fact that, disastrously, the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman agreed to Ireland getting an immediate increase in its quota, which will send more imports into this country, depressing the prices in Britain. If Britain's farmers were not shackled by the quota for another four years, they would be able to meet that demand. An increase in quota would not reduce prices; it would replace imports.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. He is right to complain about the issue of extra
  1068
  dairy quota, especially to Ireland. The Irish Government's case cannot really be said to have been founded in merit. In fact, it was founded on an agreement made by the Heads of Government in the early 1980s. The beneficiaries of the agreement remembered, and held the rest of us to it. I agree with the hon. Gentlemen that the agreement should not have been made, but let the House remember who made it.
  Being stuck with it, I did the only thing that I could in the circumstances, and argued for an equivalent and proportionate allocation of quota for Northern Ireland. My success in achieving that unprecedented concession has been welcomed by the industry in the Province. When did any Conservative Government achieve such a thing?
  The United Kingdom Government's great success in the dairy regime element of the CAP negotiations was to make a start on reform, anticipating the changes in world markets that are moving remorselessly towards the European Union's industry. I have said to the House before and I repeat it now, that I would have preferred to have gone further down the reform road and on a shorter timetable.
  I believe that the radical proposal for dairy reform made by Italy, Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom was the right way forward for the European Union. I confidently expect us to be returning to those issues in the coming years. I attach great importance; as I told the Select Committee, to the review clause that we set for 2003 and to the work that we will put in hand leading up to that watershed.
  I welcome the Finnish Agriculture Minister's intention of making the European Union's approach to the agricultural component of the upcoming World Trade Organisation round the main topic for discussion at the informal meeting of European Agriculture Ministers this September.
  The reform road is a difficult one for the industry. The alternative, no matter how attractive it may seem in the short term, is to risk being overwhelmed by external market forces. To their credit, the previous Conservative Government recognised that. The Conservative party's motion today represents a significant change in position, but I accept that, during his speech, the hon. Member for South Suffolk pulled back from the worst implications of the motion. The motion implies that the industry should be placed in a straitjacket at the risk of eventually being overwhelmed by market forces.
  I notice that the hon. Member for South Suffolk did not spell out what the motion means by "strengthening Milk Marque", but the implication is that it advocates the continuing exercise of unjustified monopolistic practices in the marketplace, in complete defiance of the views of the independent Director General of Fair Trading. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to study the report in full. I have not had that chance either, but I have the advantage of getting the executive summary from my civil servants and there are matters to which Milk Marque will have to respond.
  Mr. Yeo: What I meant by "strengthening Milk Marque" was allowing it to integrate vertically, as other comparable organisations do in other European countries. That would be a strengthening of Milk Marque and that is what the Minister has said that he cannot do.
  Mr. Brown: The issue is whether the competition authorities will think it right and fair for the whole of

  1069
  Milk Marque, whether or not it meets the other criticisms, to become processors or whether some other adjustment will be necessary before producer co-operatives can be processors. That is the issue that we must work through with the industry in the coming weeks. I pledge to take a constructive interest in those matters and to do what I can to get the United Kingdom's dairy industry through. That is a perfectly proper thing for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to want to do.
  Mr. Drew: I understand the spirit in which my right hon. Friend will move forward. Does he agree that the way in which Milk Marque and the industry was set up was confrontational and that the only way that we can resolve this is by putting them together around a table and negotiating our way out of this mess?
  Mr. Brown: I have repeatedly told those in the food chain that there is no future for any of us in a confrontational approach. I have argued for each section of the food chain—the retailers, the processors, the food producers and even the caterers—to take a constructive interest in each other's well-being and long-term future. Those in the food chain need each other and I have done what I can to encourage co-operation.
  The Krebs report is important. The previous Government invited Professor Krebs to undertake that valuable study, and I guess that only a cynic would say that they did that in order to avoid difficult decisions in the run-up to the general election.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of information, I was one of the Ministers who felt that the Krebs report was important and we were only too well aware that it had been many years since there had been an independent report carried out by people who would be regarded, not just politically but in the scientific world, as having the information and qualifications necessary to produce such a report. It was nothing to do with the forthcoming general election. The report was commissioned long before the general election.
  Mr. Brown: Nobody would charge either of us with cynicism, but the Conservative Government had 18 years in which to embark upon this and chose to do so in the run-up to the election.
  The Krebs report is of value and I hope that it has been able to inform debate throughout the House. My predecessor had asked Professor John Bourne, a distinguished director of the Research Council Institute for Animal Health, to advise on how the report's recommendations could be implemented. I received Professor Bourne's recommendations when I became the Minister last July and decided straight away to accept his advice and press ahead with the trials. The Government are determined to see the trials through and, at the same time, to take action against tuberculosis in a number of other areas such as a combined package of research which includes the trial, vaccine development, advice on animal husbandry and cattle testing.
  I want to make two points absolutely clear to the House. First, hindering or disrupting the trials is in nobody's interest. I urge everyone with an interest in this to co-operate with the trial group. The results, once evaluated, will be shared with everyone with a legitimate interest and, for the first time, we will have a scientific basis on which to proceed.
  1070
  Secondly, I regard TB in dairy cattle as an animal welfare issue just as much as TB in badgers. The Government are determined to find rational solutions to the problem and not to allow TB to spread in the national dairy herd.
  Let me say directly that those who are disrupting the trials are significantly narrowing the range of options available to the Government. Let me say clearly that this is not even in their own narrow sectional interests. Clearer than that I cannot be.
  I am making use of this Opposition day to make an announcement. Dairy farmers have asked me whether the Government would agree to an industrywide levy to fund a generic advertising campaign. I am strongly of the view that the most important factors in this consideration are the views of dairy farmers. I can therefore announce to the House that, subject to working out the necessary details with the different parties in the dairy industry, I intend to launch a poll in early September with a closing date six weeks later.
  In the United Kingdom, we have the ideal climate for milk production, the highest standards of animal welfare and product safety and some of the finest dairy products in the world.
  Mr. James Paice: It is now several months since the National Farmers Union presented to the Minister a series of proposals to address the problems of TB outbreaks outside the triplet areas while the studies are taking place. When will he respond to those proposals and provide some hope for the dairy farmers outside the study areas?
  Mr. Brown: I do not want to set a date. These are important matters. Significant consideration is being given to the suggestions that have put to me by the dairy industry. Clearly, the points that have been made require a response, and they will get one. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the Government will not back down from their responsibility to deal with the problem of TB in the dairy herd. If one solution will not work, we shall have to look at the remaining options.
  I have been very taken with the point made in the Krebs report that the evidence of a link between TB in the dairy herd and TB in the wild badger population is compelling. That is the phrase used in the report, and that would be the starting point. I would prefer the starting point to be the results of the scientific trial, because we could then all share the evidence and use it as a basis of discussion. However, if that is to be denied me, it does not remove my responsibility to tackle the problem. I give the hon. Gentleman that clear assurance.
  Mrs. Diana Organ: We are all aware of the controversy about the Krebs trial. I wholeheartedly agree that any interference with the trial only hinders the gathering of the knowledge that we need to address that dreadful disease in cattle. However, there is concern among dairy farmers in my area that the trial is slipping: Professor Krebs suggested a five-year trial, and we do not want it to become a seven or 10-year trial. We need the trial to proceed apace. My other point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. In view of the shortage of time available, the hon. Lady must not be greedy.
  Mr. Brown: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. The Government are determined to push on with the trials and to do what is necessary to secure a worthwhile piece of scientific work that will inform the debate once and for all. That is the Government's preferred way forward. However, if that way forward is denied me, and it becomes impossible for us to carry out the trials, I shall still be left to deal with the problem, and I shall have to base solutions on the evidence currently available to us.
  Let me draw my remarks to a close. We in this country have a high level of producer expertise and commitment, which is underpinned by strong research and development support from my Ministry.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I thought that the Minister was going to make several announcements this afternoon but, so far, if I have heard him correctly, he has made one announcement about conducting in September a poll of dairy farmers that lasts for six weeks. A focus group could have sorted that out for him—is that the only announcement that he is going to make?
  Mr. Brown: That is a ridiculous point. Opinions on whether or not the industry should fund a generic advertising campaign for milk should not be taken from a focus group. The people whose opinions matter are dairy farmers, which is why they are to be asked for their opinions in a poll.
  Matters arising from the competition report overshadow this debate and, as I said at the start, those will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he winds up the debate. I had formed a clear impression that the whole House accepted that report as being not only reasonable and right, but generous on the part of the Government. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here at the start of the debate—
  Mr. McLoughlin indicated assent.
  Mr. Brown: He is twitching on the Back Bench, but I cannot tell whether he was present or not.
  Mr. Hoyle: My right hon. Friend is known for listening to farmers and the poll is welcome. However, will he also consider visiting constituencies such as Chorley to meet local farmers and so ensure that their voice is heard?
  Mr. Brown: Nice try—I can see how this is going to go. I said that I would do my best to visit farmers, especially in areas where dairying is a strong sector.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
  Mr. Brown: I now stand ready to respond to the invitation from my distinguished predecessor.
  Mr. Hogg: Before he sits down, will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of cull cows? He will
  1072
  know that food chain was fully insured after August 1996; that being so, is there not a real case now for announcing that the 30-month rule will not apply in respect of cattle born after August 1996? That would be reassuring to dairy farmers.
  Mr. Brown: I cannot make the announcement now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks, but I can give him the assurance that advice on the 30-month scheme is being prepared for me. As he knows, the matter is not entirely in my hands, but is one of several conditions set for us by the European Union. However, there is logic in his remarks: the 30-month period has now passed, so it is right to consider the future of the scheme. That matter is now under consideration and I await advice before taking it up with others. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is well made, but I cannot make an announcement today.
  Let me now bring my remarks to a close. We in this country have a strong retailing structure and a catering industry that is now, rightly, regarded as world class. The real challenge facing the dairy industry is the increasing liberalisation of world markets and progress on common agricultural policy reform. The Government's achievement is to be regarded by our European partners as a constructive ally and to be highly valued by our partners outside the European Union for the role we play in that debate. I invite the House to vote for that approach and to reject the approach outlined in the motion tabled by the official Opposition.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: As usual, I find the Minister's sympathetic tone very attractive, and I suspect that other hon. Members do as well. However, the content of his speech was bitterly disappointing. I hope that the speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the end of the debate will be of greater substance, and that he, too, has been imbibing the milk of human kindness that was the hallmark of the Minister's speech.
  Seventy per cent. of UK milk is processed by 10 companies and 90 per cent. of the butter is processed by just six companies—that is where the real cartel and the real monopoly lie. The previous Conservative Government totally failed to address that situation, although they did introduce a piece of legislation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is not present, because, like me, he sat through the Committee on that legislation. Neither many on the Treasury Bench nor any on the Opposition Front Bench saw that legislation all the way through its stages. I make no apology for referring to that legislation—the Agriculture Act 1993—because it forms the background to this debate.
  Despite that Act, which was intended to address the problem, we still have a market that is dominated by big buyers, not big sellers. As a result, farmers' share of the retail milk price has fallen 10 per cent. since 1994—during the lifetime of Milk Marque. Farmers now receive less than lop per pint for their milk, which compares badly with consumer prices of about 25p per pint in the supermarkets and 40p per pint delivered to the doorstep. Dairy farmers have been squeezed continually over the past four or five years, and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report does little to address that problem. It contains nothing on ways to improve the return to the average dairy farmer.

  1073
  I acknowledge—and dairy farmers will welcome—the fact that the Secretary of State did not accept the recommendation to dismantle Milk Marque. However, our confusion is increased by that decision, because the logic of that huge report leads to such a recommendation, and removing that recommendation makes the logic of the report's argument extremely weak. The confusion is deepened by the Secretary of State's partial approach to the recommendations, because, having rejected the logic for dismantling, he accepts the so-called interim measures, set out on page 98, which were intended to secure the argument for dismantling Milk Marque. The Secretary of State must state at the end of the debate what structural adjustment he seeks to achieve through those interim measures; if none, they have no validity whatsoever.
  The current position demonstrates the total failure of the 1993 Act to bring about a right balance between farmer, retailer and processor. During the period since the Act, the middlemen have creamed off all the profits available in the market for milk, but neither consumers nor producers have benefited proportionately.
  Livestock farmers in my part of the country, to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) referred, are mostly small-scale producers. They are extremely vulnerable and they need effective co-operatives to survive, so I was glad to hear the Minister reiterate his support for co-operatives. However, from reading the report, let alone the Secretary of State's announcement, one would not believe that that was Government policy.
  It is essential to have a successful Milk Marque if the milk sector is to survive, let alone prosper. We must be able to benefit from the EU common agricultural policy, just as farmer co-operatives do in every other member state. The report provides no endorsement of that objective.
  In the current sale period, if sufficient milk is available, of course, the dairy companies will purchase about 90 per cent. of it. The remaining milk will be sold on the short-term daily or monthly market. Expressed as a proportion of the EU milk target price, United Kingdom product prices are now the lowest in the whole of the EU, and they are deteriorating. That is the background to the MMC report before us today.
  The Agriculture Act 1993 was far too protective of the huge dairy companies, with their oligopolistic tendencies. Curiously, and ironically—Labour Members may find this difficult to believe—the Conservative Government were egged on by the Labour Opposition to listen to the Dairy Trade Federation, which represents some of the biggest commercial operators in the country. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Workington has left the Chamber. On Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, he kept arguing the case for restricting the freedom of manoeuvre of a producer co-operative in favour of the huge intermediaries.
  In my speech on Second Reading, I said:
  "We want a producer-co-operative, but not as a fallback position: we want a potential ground breaker which will establish itself as a strong marketing co-operative to match those in other member states. From our experience of agriculture in other member states, we know how effective producer co-operatives are. They are
  1074
  prepared to use their marketing muscle in the market place and to prevent the sort of domination of buying power which results in this country from a small number of processors and supermarkets. A co-operative with the ability to compete in the world of the giants—the supermarket chains and food processors—would be a benefit to producers and consumers. By cutting back on the bargaining power of the middle men, there is no reason why retail food prices should not fall."—[Official Report, 23 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 828.]
  In Committee, the three parties adopted sharply different attitudes to milk producers and their collective potential. I made a similar point in Committee about the importance of making Milk Marque a success not only for its sake but for the sake of the consumer. However, the hon. Member for Workington, speaking for the Labour party, wanted to restrict still more its room for manoeuvre. He said:
  "I only put the proposition that Parliament has the right to decide whether Milk Marque should be capped if it wants to go into processing activities. A later amendment might attempt to cap Milk Marque even if it does not want to go into processing activities.… We are not convinced that Milk Marque will not be able to abuse its position in the market place."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 April 1993; c. 12–13.]
  The Labour party's emphasis was on protecting the big boys—the intermediaries in the chain—not helping the producer co-operatives, namely, the dairy farmers. I hope that now that it is in government it has seen the light.
  Mr. Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a better attitude than that of his predecessors.
  Mr. Drew: To hear co-operation mentioned so many times in so short a period is music to my ears, as a Co-operative Member. However, compared to the large producer co-operatives on the continent, our dairy companies are small beer, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse my mixing metaphors.
  Mr. Tyler: I endorse that view. I am grateful to have the hon. Gentleman's support and I hope that we will continue to have that support in the coming weeks and months, when the issue will be of considerable importance. That is precisely why Milk Marque should not be compared with the large co-operatives in some of the other member states, with which we compete, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said.
  Mr. Andrew George: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), does my hon. Friend agree that, under the terms of the Competition Act 1998, from March next year Milk Marque will not hold a dominant position in the market, as it will have a share of less than 40 per cent. of the liquid market. It should not be affected by the Act as it is not in a dominant and monopolistic position.
  Mr. Tyler: That is true. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Since we are relatively near neighbours, he may be reading my mind. I shall come to that point shortly. I wish to deal first with the Agriculture Act 1993.
  I regret that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is not in his place, although I had a

  1075
  conversation with him yesterday on this matter. He was the Minister when the Agriculture Act went through the House. He said in Committee:
  "Our job as Ministers is to ensure that the arrangements which are capable of asserting that Milk Marque will not overstep the mark are able to function effectively. If that happens, the sign up rate, whether it be 17 per cent. or 70 per cent., will be less of a material consideration."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 April 1993; c. 28.]
  In other words, it is not whether one has a monopoly but what one does with it that is critical.
  I do not believe that the case that has been made by the MMC stands up to scrutiny. I have spent a great deal of time reading it in the past 24 hours. The definition of a monopoly in this context is not relevant and I do not believe that an abuse has been demonstrated.
  Let us take a comparable situation. I understand that Express Dairies has recently announced the purchase of Glanbia's liquid milk business, giving Express a potential 30 per cent. share of the market. Will that be referred to the competition authorities? It certainly should be. Will the Minister insist that while the matter is being examined, Express Dairies is not permitted to continue recruiting farmers who produce milk and taking them away from Milk Marque?
  Our experience since the Agriculture Act 1993 has been deplorable. Milk Marque now markets less than 40 per cent. of Great Britain milk production. That is much less than at the time of the report. It is likely to be as low as 36 per cent.—a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), the Chairman of the Select Committee—in the forthcoming selling round. The MMC did not adequately examine the traumatic events of the summer 1998 and spring 1999 selling round. It is not in the report. I have been through it and there seem to be some quick references to it, but despite the delays in publication, the MMC has not taken that into account.
  As hon. Members will know, in both selling rounds, the buyers effectively held the producers to ransom. They have used their monopoly power twice in the past 12 months. The cartel was in place over those few days. The buyers were able to prevent the proper market from operating. The report is stuck in the early or mid-1990s. It has not taken into account the later 1990s. I see hon. Members on both sides of the House from agricultural constituencies agreeing that that is the case. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry must acknowledge when he returns to the Chamber that the report is in a time warp.
  The experience of those two selling rounds has convinced Milk Marque that there must be some attempt to address the full extent of the market power of the buyers, which is now held by a very small number of major dairy processing companies. Milk Marque has rightly recommended to us that the way forward must be to develop the sale of milk on more one-to-one contracts—a much more direct contractual basis—and on normal commercial terms. That would allow farmers to invest in the necessary processing capacity, and prevent milk from having to be exported, as it was in spring 1999, simply because there was insufficient manufacturing capacity in this country.
  Of course it is true that the market in raw milk is naturally limited by time and transport—it is a commodity that cannot be hung about with—but it was folly for
  1076
  the MMC and the Government to ignore the importance of the EU-wide milk processing market in this context. The two are linked. If there is a surplus in the raw milk market, the milk that goes for processing, which is now Europe-wide, if not worldwide—
  Mr. Richard Livsey: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Tyler: I must make progress because I am conscious of the fact that the Labour and Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen took more than an hour and I want to leave time for other hon. Members to get in.
  A large factor in the collapse of daily farmers' incomes has been the strength of sterling, to which proper reference has not been made today. However, that is an additional reason—I do not want to divert attention from the critical structural problems of the industry—for the Minister to come to the aid of this sector. The considerable gap that has opened between the retail prices for milk and the prices paid to producers must be addressed now; otherwise, more dairy farmers will go to the wall.
  The Minister gave some figures, and it is true that there have not been as many bankruptcies—thank God—as one might have anticipated. One reason is that the amalgamations have proceeded at such a pace that there are, frankly, fewer people in the industry, so there are fewer to go bankrupt. However, I give this warning. If the indecision that is likely to follow this report for many months continues, and if there is no clear signal from both Departments that they take seriously the deterioration in the situation since the report was drawn up, there will be many more farmers whose bank managers will be dragging them into the office to say, "We know that you have hung on by your fingertips. You were waiting for the report, but frankly we see nothing in it which would give us the confidence to maintain your overdraft or borrowing requirement."
  These farmers may have been able to hang on through the winter, but they will not be able to do so for much longer. As a result of the report, the likely selling price over the next few months in the selling round that is just about to start will be lower again, because of the lack of confidence in the market.
  Frankly, I believe that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has fudged the issue of tackling the cartel behaviour of the buyers. I am sure that the Minister, who does his very best to represent the views of farmers, has done his best to influence the Department of Trade and Industry. I have to say that I wish we had been able to get to him earlier to strengthen his resolve and his arm.
  In Committee, I made what I fear was an all-too-accurate forecast. I said:
  "The restrictions on the possible future of Milk Marque may prove to be its undoing. It will not be as effective, powerful or useful to producers as it might be."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 May 1993; c. 253.]
  That is what the report has highlighted, and that is what we are debating.
  I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) say on behalf of the Conservative party that he believes that Milk Marque was shackled. That is a retreat, or a U-turn, from the position of the previous

  1077
  Government, but it is a recognition of the facts which I genuinely welcome. I hope that all parties will now address that issue.
  I wish to make brief reference to the issue of bovine TB. As the Minister knows, my constituency is at the epicentre of one of the worst outbreaks of bovine TB, and has been for many years. It is an appallingly difficult problem with which to grapple. Having examined the issue from all sides for a long time, I believe that we are, as a result of the Krebs report, at last grasping the nettle—but what a tragedy that we have had to wait 25 years for that to happen. Successive Ministers, for political or other reasons, have left it late in the day.
  We now know that the impact and the cost of TB on the industry continues to grow. Dairy herds are accounting for approximately 50 per cent. of the breakdowns. The National Farmers Union has estimated that, by 2006, the number of TB breakdowns will grow to nearly 4,000 a year. The annual cost of TB to the farms is expected to rise to almost £140 million. This is like the BSE crisis coming back and back again, without any sign of an end. I welcome what the Minister has said, and I hope that it will not be too long before we have a firm statement in relation to the representations made by the NFU on the issue, which cannot be left.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that some fallout from BSE remains to be dealt with, notably in relation to cull cows and the end of the calf scheme. I hope that it will not be too long before we get an answer to those questions. August is not far away and, as the Minister rightly responded to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that is when we ought to be clear that the 30-month scheme has outlived its usefulness.
  That ought to be the case—unless the Minister suggests again that maternal transmission is potentially a real problem. If it is, let him be clear about it, and let him tell farmers. That will fill them with horror.
  In the meantime, the Phillips inquiry is an extremely important analysis of what went wrong. The skeletons falling from the Whitehall cupboards are fascinating, and will provide the raw material for some interesting academic studies. However, I hope also that this House can take advantage of the inquiry not only to identify what went wrong, but to ensure that the lessons are learned.
  I have referred previously to the problems that those in the dairy industry—and particularly the specialist cheese makers—are having as a result of the use by the Department of Health of the sledgehammer of emergency provisions to deal with hygiene problems with cheese. I invite the Minister, if he has not done so already, to look at the judgment in the case of the Department of Health v. Aldridge. Clearly, there was a complete over-reaction by the Department of Health, which has important repercussions for specialist food producers—especially those processing milk products.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman rightly alludes to a particularly harrowing situation. Is he aware that Mr. Aldridge has yet to receive any apology for the scandalous way in which he was treated at the hands of the Minister for Public Health?
  Mr. Tyler: It would be inappropriate for me to go into great detail, but the hon. Gentleman may know that I have
  1078
  twice debated this issue in the House, and we still have not had in the House an apology for the way in which Mr. Aldridge was treated. I understand that the Government are paying the legal costs of the case. That is something, but it does not compensate for the appalling loss of business suffered by Mr. Aldridge—nor for the slur on the reputation of Duckett's cheese in Somerset.
  The pledges sought by the Conservatives this evening were valuable and welcome, but of far more value was the way in which the hon. Member for South Suffolk recognised the failure of the 1993 legislation on the marketing of milk. I hope that we can have all-party agreement across the House this evening that it is time to re-examine the legislation. I hope that we can have a pledge from both Front-Bench teams that they will commit themselves to a review and to reform.
  Effectively, the MMC report is a confession of failure. We would not be doing our duty by the dairy farmers, the industry generally or the rural communities that depend on the industry if we did not recognise that fact and address it urgently.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be painfully obvious to the House that there is a very short time left for Back-Bench speeches in what has necessarily been a truncated debate. May I make a special plea for brevity? If hon. Members could confine themselves to about five minutes apiece, it will be possible to get a reasonable spread of participants in the debate.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: I will do my best to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are many dairy farmers in my constituency who are all too painfully familiar with the falling price of raw milk and the falling returns on their hard work.
  Our task today, which has not been helped by the motion, is to try to help the industry to reform. I shall refer briefly to some fundamental facts and then to some of the methods we could use to address them.
  First, much of the UK offers the best circumstances for milk production in the European Union. We currently produce more raw milk than we use. As in most industries, economy of scale helps—the bigger the herd, the more productive each beast is. That process has increased productivity by 22 per cent. in the past 15 years. However, this, and the decline in the volume of drinking milk consumed, has accentuated price pressures and strengthened the need for product development.
  Secondly, although milk quota reform has been deferred, it remains a certainty in the medium term. Any reform should loosen the EU market and benefit the competitive suppliers that we have.
  Thirdly, milk and milk products are increasingly international commodities. Currently, UK and EU prices are uncompetitive. The next World Trade Organisation round will almost certainly free the market somewhat. Although the costs of transport and the perishability of the raw product will prevent that from having much impact on drinking milk, it will have a major impact on the industry that uses milk for processing, as processors will increasingly source from global suppliers.
  Fourthly, our milk processing sector is already fragmented and inefficient. Reference has been made to the monopoly nature of that sector, but the case is

  1079
  not proven. Of the 10 biggest European processors, none is British. The Office of Fair Trading showed in its earlier study that a dairy processor in the UK cost 4.5p per litre to perform a task carried out in Holland for 2.6p per litre. In Denmark and Holland, vertically integrated farmers co-ops dominate the market.
  We are abysmal at product development in this country. Investment has gone into processing, but it has been focused largely on the replacement of antiquated and, sadly—because of the demise of doorstep deliveries—increasingly unwanted bottle plants, not on the development of added value product.
  Cheese consumption in the UK is growing. Although we consume a little less than half as much as the French, we produce only one fifth of the amount that the French industry generates. Nevertheless, the profitability of our processing sector is increasing, in marked contrast to that of farmers. This is where the point about monopoly tendencies can be argued.
  Finally, the other activities of the dairy farmer have been blighted by BSE. We have discussed that, so I shall not dwell on the matter.
  As part of the solution, we need first to encourage the various parts of the milk food chain to discuss together the threats and opportunities that they face. For far too long, the debate has ranged narrowly around the activities of Milk Marque and its machinations. Holstein UK, the representative body of many dairy owners in this country, suggests that
  "there is a need to actually progress, rather than paying mere lip service to adding value to UK milk production, by product modification, diversification and especially new product development."
  Some supermarkets have already started to identify opportunities. Let us ensure that they are met by British milk products. Organic milk remains difficult to source. There are opportunities for longer-life milk products, short of UHT. We have, as I mentioned, a substantial problem in supplying our local cheese market, in which there is a trade deficit, and the same is true of yoghurts.
  Secondly, we must help the chain to explore ways in which its processes can be made more efficient and abbreviated. The Minister touched briefly on the role of collective marketing. The role of the Milk Development Council should be reviewed and its brief widened to marketing, if that is what the industry wants it to do.
  Thirdly, we must recognise that farmers have to be allowed up the value chain if they are to thrive. By locking Milk Marque out of processing, we may hinder that, and farmers will remain weak sellers in a concentrated market. Falling producer membership, now covering below 40 per cent. of production, as several hon. Members have noted, may anyway break the monopoly relationship to processing, but Milk Marque must recognise its customers' concerns. That is one of the telling criticisms. Traceability of product and consistency of supply are critical in the new marketplace.
  Fourthly, we should review the other costs in the chain. The funding of quota purchase and leasing adds about 2.5p per litre to costs. Should we freely allow non-farming quota holders to make a return on an essentially public property? The dairy hygiene inspection charges, like our other agricultural charges, must be compared to those of
  1080
  our EU competitors. We will also need to observe and support the industry's transition from the loss of the calf-processing scheme, and resolve the future of the 30-month scheme. In the medium term, reform and, in my view, eventual abolition of milk quota is essential.
  Finally, we must rapidly resolve the remaining uncertainties from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. That involves further reform of the sale procedures and precise definition of when Milk Marque will cease to be a monopoly supplier, preventing its moving into processing. We should also prepare advice on voluntary steps by Milk Marque that might allow vertical integration to proceed.
  Let us look to the future of the sector, which should be a star performer in UK agriculture. Much of the work that I have outlined lies in the industry's hands, but the Government have some crucial tasks. I look forward to the Minister's response.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It is no exaggeration to say that the countryside is in crisis. I agreed with much that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said. I shall not deal now with the points on which I disagreed with him as time is short and others want to take part in the debate.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has established a reputation for going around the country, talking and listening to farmers. At the beginning of his speech today, he gave the impression that he would make some important announcement on the future of the dairy industry. Having listened to his whole speech, I was disappointed. The only thing that he promised dairy farmers was a ballot, starting in September and lasting six weeks, on whether there should be a levy for the promotion of milk. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman cannot get the Government business managers—a position that he formerly held—to allow him to make a statement of that magnitude in the House. Perhaps that is surprising, given the way that the Government treat the House of Commons.
  If the Minister believes that such a levy will help the long-term future of the dairy industry, he is living in cloud cuckoo land, along with the rest of the Government. The countryside is facing a devastating crisis.
  We have heard much about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry rejected its main conclusions but accepted other parts. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, that is not logical. In the 24 hours since the report was published, I have not managed to study it in detail but I have listened to those who have.
  By announcing that he rejects the main conclusions but accepts others, the Secretary of State continues to sow doubt in the dairy industry. The problem is what will happen to dairy prices before he tells us the director general's final recommendation. The time scale on which he has so far dealt with the matter gives great cause for concern.
  Let me deal more generally with the crisis in the countryside. I have the privilege to represent a good piece of the Peak district national park and some of the outstandingly beautiful areas of Derbyshire. We have such

  1081
  beautiful countryside because of the way our fanners have looked after and farmed it. I have great fears for the future of the countryside if farmers do not believe that they can earn a living from their farms.
  There is a notion that farmers are wealthy people. Some of them are very wealthy, but many are not. Many tenant fanners are finding it extremely difficult to sustain a living off the land. If they were subject to the national minimum wage, the Government would probably close down the farms because they would not meet the criteria.
  After a 40-minute speech, the Minister proposed a ballot on a levy to take more money off the farmers. The farmers will be reluctant to see any more money come off their milk price, not because they do not want their industry to be a success but because they fear for their own survival in the long term. What they feel is not annoyance with the Government, but frustration because they can see no way out.
  I respect the Minister, but I have to say that I found his speech highly complacent in respect of the position in which a lot of my constituents who are in the dairy industry find themselves—they are struggling to survive. In the Bakewell area, more than 10 have gone out of production in the past few months. Farmers cannot afford to continue producing milk at the prices that they are currently receiving.
  Mr. Nick Brown: May I ask the hon. Gentleman candidly what remedy he is urging on me?
  Mr. McLoughlin: Some of those that have been mentioned. From the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) raised five points on which the Minister ought to act—the calf processing scheme is one of them—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the 30-month scheme, which he could address shortly. Representations on a number of points have been made to him in the debate and I hope that, because of the number of Members who want to speak, he will not mind if I do not repeat them all.
  The fact that the Minister is seized of the growing concern about tuberculosis, which has spread across the north Staffordshire border well into Derbyshire, has come across in the debate. The disease is causing tremendous concern among farmers. I have seen the National Farmers Union letter forecasting the expected growth in TB, but what I have learned about its spread and growth in my constituency suggests that the NFU has probably underestimated the problem we will face. Tuberculosis is a growing problem in north Derbyshire and in various areas below Ashbourne, and it is creeping down to the constituency of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, which is not too far away. Although I realise that it will take time to get the results of tests, we need them urgently and the Minister ought to consider establishing more trial areas so that conclusive recommendations can be made more speedily.
  I want to say a lot more, but we are short of time and many Members want to speak. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that we have not raised these matters only because we want to discuss agriculture continually in the Chamber. We think that the Government are getting it wrong in many ways, and the future of the countryside that we love and enjoy is at
  1082
  stake. It is all very well to talk about the protection of sites of special scientific interest, trying to green-up the environment and giving people the right to roam. The way the Government are going, people will have the right to roam because the fields will not be farmed and the countryside will not be in the pleasant state that we expect it to be in. I urge the Government to take action quickly.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. David Lock: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I freely admit that I am not an agriculture expert and I have spent much of my time in the House dealing with legal reform and working with the legal profession. However, that has given me some insight and I can spot special pleading; when claims are made about the public interest, they are often based on sectional interest.
  I have two substantial interests in agriculture. First, there are many farms and agriculture workers in my constituency. Wyre Forest does not contain only trees and towns; it is a beautiful rural area of Worcestershire. When I met the National Farmers Union and dairy farmers last week, they urged me to press Ministers to disclose the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report because that would be the best way to achieve confidence in the agriculture industry. I met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday and the report was published on Tuesday, although I cannot go back to my NFU members and claim that I had any responsibility for its publication.
  My second interest is that I represent about 90,000 people in all, including children. I have been worried about that throughout the debate because the vast majority of my constituents consume milk products. It is tempting to say that consumers have been totally ignored in the debate. Milk is a product; it is put on the market to be sold to consumers. I am concerned that our discussions have centred on the interests of the producers. Consumers have rights as well, the most important of which is the right to a proper, well-regulated and safe supply of milk.
  Last year, I had the privilege of visiting the United States. I went to a "Save Family Farms" rally in rural Minnesota. Farmer after farmer complained that his livelihood was being ruined by the collapse of world prices. Two clear points emerged. First, a group in the United States was demanding free trade, flexibility and liberalised markets from every other country in the world, but it complained when those same principles came back to them and were inconvenient. Secondly, complaint after complaint was made against companies that were buying up land and farming at what were freely admitted to be prices with which family farms could not compete. There was opposition to structural change that was taking place in the market and causing enormous damage to family-run farms, but changes in the industry were reducing prices and putting enormous pressure on farmers. Having talked to my farmers in great depth, I wonder whether we are seeing the same sort of structural reform here. That is one reason why there is a price crisis at the moment.
  The farmers in my constituency have repeatedly told me that prices are poor. They are—that has been well documented by other hon. Members so I shall not go through the figures—but my farmers also told me that the milk market is being rigged by the dairy companies and the supermarkets. The situation is not straightforward

  1083
  because most of the world trade is in butter and derivative milk products rather than in milk, but paragraph 2.17 of the MMC report confirms that European Union support prices are above world prices and that a cut of 30 per cent. will be needed to bring prices here down to world levels.
  Prices in Britain are substantially higher than world prices. Our consumers are paying more, although I have not heard a voice being raised on their behalf. In the years ahead, change will come through the World Trade Organisation and reform of the common agricultural policy. World prices will inevitably come down.
  Mr. Gray: Irrespective of what might have happened to consumer prices recently—for all I know, people in this country may be paying the highest consumer price at the supermarket—does not the hon. Gentleman accept that farmers are demonstrably earning less than they have ever earned? Although the supermarkets and the intermediaries may be to blame for the high price to the consumer, farmers are definitely not to blame.
  Mr. Lock: I entirely accept that that is right. I urge the Government to listen to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who suggested that the way forward is to allow farmers and farmers' co-operatives to add value to their products so that they can retain more of the value that is in the raw milk. They would thus be able to get a true share of the value of what they produce.
  Having looked at the MMC report in as much detail as one can overnight, it is interesting that the basic allegation of collusion between the main dairy producers and the supermarkets to keep prices down in the various bidding rounds has simply not been accepted by those who have gone into that matter in enormous detail. I find it astonishing that the report has been rubbished by a number of speakers this afternoon, given that it is doubtful whether anyone has had a chance to look at its detailed substance.
  Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that work on the report ceased before the latest selling rounds, in which there was clear evidence of the cartel operations of the buyers? I see Labour Members nodding.
  Mr. Lock: I obviously accept that that is correct. None the less, the report examined allegations of cartels which were made at that time and then found wanting. Those allegations may be repeated and they may be justified this time.
  I want to discuss my farmers' bitter complaints about the cost of quota. Quota has been sold and leased. This is the price that farmers in my constituency are having to pay as part of the overheads involved in the production of milk. It has no benefit for the farmer, or for the consumer; it is purely a price imposed by the system chosen by the last Government in order to introduce quota.
  May I make an urgent plea? I feel that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry considers his response to the report and when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture considers reform of the quota system, their first priority must be to ensure that the cost goes out of the system. What the farmer
  1084
  receives at the farm gate must surely be the price that he receives to meet his legitimate costs. A process that involves buying or renting quota from a retired farmer, or a middle man who may never have had anything to do with farming in the first place, is simply rigging the market and adding a cost to agriculture that benefits no one except the tiny proportion of people who have quota.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to do all that he can to get rid of that cost, and to ensure that the licence to produce is there only for those who are actually producing.
  6.21 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I shall try to be brief, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  I believe that Cheshire farmers have been cheated this afternoon, and that the Government have pulled a fast one by announcing what almost amounts to Government business in Opposition time. In normal circumstances, we would have expected a full statement on the Government's response to the MMC report, and an opportunity to question Ministers; but the subject has been pushed into today's debate. The Government may wish to consider devoting a day's debate to this important issue in their own time. Most hon. Members have not had time to read fully and to absorb the MMC's complicated report, and they would like an opportunity to debate the issues contained in it.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the dairy industry is experiencing a crisis. Its income is lower than it has been for 60 years, and farming incomes are in free fall. Farmgate milk prices have fallen by nearly a quarter over the last two years—by more than 3p a pint. The situation is disastrous: consumers are not benefiting, but dairy processing companies—the fat cats of the industry—are profiting. The gap between the retail price, which is 25p in stores and approximately 40p for milk delivered to the doorstep, and the price paid to producers—about 10p a pint—has widened dramatically.
  Dairy farmers have been disadvantaged by a particularly aggressive market. Some success has been achieved by dairy farmer co-operatives such as Milk Marque, but they face increased concentration of milk processors and retailers. Fewer than 12 major processing companies now exist in the United Kingdom, and there are only four major multiple retailers.
  I believe that farmers themselves need to develop processing capacity, and to be able to make the investment that is necessary for the provision of not only world-class processing facilities, but innovation for the future. That investment is also necessary to give producers and farmers a place at the negotiating table. At present, they are excluded from the chain that takes milk from the farm to the shop. That is particularly important in the light of the decision to allocate more milk quotas from 2005 onwards, and the longer-term possibility—I put it no higher than that—of an end to the quota system. We were disappointed recently that the United Kingdom received no increase in quota. Four other countries succeeded—including Eire, which is one of our major competitors.
  I am pleased that, at long last, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has published his response to the MMC report, and I am especially pleased that he has rejected the recommendation for Milk Marque to be

  1085
  broken up. Milk Marque does not hold a dominant market position: its share of the raw milk market is only 38 per cent. in the United Kingdom, and only 4 per cent. in European Union terms. What justification is there—what justification could there possibly be—for preventing further moves into processing?
  I understand that Milk Marque has been described as a complex monopoly, and that the rules that exist today were established in 1973. The MMC acknowledges that Milk Marque's current processing activities have not been used to enhance its scale monopoly. On what basis do the MMC and the Government conclude that any further advance into processing by Milk Marque would produce a different result? Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us when he winds up the debate.
  Like many others, no doubt, I want a fair deal for farmers, but let us face it: the industry has been left in limbo for many months while the MMC inquiry has been in progress. Nothing erodes confidence in the future more than uncertainty—not knowing what that future holds. Once a decision has been made for better or worse, at least people can plan. At present, however, the industry is in limbo, because the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has kicked the ball back into touch.
  Producers are willing to co-operate with processors and retailers alike, and to work together on a commercial basis to bring about the best conclusion for the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that the Minister, the Secretary of State and others in Government will work towards that end.
  I want to refer briefly to two issues that are particularly important to the fanning community in Cheshire. The first is the calf processing aid scheme, which has already been mentioned today and whose continuation I consider to be essential. The lifting of the beef export ban was announced in November last year. Since then, not one carcase has been exported to the continent, and the calf processing aid scheme will apparently cease at the end of this month. I think it vital for the scheme to continue until normal export markets have been resumed, and I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister will give assurances in that regard.
  The alternative to rearing calves that would have entered the processing aid scheme would be slaughtering them on farms—not something that any of us would contemplate with an easy mind. That in its turn would lead to a dramatic increase in on-farm burials and, potentially, to animal welfare problems.
  There is another compelling reason why the calf processing aid scheme should be retained for the present. Its retention would enable farms that are subject to tuberculosis outbreaks, and therefore to herd restrictions, to prevent overstocking by removing surplus calves, thus avoiding associated animal welfare problems. That factor becomes more telling as the problem with badger tuberculosis becomes increasingly acute.
  Those of us who represent dairy industries know of dairy farmers' anxiety about the spread of TB. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said that TB was spreading into the Peak district and into his constituency; my area has also experienced outbreaks in Staffordshire and in Cheshire. The problem is growing at an alarming rate. I hope that the Government will continue to support research into the development of a cattle vaccine, and to investigate all
  1086
  aspects of the origin and transmission of bovine tuberculosis. I endorse all that Opposition Front Benchers have said about that today.
  All hon. Members are concerned about what is happening in rural areas. In Cheshire, we have the United Kingdom's foremost dairying county—although I accept that other areas in the United Kingdom might think that they hold that position. In my own area in Cheshire, we farm very productively and very close to large population centres, such as Stoke-on-Trent, the Potteries, the Manchester area, Liverpool and the midlands.
  One of the problems facing Milk Marque is the cost of transportation, and the fact that it collects milk from every part of the United Kingdom, including south Wales and the west country. It is very easy for more local dairies to pick off local farmers, as their cost of transporting milk from Cheshire farmers to a dairy in Manchester, for example, is minimal compared with Milk Marque's costs. However, those dairies do not cover the entire United Kingdom.
  I hope that more investment will be made in processing, which is a vital element for the future of our dairy sector. In the past, there has been very little such investment and, currently, the private dairy companies are making very little of it. I trust that that situation will be put right.
  For all hon. Members who support rural areas, and the part that those areas play in our country—no one could have summed that up better than my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire—I should simply like to say that we are concerned; we wish to see action; and we trust that the Government will, as a priority, act to address our concerns.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to be called to speak—albeit it latterly and speedily—in this very important debate. This morning, I was speaking to a dairy farmer in my constituency, Nick Loftus, who told me of his grandfather, who had farmed a dairy farm in the Fylde, near Blackpool, in the 1920s—when, he said, similar problems existed in the dairy industry. Local dairy farmers had been threatened with a reduction in the milk price from 1¾d to 1½d per gallon. Those local farmers took it into their hands to fight the local dairy by feeding the milk to pigs or pouring it into the drains.
  At that time, that method worked, and the dairy backed down. I suspect, however, that such methods would not work now, as the cartel of dairy processing companies would have milk from other locations on site within hours. Over the years, the position of producers has been weakened considerably.
  I should say that one is often confused when giving examples from the dairy industry, as some people talk in litres, whereas others talk in pints. Nevertheless, Nick Loftus farms about 1,000 acres, employing five men. Those who are familiar with arable farming will realise that five men are about five times as many as one would have on a comparable-sized arable farm. His farm is in Essex, near Finchingfield, which is alleged to be the most beautiful village in Essex, if not in East Anglia. Nevertheless, although the aspect may be pleasing, the economic returns are very poor indeed.
  Nick Loftus's view is quite simply that, if producers are to be strong in the market, they have to combine and to have a processing arm. Throughout history, producers have been in a weak position, but processors and retailers have been in a strong one.

  1087
  Recently, we received the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on Milk Marque. If Milk Marque is a monopoly, it is a very poor one—as its market share has now been reduced to less than 40 per cent. I should much prefer the whole matter to be referred to a body, if there were one, called the cartel commission, so that those who are really milking the system—the producing dairy companies, and perhaps even our friends the supermarkets—might be dealt with. The retail price remains constant, but the producer price falls, and that pattern is occurring not only in the dairy sector.
  Whatever faults Milk Marque might have in some aspects of its operation, it is not the key to the problem. It is very surprising to hear suggestions that it would be quite wrong for producers to have a processing arm. As we have heard in the debate, Denmark's milk co-operative has more than 90 per cent. of the Danish market, and it not only produces, but processes.
  Moreover, the Danish co-operative—which is now the owner, or part owner of M and D Foods—is processing not only in Denmark, but in my own constituency. Therefore, it is vertically integrating not only in Denmark, but in the United Kingdom. Our own producers are being discouraged from vertically integrating, from adding value and—to put it into English—from going into a profitable part of the sector, so that they might be able to spread their costs and risk.
  I am reassured that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be examining the matter further, and talking to the interested parties. However, I am sure that I am not alone when I say that we hope that producers will get a fair deal in the sector, and that profits will not simply be skimmed off and taken from producers—not to the benefit of consumers, but to the advantage of those who go between producers and consumers.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I should first declare an interest, as I am the president of a creamery in my constituency. However, I am an unpaid president, with no pecuniary interest in the business.
  I follow the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) in saying that, currently, we should be concerned primarily about producers, who are going through a very difficult time. If there are no producers, there will be no consumers. I do not have to remind the House how important the dairy sector is to Wales, as it constitutes 30 per cent. of Wales's agricultural gross domestic product. In the past 20 years, the number of dairy holdings has been more than halved, from 9,000 to 4,000. Two years ago, there were 4,576 such holdings; now, there are 4,078.
  Unquestionably, there is a crisis in the dairy sector. Last year, the sector's net farm income fell by 25 per cent. In the past two years—combining the dairy and livestock sectors—average annual net farm income has dropped from £18,527, to £11,524 in 1997–98, and, now, to a mere £6,854. Needless to say, some farmers must be below that average.
  The average weekly net farm income is only £130. We cannot build an industry—or expect young people to go into an industry—with those figures. Something has to be done. The net margin per cow is a telling figure—from £333 in 1995–96, to £93 in 1998–99.
  1088
  At the South Caernarfonshire Creamery, we are concerned that, recently, the market value of our cheddar has decreased by £500—or 20 per cent.—per tonne. The decrease is a consequence partly of imports, and partly of our inability to export because of the value of the pound, which has already been mentioned by other hon. Members. Ironically, in dealing with United Kingdom agriculture's difficulty in competing with Europe's agriculture, only the United Kingdom dairy sector is receiving no European Union agrimonetary compensation.
  Plaid Cymru Members welcome the fact that, yesterday, at long last, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report was issued. I am not sure what delayed the report, but at least we have it now. Our reaction to the report must be mixed. We welcome the fact that Ministers will not split up Milk Marque, as now is not the time to add additional uncertainty. Although there may be arguments for considering the matter in the future, we should not consider them now.
  We regret very much that the report seems to favour denying Milk Marque the right to develop new processing plant, as such plant is greatly needed. A two-year scheme is about to proceed in Felinfach, investing millions of pounds and creating 70 new jobs, but it seems likely that that scheme will be undermined by the Government's decision. We should very much regret that.
  A number of issues have to be addressed urgently. We all understand the problems caused by the high value of the pound—it is hitting not only the dairy sector, but others—but something has to be done about it. We also have to extend processing capacity. We therefore believe that that matter will have to be rethought by both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  The calf processing scheme, which is due to end on 31 July, must clearly continue because of the difficulties that face the industry. The Government must fund the British cattle movement service beyond 30 September. We also need an urgent review of the anti-competitive impact of the supermarket chains, which is causing farmers great difficulties, but from which consumers do not appear to benefit. Now that the report has been published, I hope that action will follow.
  6.40 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I have two unremunerated interests to declare. I am a vice-president of Devon young farmers—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may laugh, but there is youth in me yet. Secondly, six months ago Milk Marque put into the public domain an application for a processing plant in Cullompton, giving me a keen constituency interest in the report.
  Given the report's importance and the number of questions tabled by both sides of the House, a statement from the Secretary of State would have enabled him to answer questions, and that would have been better than tagging himself on to the end of a Conservative debate on the dairy trade. I shall listen carefully to what he has to say.
  We have sought to persuade the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the urgent situation facing the dairy trade. The Minister has a reputation for listening, and I felt that he was trying to respond to the crisis when he spoke. My right hon. Friend the Member

  1089
  for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) testified to the devastating experiences of their constituents, and I could add to what they said. My first Trade and Industry question from the Dispatch Box flagged up the urgency of the problems facing dairy farmers, many of whom see this month's selling round as the time at which to decide whether to stay in business or call it a day.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that dairy farmers hanging on by their fingernails and preparing to decide during the next week or two whether to remain in business will be dismayed by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, which creates another six months of uncertainty over the structure of Milk Marque?
  Mrs. Browning: Indeed; my hon. Friend is right. The Government's response to the report is inconsistent, and further delay faces farmers. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should take the opportunity provided by the debate to unlock the grip on the industry and to set some fears to rest. I hope that his response will be long on action and short on rhetoric.
  Raw milk processing is a large industry, but we have been slow to change in favour of the culture of farmer co-operatives adopted in many European countries. Labour Members may think it strange that mere Conservatives should praise co-operative movements, but my advocacy is not new. My background is in marketing, and in considering how value can be added to products brought to market, I have admired examples from across the channel of farmers coming together to invest in packaging, marketing and transport in order to take a larger share of the single market. Lessons can be learned from those examples, and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) was right to say that farmers in the dairy trade are increasingly prepared to work that way.
  The Minister of Agriculture said that vertical integration should be encouraged at the core of industry. I agree. Milk Marque makes a good case for wanting to process. A presentation in support of Milk Marque notes that there is no UK dairy processor in Europe's top 10, despite the UK position as the third largest milk-producing country in the EU behind France and Germany. Of the top 10 EU processors, six are farmer-controlled co-operatives. It is a tried and tested path.
  The UK produces 14 billion litres of milk a year, but no UK company processes even 2 billion litres. By contrast, in Holland, a country that produces only 11 billion litres of milk a year, two companies—Friesland Coberco and Campina Melkunie—dominate the scene. Both are co-operatives, vertically integrated from farm to factory. In Denmark, the same pattern applies, with 90 per cent. of milk produced on Danish farms and processed and marketed in that way. Our sector is asking to operate on the same level playing field, and it is unbelievable that we must wait to find out whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will let British farmers and companies take their product to market. If the single market is to mean anything, our farmers must have the same opportunities as others.
  The Minister of Agriculture questioned our motion's desire to strengthen Milk Marque. There is nothing ambiguous in that. My hon. Friend the Member for South
  1090
  Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has pointed out, and I shall reiterate, that Milk Marque wants to process so that it can take products to market with value added. The Government's amendment says that
  "the industry itself must help shape its own future".
  What more can it do? It has not come to the Government with a begging bowl, but is asking to be allowed to compete and to develop its product in the same way as its competitors.
  The Prime Minister was questioned on that point by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) this afternoon. It was extraordinary to hear him say that the contents of the report meant that allowing Milk Marque to expand and to process its own product would involve Government subsidy. The Minister will want to put his Prime Minister right, as the latter seems not to be up to speed. There is no question of Milk Marque's asking for public money.
  Mr. Nick Brown: I am trying to follow the hon. Lady's argument. Is she urging the Government to reject the MMC report?
  Mrs. Browning: In considering breaking up Milk Marque, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry must consider carefully whether or not to accept the report. It is in his gift to decide. I ask him to consider Milk Marque's request on processing, which would allow it to take its place in the market.
  When it comes to import substitution, value-added products will appear on supermarket shelves, which are a huge growth area for the dairy sector. If those products are not British, they will be imported products. Some may even have been produced from UK milk. Earlier this year, the Dutch bought liquid milk from the UK—there are no borders because we are in a single market—but the UK consumer and producer will find those products back on our supermarket shelves.
  When new Labour came to power two years ago, Labour Members' bleepers continually told them to repeat two words at us in every speech from the Front or Back Benches—fairness and justice. Milk Marque and British dairy farmers are asking for no more than fairness and justice. They want fairness in the marketplace so that they can compete on a level playing field, and justice so that United Kingdom producers have the opportunity—it is down to them at the end of the day—to put their products on the supermarket shelf so that we do not have to buy from foreign competition.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will use the opportunity to release the industry from its shackles, as it is in his gift to make sure that the industry can compete and is viable so that British dairy farmers can look to the future instead of considering whether to call it a day.
  6.50 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on her promotion to shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am sure that the whole House is pleased that her personal circumstances allow her to accept a well-deserved promotion and take her rightful place on the Opposition Front Bench

  1091
  The MMC report is a substantial document. I welcome the opportunity of accounting to the House for my decision on the report on the supply of raw milk in Great Britain and of answering some of the questions that have been raised during this afternoon's debate.
  Let me start by explaining to the hon. Lady why I did not make a statement to the House yesterday. She will be aware that when an MMC report contains commercially sensitive information, it is not the subject of a statement to the House, since the City would have notice of such a statement's being made and that might not be appropriate. That practice has been adopted by successive Governments.
  The MMC report was clear. It found that Milk Marque was operating in a way that was against the public interest. In my view, that related to the conduct of its sales procedure. The MMC identified two possible remedies to address the abuse by Milk Marque of its monopoly position. It recommended an enforced break-up of Milk Marque. I rejected that recommendation. However, I accepted the view that we should address what I consider to be the key issue—the selling process that Milk Marque has operated.
  It was not an easy decision, as it not usual to disagree with a clear recommendation from the MMC. It is one reason why the report took longer to publish than I would have liked; I understand the concerns expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon and by the farming community, particularly the dairy farmers, about the delay in its publication. I wanted to publish the report as soon as possible and I have done that. I would have liked it to be sooner, but I wanted to make sure when it was published and I had put on record my decision that all avenues had been properly investigated.
  When I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry some two and a half months ago, I said that I would ensure that the report was published by the summer recess. I am pleased to say that I have managed to do that with some two weeks to spare.
  I was not prepared to accept the MMC recommendation to enforce the break-up of Milk Marque because I believed that it would lead to a period of uncertainty. That would be the last thing the dairy industry wanted after the uncertainty of recent weeks.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Although I applaud his decision not to break up Milk Marque, at least a break-up would have allowed the various companies within it to develop processing. Will he look again at the serious issue of allowing Milk Marque to carry out processing?
  Mr. Byers: I shall address processing and vertical integration specifically as the issue has been raised by several right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to the need for diversification and vertical integration in the processing industry.
  In 1992, the Conservative Government decided not to allow Dairy Crest, the processing subsidiary of the former milk marketing boards, to be transferred to Milk Marque. They decided that it would not be appropriate to allow vertical integration. Since then, vertical integration has
  1092
  occurred in two areas. The MMC specifically addressed the point of whether vertical integration should take place, concluding:
  "Although we did not find that Milk Marque was exploiting the scale monopoly situation in respect of its current vertically integrated processing activities, we consider that the planned enlargement of its vertically integrated processing capacity will give Milk Marque the ability to exploit still further the scale monopoly situation in its favour and it may therefore be expected to operate against the public interest."
  In the light of that clear recommendation, I decided that there should be no expansion of its milk marketing operations unless sanctioned by the Director General of Fair Trading.
  Mr. Tyler: What level of market share can or should Milk Marque fall to before the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to review the position?
  Mr. Byers: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the review is decided by the director general of Fair Trading. The rules were established by the previous Government. It is a matter for the director general to refer Milk Marque to the competition authorities. That power was conferred on him by the previous Conservative Administration.
  I turn to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the difficulties that would be created by the adoption of the interim remedies that I have put in place. I was particularly aware of the difficulties caused by the report's being published at this time, just as the new selling round was about to commence. I have received strong representations, including from Mr. Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers Union, about the difficulties that would be created if we were to implement the interim remedies immediately. I have taken the view that it would be unfair to impose them at such short notice. I therefore propose that the interim remedies recommended by the MMC should not apply to the selling round that is about to begin. However, I shall require the director general to report to me within three months of the publication of the report on the undertakings received from Milk Marque.
  Several hon. Members have also raised concerns about the six-month period in which I have asked the director general to discuss with Milk Marque and other interested parties the reform of the selling process. It is not a maximum of six months. If agreement can be reached sooner rather than later, I shall be pleased to receive recommendations within the six-month period. It would be great for the industry if agreement were reached before the next selling round early next year, and if the industry and the director general made some positive proposals. I hope that Milk Marque recognises that opportunity. I look forward to the day when it proposes a selling round and a process that can be agreed by the director general, since that would make an important contribution to ensuring that Milk Marque had a strong future ahead of it.
  As our amendment makes very clear, we wish to strike a balance between the interests of the dairy industry and the interests of consumers. It would have been totally irresponsible of me, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and in the light of the MMC report, to ignore its findings. By rejecting the imposed break-up of Milk Marque, but by allowing further time for consultation and discussion about the selling process, I have sought to balance those—sometimes conflicting—interests.

  1093
  I look forward to the time when, in partnership, we can meet the consumer's interests through a healthy and thriving dairy industry. I believe that the decisions that we have taken following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report will provide us with the facility to do precisely that. I urge the House to reject the motion and support the amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 326.

  Division No. 227]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gill, Christopher

  Allan, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Amess, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gorrie, Donald

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gray, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Damian

  Beggs, Roy

  Greenway, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bercow, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hancock, Mike

  Body, Sir Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brake, Tom

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brazier, Julian

  Horam, John

  Breed, Colin

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Burnett, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burns, Simon

  Keetch, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Key, Robert

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cash, William

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chope, Christopher

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clappison, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Leigh, Edward

  Collins, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Colvin, Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lidington, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  Livsey, Richard

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Luff, Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Fabricant, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fearn. Ronnie

  Malins, Humfrey

  Flight, Howard

  Mates, Michael

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Moore, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Norman, Archie

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Oaten, Mark

  Gibb, Nick

  Öpik, Lembit

  Page, Richard

  1094

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Prior, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thompson, William

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Townend, John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Tredinnick, David

  Ruffley, David

  Trend, Michael

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wardle, Charles

  Shepherd, Richard

  Webb, Steve

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Wells, Bowen

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

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wigley, At Hon Dafydd

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Willis, Phil

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Steen, Anthony

  Woodward, Shaun

  Streeter, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Stunell, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Swayne, Desmond

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton—Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Ainger, Nick

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Alexander, Douglas

  Casale, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Caton, Martin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ashton, Joe

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clapham, Michael

  Austin, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coaker, Vernon

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Coleman, Iain

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Colman, Tony

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Benton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Berry, Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Cranston, Ross

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Boateng, Paul

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dawson, Hilton

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burden, Richard

  Denham, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Dobbin, Jim

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  1095

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Edwards, Huw

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kitfoyle, Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Laxton, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Lepper, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Follett, Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster. Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Linton, Martin

  Gapes, Mike

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lock, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Love, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAllion, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCabe, Steve

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Goggins, Paul

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gunnell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hain, Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  McWilliam, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Healey, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hinchlifle, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hutton, John

  Mudie, George

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pike, Peter L

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  1096

  Pond, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pope, Greg

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor. Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Ms Dad (Stockton S)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Todd, Mark

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Touhig, Don

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Salter, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sawford, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watts, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  White, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Singh, Marsha

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wray, James

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the economic difficulties faced by the dairy industry; supports the Government's efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy during the recent Agenda 2000 negotiations in order to move towards a freer, more competitive market; welcomes the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of raw milk; notes its conclusions and looks forward to a new selling system being in place which meets the needs both of consumers and the dairy industry; endorses the Government's view that the industry itself must help shape its own future; and congratulates the Government for its support for industry initiatives to achieve this.

  Education (Choice and Diversity)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We now come to the second debate on the Opposition motions. I must advise the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.13 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the reduction in choice and diversity in education caused by the Government's abolition of grant maintained status, introduction of ballots to close grammar schools and restriction on the ability of schools to determine their own ethos; notes with concern the threat posed to school sixth forms by the Government's review of post-16 education; condemns the pursuit of uniformity at the expense of diversity; believes that the increasing bureaucratic burdens placed on schools, teachers and governors by the Government and its practice of holding back funding at the centre, to be allocated on the basis of a complicated bidding process, have a particularly adverse impact on rural schools; and further believes that these policies will damage children's education.
  I welcome the opportunity to start this debate—particularly as the Government have not initiated a separate debate on education for the best part of a year—and to set out the damage that the Government are doing to education. Schools and children are suffering as a result of the increases in bureaucracy and centralisation, and of the reductions in choice and diversity. The abolition of grant-maintained status, the ballots to close grammar schools, the restrictions on schools' ability to determine their own ethos—all those policies are aimed at establishing greater uniformity and permitting less choice.
  The Government make rigid policy prescriptions from the centre, for example on class sizes and on how money can be spent. That, together with increasing bureaucracy from the centre, has caused real problems for schools. Nowhere are such problems felt more keenly than in rural areas. Small rural schools are under particular threat. Reduced class sizes, and hence lower school numbers, have led to cuts in funding, while prescription by Government takes no account of the different needs of rural schools. In addition, increased bureaucracy is especially difficult for a small school with few teachers.
  It is time that the Government woke up to the reality of their policies and realised that, despite their rhetoric, the reality is that education is being damaged and children are suffering.
  Mr. Phil Hope: I note that the motion states that education will be damaged under the Government's policies. Will the hon. Lady comment on the record of achievement of the previous Tory Government? While that Government were in power, the number of exclusions rose, as did illiteracy levels. There were also more unqualified school leavers, and class sizes grew. Under the Tories, did not choice in education mean education for a few, and poor education for the many?
  Mrs. May: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to give the page number from which he was quoting in his brief. I am more than happy to comment on the introduction of the national curriculum, which the Labour Government accept, as they accept standard assessment tests, Ofsted and many of the other things that the previous Government introduced.
  Mr. Michael Jack: My hon. Friend referred to the difference between rhetoric and reality. Last Friday,
  1098
  I visited St. Joseph's school, a small Roman Catholic school in my constituency. The headmistress told me that she had been led to understand that, under the Government's proposals for the so-called national grid for learning, the amount of money that she would receive would be properly assessed. However, the reality was that she was given a formula funding that took no account of her many hours of hard work to present her case for the school. Does that not support my hon. Friend's contention?
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the issue of what happened at that school. It supports what I have said, and what I intend to say later in my speech, about the Government's lack of flexibility. The Government constantly prescribe from the centre: Whitehall, and not the schools, decides how the money will be spent.
  Liz Blackman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No, I shall make progress.
  Since the Government came to power in May 1997, there has been a lot of activity with regard to education, but it is a pity that so much has been destructive. The focus has been on damaging good schools and on drawing power away from local level and into the centre. That much is borne out by the example given just now by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).
  We should make no mistake: in the past two weeks, with regard to local authority spending and the post-16 review, the Department for Education and Employment has taken further
  "steps to reinforce its unenviable reputation as the most centralist Department in government",
  and brought forward proposals that
  "represent a centralist approach, with significant powers and budgets controlled by unelected people responsible to Whitehall, not local communities."
  Those are not my words, nor even the words of a Conservative Member. They are the words of Sir Jeremy Beecham, chairman of the Local Government Association and Labour's most senior councillor. [Interruption.] They are a sad comment indeed on the way in which this Government are taking power away from local level—from local education authorities, schools and parents.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Did my hon. Friend note the scornful reception that Sir Jeremy Beecham's name received among Labour Members?
  Mrs. May: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, and I agree that the reception was scornful. Sir Jeremy has given years of service to his party as a councillor. I am sure that other Labour councillors, and Sir Jeremy Beecham himself, will have noted how his views are being cast aside.
  That happens all the time. The Government are not interested in the views of people who understand what is happening in schools and local authorities. They are interested only in their own rhetoric, their own press releases and their own headlines. The Government are interested more in telling parents and teachers what to do than in raising standards.

  1099
  As I have said, the Government do not take any notice of what actually happens in schools. Ministers take no notice of what teachers say and have turned their back on the teaching profession. I know also the ridicule with which my next comment will be met: perhaps they should take heed of today's comment from the National Union of Teachers:
  "The Prime Minister and his Government are caught in the web they have spun for themselves. They cannot gain the respect of the profession through imposition."
  Jacqui Smith: Does the hon. Lady still think that the literacy hour is too long?
  Mrs. May: The hon. Lady will have to come up with something better than that. I suggest that she looks at the research from the university of Warwick, which suggests that the literacy hour should be split into different sessions, rather than all being in one session. I suggest that she looks at the impact of the hour on more able pupils, because it is failing them.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: I will take one more intervention and then make some progress.
  Fiona Mactaggart: On that point and on the hon. Lady's point about how the NUT is right, did she share my concern about the NUT suggestion that the literacy hour should be an entitlement for teachers to train in, rather than an entitlement for children to learn in?
  Mrs. May: One of the problems with the literacy hour is that it takes professional judgment away from teachers. We all believe in raising literacy standards, but I suggest that the hon. Lady asks some teachers in primary schools about the matter, as I do frequently. One said to me that the hour was an insult to teachers. I suggest that she thinks about that.
  I shall look in more detail at the impact of Government policy in several areas. GM schools have found to their cost that all the Government's protestations, when the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 went through, that they would level up school funding so that GM schools did not lose out were just so many words. Throughout the country, former GM schools find themselves with budget cuts, forced to look at sacking teachers, increasing class sizes, stopping classes—a variety of measures are having to be taken as a result of Government policy.
  I have several quotes from GM schools setting out their problems. A primary school in Derbyshire says:
  "The gap between government rhetoric and economic truth is breath-taking…the children in most need are the ones most threatened by these actions".
  A school in Bolton says that the policy will mean an estimated 15 per cent. reduction in teaching staff. Gloucestershire primary schools say:
  "we would not be able to maintain the current level of teachers per class plus non-teaching head, a reduction in non-teaching staff and no time for staff to monitor teaching and the curriculum".
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Is the hon. Lady prepared to accept that those comments from the schools were prior to my decision and announcement at the Association of Heads of Foundation and Aided Schools conference, which now incorporates GM schools? Just 10 days ago, the announcement was welcomed by Bob Lloyd, the new chair of that organisation, who said:
  "This is good news for all schools. We are delighted that David Blunkett has listened to the concerns. He is now taking action to ensure all schools are properly resourced".
  Does that not show that, although she may been told those facts by schools before I made the announcement, she is now entirely wrong?
  Mrs. May: I do not accept that I am entirely wrong because those are problems that the schools are facing today, regardless of the future extra funding that the Government have said that they might put in place. Following his statement to that conference, the word that I am hearing from GM schools is that they are very concerned about the future. They still have to face difficult decisions and budgetary problems in relation to the future of teachers and classes, despite what the Secretary of State has just said.
  Mr. Phil Willis: On the same point, does the hon. Lady accept that, under the previous Administration, the vast majority of schools in Britain made those comments because, under her party's policy, additional money went to a few schools that were grant maintained, at the expense of the vast majority, which had to pay for that?
  Mrs. May: That comment does not deserve a response. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the money for GM schools in addition to the money that was given to local authority schools was spent otherwise on bureaucracy at local authority level.
  Sutton Grant Maintained Schools Finance Group has written to the Secretary of State. It has pointed out that it has nearly £1 million less than is required to maintain staffing and curriculum just at last year's levels. In Liverpool, there was concern that changes in the budget
  "would result in larger class sizes and possible loss of smaller subjects from the curriculum, thus producing a detrimental effect on pupils' education".
  In Warwickshire, GM schools have spoken about having to do some or all of the following: increase class sizes; lose a second language in key stage 3; reduce option choices at key stage 4; more teaching of second subjects by teachers and the use of non-specialists in some areas; reduction of some special needs support; post-16 reduction in schools with sixth forms; some schools having to consider redundancies this year and the next.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: I will in a minute.
  Whatever the Government may say about GM schools funding, the blame lies fairly and squarely at the

  1101
  Secretary of State's door. I quote a letter to the Secretary of State from a head teacher of a GM school in Kent:
  "The fundamental working principles that are emerging from the Department, which are being cascaded down through the LEA to schools, is increasing bureaucracy, reducing delegation and restricting school management. In an attempt to curb Leas' control of funds and educational management, the Department appears to be moving towards even greater centralisation."
  Mr. Edward Garnier: That is exactly the experience that two head teachers from my Leicestershire constituency recounted to me at the end of last week. Far from the Labour party policy of education, education, education producing good results, it has been translated directly into lose a teacher, lose a teacher, lose a teacher.
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. He points out again to the Government the reality of their policies.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. May: I have not finished responding to the intervention.
  The Government's policies mean that teachers are being made redundant, schools are increasing class sizes, and some courses are having to be stopped or taught by non-specialist teachers. The blame lies fairly and squarely at the Secretary of State's door.
  Miss Johnson rose—
  Mrs. May: I apologise to the hon. Lady and give way.
  Miss Johnson: Will the hon. Lady comment on the decision of the new Tory leader of Hertfordshire county council, who, at the policy committee on 1 July, told the new council that it would not be spending all the 6 per cent.—£27 million—extra that the Government will allocate to Hertfordshire next year on education, but would be cutting the increase to schools? Does she support that new Tory leader, or will she dissociate herself from those actions?
  Mrs. May: The budget that was set for this year by Hertfordshire county council was the budget that was set by the Labour authority, to which the Secretary of State had to write to complain about Labour councillors' decisions.
  All the GM schools that I have quoted will, I am sure, do their best for the children in their classrooms.
  Valerie Davey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No. I will make some progress.
  As GM schools suffer from the impact of Government policy, so that impact will ultimately fall on children in the classroom. Abolishing grant-maintained status reduces diversity.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. May: I will make a little more progress, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
  1102
  Threats to grammar schools also threaten diversity, as do the actions of a number of Labour-controlled councils that have chosen to refer policies of partial selection to the adjudicator.
  Earlier today in Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister tried to put the blame elsewhere, but parents know that he said two years ago in the Wirral:
  "A Labour government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee."
  His Government introduced ballots that are rigged in favour of those who want to get rid of grammar schools. In some ballots, parents of children at the grammar school will not even have a vote. And now we hear—surprise, surprise—that Labour activists are fighting to abolish grammar schools throughout the country.
  Good schools should not be closed down; they should be encouraged and, where appropriate, helped to expand. We should preserve the best and improve the rest, not abolish the best and prescribe for the rest.
  What of the part played by Labour councils, which are now referring partial selection policies to adjudicators and trying to abolish even that limited selection? Once again, Labour shows that it has no interest in providing the right education for each child. That move by Government—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. May: It is a long time since I had offers from four men all at once. I think that I saw the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) rise first.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: The theme of this debate is choice and diversity. In my constituency in Kent, there is no choice of secondary education because there is only a selective education system. There are no comprehensives within that system. If the hon. Lady believes in choice and diversity, will she join me in the campaign to introduce comprehensive education to Kent so that we have choice and diversity?
  Mrs. May: I assume that that means that the hon. Gentleman will be one of the Labour activists out there fighting to abolish grammar schools in his constituency. I hope that the parents let him know exactly what they think about that.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that 90 per cent. of all my secondary schools in Gloucestershire are grant maintained? They chose to become so because they wanted to manage their own affairs. Now, they are being penalised. There will be larger class sizes and we will lose teachers because of the Government's policies. Is that not a disgrace?
  Mrs. May: My hon. Friend is right, it is a disgrace and it is children who will suffer. Children's education will suffer because of the Government's dogmatic intent to get rid of grant-maintained status.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard rose—
  Mrs. May: I shall make a little progress before I give way.

  1103
  That move by Government to reduce choice and diversity is linked with a reduction in flexibility at local level. Lack of flexibility—for example the lack of flexibility in infant class sizes—is hitting rural schools particularly hard. That policy means, for example, that at Broomley First school in Stocksfield, Northumberland, a rota is being proposed in which three pupils from the 33-strong year 2 class will drop down to year 1, which has only 25 pupils, for three two-hour sessions a day. That migration involving nine youngsters a day would allow both classes to remain below the Government's 30-pupil target.
  The director of education for Northumberland county council has said that he believes that many other schools will find themselves struggling when 30-pupil limits become mandatory in 2001. The director said:
  "Mr. Blair promised that all early years children would be in classes of under 30, and while that sounds great at the ballot box, it causes real difficulties in practice.
  Broomley was faced with a dilemma… From 2000, all year one and two classes will have to be below 30, and what you're seeing here could be multiplied many times over because of the rigidity of the Government rules. I think the Government ought to rethink this particular policy."
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: An avalanche will descend on the Government's shoulders judging by my experience with primary schools in my constituency, some of which are the best in Buckinghamshire. Parents are writing to me about that very matter. Years 1 and 2 are being mixed up to meet totally barmy criteria. Sometimes, three or four children are being moved from classes when there was no difficulty in teaching 33 or 34 children previously.
  Mrs. May: My hon. Friend is right. Yet again, it is due to the fact that the Government will not allow schools to decide what is best for children at the local level. Schools that have been providing good education for their children are having to disrupt themselves and move children around in that way. Some parents are finding that their parental choice is being taken away.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: May I clarify the Opposition's policy? Is she telling my constituents that it is all right for classes to be greater than 30? My head teachers tell me that the Government's policy of 30 children to a class is working and is giving more diversity and better education to their children. Is the hon. Lady saying that it is Conservative policy to increase class sizes and to have more than 30 in a class?
  Mrs. May: It is important to have flexibility at local level to decide class sizes. That is the policy that we adopted during the passage of the School Standards and Framework Bill. Unfortunately, the Government have set their face against that flexibility. As a result, schools such as those in the Buckinghamshire constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) have to turn children away, move them between classes or introduce mixed age groups when they had not had them before, all of which could disrupt children's education. That is the reality of what is happening and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers what is happening
  1104
  throughout the country as a result of the Government's policy. It is a question not merely of disruption in the classroom, but of potential teacher losses.
  Again, I am about to do something that will cause laughter on the Labour Benches because I am going to quote another teacher trade union, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, which surveyed a number of schools in England and Wales. The results showed expected job losses of 2,051 teaching posts nationally. A member of the ATL from Sefton borough council said:
  "Class size reduction policy has given huge amounts to two primary schools to build extra classrooms and reduce the intake…of all other schools. The result is that the two…schools now take over 900 pupils while the rest crumble."
  Again, that shows the reality of what is happening at the grassroots.
  The Government may well say that it is all right because they are putting much more money in to reduce class sizes. However, it is not as easy as that. In The Times Educational Supplement last week, Mike Baker wrote an article about the problems of his local primary school. He said:
  "the schools where I live have a very high proportion of primary classes of 30-plus pupils. Under pressure from the Government, the council plans to reduce class sizes…If my daughter's school cuts class sizes it would be turning away even more children from a good and popular school."—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have these exchanges—in particular the sedentary exchanges between those on the two Front Benches.
  Mrs. May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Baker continued:
  "It has no space to expand and has too many 'temporary' classrooms which have been there for decades."
  The school had a policy to deal with that problem: the junior school would move into the infant school and a new infant school would be built. However, the infant school was to be built on a playing field and the Government's playing field policy came into play. So, as Mike Baker says:
  "you can see why this issue has become a spaghetti junction of contradictory national policies: class sizes, popular schools, playing fields".
  He continues:
  "It is sobering to realise that as Whitehall and Westminster increase their centralising power over education, it is local education issues which most excite parents. At a time when some question the role of local authorities, it is interesting to see how it is often locally-elected councillors who feel the heat generated by conflicting national policies."
  That is a view with which Sir Jeremy Beecham might, I suspect, agree.
  Today, I heard of another problem resulting from the class size problem. In the village of South Marston in Wiltshire, we have a school with 96 pupils. Because of the class size pledge to reduce classes to 30 children, the school needs an extra teacher and an extra classroom. The Government have given it money for an extra teacher, but have turned down its two applications for an extra classroom. What is the point of having an extra teacher if there is nowhere for them to teach?
  It is in rural areas that so many of the problems are now coming to the fore. Indeed, the Local Government Association is mounting a three-phase campaign to

  1105
  highlight the difficulties encountered by rural schools, many of which are faced with closure. In March 1998, the then Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) announced on television that he was introducing
  "tough new protection for village schools".
  The Government, he said,
  "have put in place safeguards and measures that will protect rural primary schools".
  He should try telling that to the parents of children at Berkley Church of England school in Somerset, or the nine-year-old who has written to me about the closure, saying:
  "I was shocked and upset to hear the proposal of the closure of my school… I can't see how Somerset county council can shut down our school that has just had an excellent Ofsted and Distinction in our last Choral speaking Exam. We put on plays and concerts in St Mary's Church and each time extra seats need to be provided.
  I have had a great time and Education at Berkley and all other Pupils will say the same, another thing we all agree with is that we are PROUD of our School and won't let anyone Close it."
  Dr. George Turner: Before the hon. Lady continues as the new champion of rural schools, will she say something about the 500 that her party closed when it was last responsible for the governance of schools? Will she particularly say something to those in my home county of Norfolk about the 100 schools that her party closed? The £2 million that this Government are investing to reduce class sizes is helping rural schools in my environment, as is the building work that is going on. For the first time in 20 years, there is a feeling of optimism in our Norfolk villages.
  Mrs. May: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tells that to the residents of Potter Heigham, where their school is closing.
  The Government simply do not understand the needs of rural areas, such as the high cost of school transport and the necessity for many parents to use their cars to take their children to school. Funding is an issue in rural areas. It is not only shire counties and shire unitary authorities that have done badly from the Government's funding settlement.
  Mr. Blunkett: Just to show that we all know exactly what we are doing, perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me how many children attend Potter Heigham school, which she has used as an example of how badly we are doing?
  Mrs. May: The Secretary of State will know that the impending closure of Potter Heigham school and the impact of the Government's decisions on it caused considerable concern in the village. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] In fact, such concerns—
  Mr. David Prior: Potter Heigham school is in my constituency. The failure of the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled local education authority to support that school led many parents to take their children away from it. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] The school has almost closed thanks to this Government's
  1106
  policies. [Laughter.] Government Back Benchers' laughter is a absolute disgrace and will horrify many parents living in Potter Heigham.
  Mr. Blizzard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to conceal the truth from this House that Potter Heigham school has three pupils?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a matter for debate.
  Mrs. May: In rural areas, funding has always been an issue, but the Government have never understood the funding problems faced in many of them. That is why the Minister for School Standards wrote to North Yorkshire county council to explain that Hull gets more funding per pupil because of social deprivation—as if rural areas have never suffered from deprivation. Rural areas face particular challenges, but they differ greatly. That is why flexibility is especially important.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No. I have taken many interventions, so I want to continue.
  Many rural schools are most frustrated at the way in which the Government are holding back funds to be spent on projects chosen from the centre, and not on those that would best suit the needs of children in such schools. Many rural schools are worried about the possible closure of school sixth forms as a result of the review that the Government are initiating, which allows for two options for funding—both of which rely on the Secretary of State telling the bodies concerned how much money to spend.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Three pupils!
  Mrs. May: There are many problems in education today. Through their opposition to school freedom, local decision making and the provision of education that is right for each child, the Government are reducing choice and diversity in pursuit of uniformity. Teachers and schools are weighed down by the Government's bureaucratic burdens and the constant flow of prescription from the centre. In all of that, those who will suffer most are the children.
  Mr. McNulty: Three!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want again to have to call hon. Members to order for repeated seated interruptions.
  Mrs. May: I think that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) was marking his own interventions.
  I want schools to be set free, teachers to be allowed to get on with teaching, parents to be able to choose for their children and children to be helped and encouraged to develop their full potential. I object to the Government's policies not just because they restrict schools, prescribe to teachers and reduce parents' choice, but because they

  1107
  damage children's education. I encourage all hon. Members who are interested in children's education to vote with me in support of the motion.
  7.47 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I genuinely wanted to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on her first speech from the Front Bench as shadow Secretary of State. I thought that she was doing fine until she mentioned Sir Jeremy Beecham. At that point, she misunderstood an "Ooh-ah Cantona" as an attack on Sir Jeremy rather than an echo of Opposition Members' applause for him. We all agree that local government is critical and that we should ensure maximum flexibility locally, but I want to make one or two things clear before I respond to the hon. Lady's speech.
  If local authorities like Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire or Northumberland cannot manage to operate our class size pledge without causing the disruption that the hon. Lady has described, we will do it for them. If they are not capable of managing it, they should let us know. The task of coming up with the plans, with the schools, has been devolved to them. It is decentralist. It is not bureaucratic; it is not being run from Sanctuary buildings. It is being run in conjunction with schools and authorities.
  Secondly, if Opposition Members are to give the hon. Lady information and she is to use it in this House, she should for God's sake ensure that she has done her homework on it. If she uses an example of a school in north Norfolk in which there are only three pupils—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not the point."] It is exactly the point; this debate is on diversity and choice. Who has made the choice of which school their children attend in north Norfolk? The parents have made that choice.
  Mr. Prior: It was the choice of the LEA to close that school. Following that decision, it was not surprising that parents chose to send their children elsewhere.
  Mr. Blunkett: But why was the decision made to close the school? [Interruption.] I am hearing interesting heckling, but I am addressing my remarks to the hon. Gentleman. Why was the decision taken? Was it because the school was succeeding and parents were flooding it with their children, or because the school was struggling and had received a particularly unfortunate Ofsted report and parents had ceased to support it by sending their children there? That is the essence of the debate about diversity and choice. If we want choice and diversity to be in the hands of parents, they should be able to take the decisions to back that up, including having a vote on whether they want a selective system for children aged 11.
  None of that comes as a surprise. The hon. Member for Maidenhead is very charming. I do not mind saying that because her husband is here tonight and I want to protect her from the slur that she has made against herself by saying that it was a long time since four men at once were after her. I wondered when the previous time had been. Last year, in her previous Front-Bench Opposition job, she said famously that we had inherited a golden legacy. I have thought about that a lot since. The Conservatives'
  1108
  golden legacy started with early years. They refused initially to accept that nursery provision was necessary for anyone but the better-off, who could pay for it. When they changed their view and reverted to the commitment made by Baroness Thatcher in the early 1970s to expand nursery education, they decided to do it through the voucher scheme.
  What was the impact of the voucher scheme? It started to create market chaos in which providers were put out of business, particularly in Norfolk. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), would never accept that she was damaging her county by undermining choice where diversity did not exist. Expanding to ensure a nursery place for all four-year-olds and putting in place admissions policies for infants which ensure that children cannot be denied a place because they had not gone to the nursery school attached to that infants school has increased choice and diversity.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in rural areas such as Staffordshire, which has small villages without local schools, the voucher system enabled nursery groups to be set up? With the abolition of the voucher system, those groups have had to close, resulting in the children either being unable to go to nursery schools in neighbouring larger towns or being shipped in by parents at great cost?
  Mr. Blunkett: But 900 playgroups closed in the last year of the Conservative regime. We have intervened to put an extra £500,000 in, expanding the amount of money available to the Pre-School Learning Alliance. Whatever the attacks on the Government, we shall continue to support that diversity. As we double the number of nursery places for three-year-olds over the next three years, we shall create even more places in rural as well as urban areas.
  The golden legacy on class sizes left 500,000 youngsters aged five to seven in classes of more than 30. We are taking the positive action that parents have demanded.
  Mrs. May: The Secretary of State talks about the figures for closures of pre-school playgroups. Will he accept the figures produced by the Pre-School Learning Alliance that over the past two years 1,500 pre-schools have closed and there is an expectation that 1,700 will close over the next year?
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not accept those figures, because we have to consider those that are opening as well as those that are closing. We have to take into account the resources that have been put in, the opportunities that have been gained and the working party that has been established to ensure that we provide diversity. We can give a clear role to the Pre-School Learning Alliance and other bodies in providing for younger children as well as for four-year-olds. That is linked to our child care strategy. We are linking nursery with other playgroup activity and providing an opportunity for parents to make the decision.
  In the end, parents will choose. That is what the debate is about. If they have a choice between a pre-school group and a nursery and they choose the nursery, who am I to intervene? I ask rhetorically, of course, because we are all

  1109
  in favour of diversity and choice. We are in favour of it for those 500,000 youngsters who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in classes of more than 30 at a crucial moment in their education when class size makes a difference. We know that it does because everybody tells us—Ofsted tells us, research tells us, those who buy in the private sector tell us—so we are doing something about it by expanding the number of places in popular schools. We have already added 12,000 places. By September we shall have removed 300,000 of the 500,000 youngsters from over-sized classes in infants schools. That is a good record that I am proud of. If there are hiccups, we shall help the schools and the county councils to sort them out with extra facilities and extra teachers.
  What about choice and diversity and the golden legacy of the two out of every five children who could not read, write and add up at the age of 11 when we came to office? What about our terrible imposition of a literacy hour and a numeracy hour? Yes, a full hour. Some 90 per cent. of heads have said that it is working and they welcome it. On Monday, when I went to Wesley Green school on the Blackbird Leys estate in Oxford, I found that the teachers were over the moon, the pupils were enthusiastic and the school had doubled the number of children reaching level 4 in literacy this year and trebled the number of children reaching level 4 in numeracy having piloted the numeracy programme. That is real choice and diversity that offers proper standards rather than rubbish for some and excellence for others.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the criticism that has been levelled against the Government by schools in my constituency that every hour of the literacy hour requires at least three or four hours of preparation by the teacher? That takes them away from being in the classroom.
  Mr. Blunkett: That would be a shame if it were true, but the literacy framework and the materials provided with it have given a structure and the back-up to help all teachers, including newly qualified teachers. I meet NQTs all the time and they say that it is a phenomenal change and a real improvement. Linked to a new induction from September, it will make an enormous difference to them. They do not have to reinvent the wheel, but simply have to use what works best across the board.
  Dr. Stoate: When I visited Knockall school in my constituency, I found those there delighted by the literacy hour. I took part in it with the children and the teachers. They were even more delighted about piloting the numeracy hour. I was astounded by the numeracy of the children in year 5. I was at Fleetdown school this morning, which was also doing extremely well in the literacy hour. Those schools are examples of success in delivering excellent education to children.
  Mr. Blunkett: Quite right. I am sure that the chief inspector of schools would not mind my referring to his comments this morning on Radio 4, when he said that the literacy and numeracy hours were not an imposition and were not bureaucracy, but were clearly working in the interests of children.
  Mr. Willis: And the chief inspector is always right.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am being heckled, but just for once I shall not rise to the bait.
  1110
  What about the golden legacy of no basic curriculum for teacher training, no new deal for schools, none of the investment that we are making in transforming the environment for schools and no learning grid?
  I was interested to learn tonight that there have been grumbles from St. Joseph's primary school about the way in which the learning grid resources are being allocated. I thought that we were supposed to rely on the diversity of local government to arrange that allocation with schools. I thought that we were being chided for being too centralist and for running everything from Sanctuary buildings, and we are told that we should let county councils and schools run everything. However, on every scheme that we are not running from Sanctuary buildings, we are chided for what is happening at local level, which is the fault of the county council.
  Here is another conundrum: every time we have formula funding, we are criticised, as we were criticised tonight in respect of St. Joseph's, and when we do not have formula funding, we are criticised for making the funding too specific. What do the Opposition want? Do they want formula funding, or do they want funding to be specifically provided to schools? Do they want the local authority or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to determine that funding? Do they want a literacy hour and a numeracy hour, or would they like to leave two out of five children languishing without a decent education, as they were before?
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I have a positive suggestion to make, and I want to know whether the Secretary of State will subscribe to it. Given, as he rightly says, that the key problem is that by the time children move on, at age 11, to secondary school, too much damage has been done by insufficient levels of literacy and numeracy, does he accept that it would be in everybody's interest if national performance tables were published, showing the results of the tests at age seven, so that one could find out which schools were succeeding and which were failing? Would it not be helpful also if the tables contained a register of how much cash was being spent per pupil at each school and the average class size at each school? We would not then be having these debates in a vacuum; we would have solid data and people would know what was working and what was not.
  Mr. Blunkett: I thought that we were being criticised for taking too much time and spending too much money on measures that are not directly related to teaching in the classroom. We are criticised for collecting too much information, for asking too much of schools and teachers and for giving them too many forms to fill in, so that too much information is coming out of Sanctuary buildings. We have been so hurt by that criticism that I have asked the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to spend a great deal of his time unravelling that process and making sure that we do not place greater demands on schools. The Conservatives sent out 80 separate documents when they organised the national curriculum, but we have reduced that to one document.
  We are doing our utmost to respond to the needs of teachers and schools. I am hurt by the terrible fact that whatever we do, we cannot get it right. The only consolation is that we are turning things round and making a difference. We are changing what is happening

  1111
  in schools and motivating decent teachers and lifting their morale. We are ensuring that schools are building their confidence. They will have the resources to do that over the next three years. They are having their buildings repaired. They are getting a learning grid that never existed under the Tories.
  This August, there will be 1,200 summer schools that never existed under the previous Government. There is a new excellence in cities programme. There is a new pay and performance programme with £1 billion of extra resources to pay teachers. There is a new admissions code that tries to unravel the shambles that we inherited which has bedevilled the delivery of education at a local level and undermined choice and diversity for parents.
  Mr. Andrew George: I seek the Secretary of State's advice and guidance on an area of the legacy to which he is referring. There is a lack of choice in rural areas, such as my constituency in west Cornwall, because as a result of the Rotherham judgment, of which the Secretary of State will be aware, parents can no longer choose to send their children to the school in whose catchment area they live. What action will the Department take to ensure that parents do not have to bus their children to the nearest market town instead of the local school that they want their children to attend? That has been the result of that judgment and previous Tory policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to follow that Tory policy?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that in the admissions code and the regulations that have been published, which take effect from this autumn, we are establishing local admissions forums and providing an independent appeals process for parents. We shall ensure that there is adjudication over school reorganisation and that parents living near the school can exercise their preference, which they must do at the beginning of the process. That process will be open and transparent, and we are building in new information requirements for parents. All that will help enormously.
  In the end, parents can only state a sensible preference and have any semblance of choice if we raise the standard of education in schools across the board. People will then make preferences based not on the fact that some schools provide an awful education—in which case supply and demand are out of kilter—but on the diversity to which Conservative Members have referred. If we raise the standard of all schools, choice will be made according to the ethos of the school, not the standard of education on offer. While demand for and supply of schools is not in equilibrium, we are letting down parents and children. Some parents will get their child into a school at the expense of someone else's child.
  What we heard from the Conservatives earlier was tragic because it was all about the few, rather than the many. It was all about what had happened to a small number of children. I have made it clear that we value children, teachers and parents, wherever they are and whatever their status. It is no good the hon. Member for Maidenhead or her colleagues going over old ground. They can refight the 1997 election on grant-maintained schools and selection as often as they like, but it is a dead agenda. It has been dead from 1 May 1997. The GM
  1112
  schools have moved on and so have the parents. We have all moved on to ensure that we raise the level of funding in all schools to the level that GM schools had, not the other way round. Those schools respect and accept that, and I am proud that we have managed to reach an accord with them.
  In the end, all that matters is that children get a decent education. It does not matter whether we fall out here tonight or whether we knock spots off each other. We shall be judged on whether we have made a difference.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman will need no lessons about the fact that secondary school heads are extremely busy people with onerous responsibilities. Twenty of them came from Surrey to lobby their MPs, and they included heads of grant-maintained schools who are struggling with the change and have experienced a cut in resources per pupil. However, that is not the point that I want to make.
  All those heads agreed that the difficulty that they face is in controlling and getting access to resources so that they can decide how to allocate them in their schools. They said that the complicated bidding process, in which they must bid for money for all the different little schemes, is an enormous bureaucratic burden. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to allow the Under-Secretary, who is examining that process, to consider how funding is allocated to schools and to free up the secondary school heads in Surrey and elsewhere so that they can use the resources as they and their governors see fit?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am going to surprise the hon. Gentleman by saying yes. I am very keen to ensure that we consider sensible suggestions about how to deal with genuine problems. Surrey received an extra £21 million, which is an increase of 6.3 per cent. We need to make sure that the money reaches schools. That is why I published the tables two weeks ago. We need to make sure that there is an additional delegation of at least 5 per cent. per pupil from next April. We need to examine how the standards fund and other resources reach schools, and make sure that they do so in the least bureaucratic fashion possible. Surprise, surprise—I am prepared to listen and to take action in the interests of children.
  We are in favour of diversity and we are in favour of choice. In the end, those will only be possible because of the resources and changes that we have introduced.
  We are determined to pursue our policies because they are working. More failing schools are coming out of special measures than are going in, and they are doing so in a shorter period of time. We are delivering excellence by spreading it between beacon schools, from where it spreads out into the community. We are already doubling and will double again the number of specialist schools, and placing them under an obligation to share that specialism with the community and with other schools.
  We are proud of what we are doing and we are going to carry on doing it. We shall continue to ensure that we put pupils and their parents at the heart of this debate. That debate cannot be about going backwards or arguing about the divisions of the past: in the end, it is the standards of the future that matter.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: First, I welcome and congratulate the new Opposition Front-Bench team. I also welcome the Secretary of State's thoughtful speech, although he was somewhat generous in his comments on the speech made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). He was absolutely right to say that most of her speech and most of the Opposition motion was concerned with going over old ground. Wordsworth put it slightly differently, writing of:
  "old unhappy far-off things, and battles long ago."
  I have to tell the hon. Lady that she was fighting battles of long ago and touting an ideology that has been seen to fail and has let down the children of this country for a long time.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman is about to defend that old policy, I shall be delighted to hear from him.
  Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, however old the battles may be, they are being fought because Members of Parliament such as myself are continually and constantly approached in our constituencies by head teachers expressing precisely the problems to which we are drawing attention?
  Mr. Foster: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing a thoughtful speech in which he tells us of the many head teachers who want to go back to how things were under the previous Administration. I shall be extremely surprised if he can seriously tell me that there are many teachers who want to return to a system that was designed to ensure nice schools for nice kids and the scrap heap for the vast majority. If he points out that there are some head teachers who are not entirely happy with everything that the Government are doing, that will not surprise me at all—indeed, I intend to express some of my concerns about Government policy. However, it would be foolish to deny that the new Government have introduced several measures that have brought about real and positive improvements in our education system.
  The Liberal Democrats welcome the scrapping of nursery vouchers and the assisted places scheme, both of which added to bureaucracy and, as the Secretary of State is wont to say, gave something to the few but not the many. We welcome the recent White Paper on post-16 education: we believe that the vast majority of measures outlined therein will result in a real improvement in education for that age group. We especially welcome the statement made today by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), about ways of providing additional support to children from disadvantaged areas. If the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) believes that measures such as those are not popular with head teachers, he must have been talking to an extremely select sample of head teachers.
  However, in a debate such as this, it is important to draw attention to those areas of Government policy that cause us concern because they lead to a reduction in choice or in diversity. The Secretary of State has referred
  1114
  to the literacy hour and the numeracy hour. I was not entirely happy with the introduction of the literacy hour and I am still not satisfied on that subject. It is absolutely right for the Government to provide through their website and by other means support, advice and worked examples to teachers. However, to impose on teachers a specific way in which literacy must be taught detracts from the professional autonomy of our teachers in carrying out a task for which they have been trained. Nevertheless, I am delighted that the numeracy hour has been introduced in a way that appears to acknowledge that the literacy hour was overly prescriptive—it is important that such lessons are learned.
  I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that our schools are denied choice if they are denied the funding to carry out their work. He has suggested that a lot more money is getting through to schools, but the reality on the ground is that schools are not getting that extra money—it is almost as if the cheque is still in the post. He might want to claim that that is the fault of local education authorities, as he tried to do in respect of the league tables that were published a few days ago—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that I have said it for him.
  The Secretary of State would be wrong to make such an accusation. There are two reasons, the first of which is that, according to the Audit Commission—whose figures I hope the right hon. Gentleman accepts—the amount of money per pupil being made available to our schools has gone down by an average of £50 since the Labour Government entered office. The additional money is not coming through. We know that education spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has declined in the first two years of the Labour Government. We also know that the share of total Government spending on education has decreased. Without sufficient money, one's choices are restricted, but by all three counts education spending has gone down, so schools' choices are increasingly restricted.
  Even if I am right about the reduction in money in the first two years of the Labour Government, it should be noted that the Secretary of State said today—and it is precisely stated in the Government amendment—that there is to be an increase in funds of £19 billion. That figure is incorrect. That assertion is based not on my analysis of the Government's statement, but on the report produced by the Labour-dominated Select Committee on the Treasury.
  The Government are suggesting that £16 billion of the £19 billion will come to England; but the Committee says that the true figure for the real-terms increase is only £8 billion, and that that £8 billion does not represent a significant increase on the previous Government's education spending projections. The Committee's analysis goes further and shows that it is possible that, with that £8 billion, education spending will reach 5 per cent. of GDP by 2002. That was the percentage of GDP spent on education under the previous Administration, so that is no improvement. Of course I am grateful on behalf of my constituents and those of many other hon. Members for the fact that some increase in funding is promised, but it is wrong of the Government to try to pretend that the sum is greater than it is.
  This debate is not only about the school-based education system. We must recognise that the reduction in spending has been experienced in other parts of the

  1115
  education service. It is interesting to note that, based on the Government's own figures and despite their introducing a fees system, current projections indicate that the amount of money per student in higher education is also set to fall during the first term of the Labour Government.
  I am concerned that the Government are possibly denying choice in our schools in several other areas. The first relates to something of which the Secretary of State is in part rightly proud. I and my party have supported the Government's moves to try to reduce class sizes in key stage 1, but we are genuinely concerned that class sizes in other key stages are rising. They are rising in key stage 2, and in our secondary schools the averages are now at an all-time high for the past 20 years. We hope that when extolling the virtues of reduced class sizes, the Government will bear it in mind that they must start to move as rapidly as possible to put a stop to the increase in other parts of the education sector.
  Another area in which the Government are denying choice relates to their target-setting agenda. It is appropriate for the Government to set targets for themselves, for individual schools, for LEAs and even for what happens in individual classrooms, but I am sure that the Secretary of State and Ministers are concerned about what the previous Prime Minister described as the long tail of underachievement. We must do something about children from less-well-off backgrounds with poorer educational provision. As I have said in the Chamber before, it is of real concern to me that no targets are being set at key stage 2 for the bottom 20 per cent. of pupils in literacy and the bottom 25 per cent. in numeracy. If there are no targets for children at the bottom end, there is nothing for them to aim at and nothing to motivate and support teachers to help that group of pupils along. I hope that the Government are prepared to reconsider their policy of not providing targets for that section of the pupil cohort.
  Mr. Blizzard: Now that the hon. Gentleman has outlined a number of deficiencies, as he sees them, in our education system, would he care to say how many of them could have been put right by increasing income tax by 1p? Is he saying that his party would increase income tax by 1p to put right some of the things that he says are so wrong?
  Mr. Foster: I began my speech by talking about old battles and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman wishes to return to one. We have made it clear that we would increase income tax to increase investment in education. The hon. Gentleman surely knows that it would not require increased investment to introduce targets for pupils at key stage 2. That is a matter not of investment but of educational common sense. It is a straightforward and positive suggestion.
  Another issue that does not require increased investment is early-years provision. The Government rightly want diversity of provision to involve the private sector, the voluntary sector and the maintained sector. We very definitely welcome that move. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the way in which the system has been set up. As the hon. Member for Maidenhead rightly pointed out—let us not argue about the figures—there has
  1116
  been a significant reduction in the number of pre-school playgroups available to participate in the partnership between the three sectors.
  Solving a further problem, again without additional resources, could improve choice. The Secretary of State was perhaps somewhat unjustifiably proud of the new admissions code of practice. Some parents find themselves almost forced to put their child into a reception class to ensure that the child can get into year 1 of that primary school. When I first raised that problem with the Secretary of State, he promised to examine it. He subsequently came up with what he described as a solution. It was that a spare place could be kept in the reception class, thereby allowing the child to move in not from the reception class but from wherever else early-years provision had been made. However, that is not a realistic proposition because the tight funding regime under which schools currently operate means that no school will want to leave a place open if it will not receive funding for it. I ask the Secretary of State and the Government to look again at that choice.
  In two other areas the Government could make a change of policy that would increase rather than reduce choice. The first relates to the way in which money is currently allocated. When the Government the other day accused many LEAs of holding money back at the centre and not passing it on to schools, they demonstrated a degree of hypocrisy. The Labour Government are increasing the amount of money that they are holding back at the centre and reducing the amount that they give to LEAs. The Government's own figures demonstrate that, in the first four years of a Labour Government, there will have been an increase in the Government's share of education spend from 38 to 42 per cent. and a corresponding 4 per cent. reduction in the amount that LEAs will have to spend. That is exactly what the Government accuse LEAs of doing. The Government are holding money back centrally and denying choice to the LEAs. That could be changed, as could the way in which the money that they hold back centrally is allocated.
  As I am sure all hon. Members are aware, much of the money held back centrally is now allocated through a complex bureaucratic bidding system. Since the Government came to power, LEAs have made 25,000 separate bids for money. Only 9,000 have been successful. There is a one in three chance of being successful. Two thirds of the bids have required a huge amount of bureaucracy on the part of LEAs, yet some LEAs see nothing for it.
  The distribution of the money is incredibly patchy. If one analyses where bids have been successful, one can find no logical pattern. They are not more successful in rural, urban, deprived or wealthy areas.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: What the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is a real problem. Does he accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in answer to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that he would look at the problem? Everyone accepts that there is a problem in the bidding process.
  Mr. Foster: The Secretary of State made that remark, but the concerns have been drawn to his attention for a considerable time and we see no change in the procedure. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support in pointing out that the system has to be changed. I make my remarks as a positive contribution to the debate.

  1117
  In some respects, the Government have got the provision of diversity almost but not quite right. We welcome the provision of specialist schools and beacon schools. However, we do not accept that there is a need for such schools to maintain the selective system that the Government promised to get rid of before they came to power. They are now going to continue it under the guise of selection by aptitude, yet not a single Minister has yet been able to explain the difference between selection by aptitude and selection by ability. We would far prefer specialist schools to be set up in an area and open to all pupils in that area. If it is a specialist music school, all pupils in the area—whether they are from a musical background or not—could benefit from that specialism. We do not need a selective system to run alongside the selective school approach.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Does my hon. Friend accept that, for such schools to work, parents must be able to get their children into them, safe in the knowledge that they can fall back on the catchment schools? We still have a problem whereby if the catchment school is full with other first preferences, the kids are bumped off to a school that is perhaps many miles away.
  Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend is right. He will know that in Committee we constantly argued against both the Rotherham and Greenwich judgments—another area of denial of choice for local education authorities.
  In conclusion, we are in favour of choice and diversity, but we do not want the chaos and division that we had under the previous Administration. We very much hope that, under the new Labour Government, choice and diversity will not lead to centralisation and direction. At the moment, sadly, there is evidence that that is what is happening.
  8.31 pm
  Liz Blackman: The bottom line in any debate on education is that parents must be in a position not to have to make a choice in terms of good-quality education for their children. Every parent wants that for their children, and it should be an expectation and a right. Clearly, that entitlement is not on offer universally, as the evidence shows. The Secretary of State referred to the shocking figures that we inherited in 1997, which showed that two out of five 11-year-olds were not reaching the expected standards of their age group. I was concerned, but not surprised, that that was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
  In government, the Conservatives expressed concern about the need to improve standards—I acknowledge that. However, their analysis of how to raise standards was to implement a crude, market-driven mechanism—the internal market. Much was made of the exercise of choice, and some parents applied to get their children into high-performing schools, as any parent would do. The money and resources went with them.
  The corollary was that there was no choice for the many. The children and parents who remained in poorer schools did so often because money was not available to ensure that they could travel to the schools that, in their perception, were performing better. Sometimes they were slow off the blocks, and did not understand the system.
  1118
  Sometimes the schools were full, and sometimes the children were turned down. The poorer schools were often left struggling with diminished rolls and diminished pupil funding, and they faced a multiplicity of other problems that were not necessarily all of their own making.
  All of this took place against the backdrop of national underfunding, no national strategy to address poor national results and no recognition of the needs of particular communities, some of which were far more severe than others. Teacher morale was at an all-time low. Ofsted has, and had, a place. However, without the support that I have outlined, it was difficult to work effectively to improve performance. Without making education a clear priority, Ofsted was, in the past, the diagnosis, but not always the treatment.
  Our clear objectives are to inspect, measure and demand, but also to support. We have set them out clearly. All sectors of education and lifelong learning have been and will be supported, and there has been recognition of our policies from Opposition Members.
  The Government made a choice—in our early years—to support the early years and the infant sector, and rightly so. There is no more critical time than when children are young and at their most receptive. Early-years education in my constituency is purposeful, appropriate and thriving. All four-year-olds are guaranteed a place, and many three-year-olds have access to good-quality education.
  As a teacher, I can tell the House that class size does matter, especially with little ones. There was no choice in Derbyshire when we tried to teach children in class sizes of more than 40 in many schools in my constituency. We would have welcomed a policy from the centre to supply resources and to reduce class sizes, which were truly appalling.
  Erewash schools, and the children in them, have benefited enormously from reduced class sizes through the abolition of the assisted places scheme. Erewash has benefited from money for new classrooms, and for the additional teachers who were essential to accommodate those reduced class sizes, as promised. That money has been forthcoming.
  Schools have been maintained and improved, and the worst are beginning to be replaced. The £5.4 billion of new deal money is beginning to help. A pleasant environment without leaking roofs and with decent classrooms is not an add-on—it is an absolutely essential part of teaching children.
  We targeted areas of special need where terrible social and economic problems abound, and we proposed partnerships. The sure start programme reaches out and embraces children and their families, to support them and to create a positive attitude to learning, right from the start. Education action zones lever in not only more resources, but innovative approaches to drive up standards.
  I wish to refer to the literacy hour—the most innovative of all our policies. It has been planned and supported, and the resources have been put in place. It is producing stunning results. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that teachers work incredibly hard and put in a lot of extra time. However, any new change as revolutionary as the literacy hour demands extra time. It demands commitment, but the results are so positive that teachers consider the effort worth while. They see that all

  1119
  the planning and preparation will pay off in the long run. The sheer hard work and grind will ease, as the programme continues to evolve.
  The training and resources for numeracy hour that are coming on-stream in my constituency are extremely encouraging, as has been acknowledged. The preparations are going well and in many schools in Erewash, it is being tried out, with positive results.
  Teachers in the primary sector of the national curriculum, who a few years ago struggled with innumerable folders, welcome a planned, structured timetable in which to deliver numeracy and literacy hours. The benefits are reflected not only in the children's progress in those core skills, but in a positive classroom attitude to children's learning generally.
  I spent 25 years in a comprehensive school before I came to this place, and I can tell hon. Members that children have no choice whatever if they cannot read or write and if they are not numerate. They cannot access the curriculum, so it becomes irrelevant to them. They become frustrated and disaffected, they waste their time—unwittingly—and they waste teacher time, drawing teachers away from delivering learning, as they are supposed to do. Other pupils become frustrated as well.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's last point. Does she accept that such damage is done long before the age of 11 is reached? Will she, therefore, join me in recommending that the results of the tests that are already done at seven should be published, so that parents can put pressure on failing schools at that stage?
  Liz Blackman: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, for two reasons. First, I agree that the damage is already done by that stage. That is why, when the Government came into office, they specifically targeted the early years and the infant sector. Secondly, the Secretary of State spoke about the Opposition's complaints about additional bureaucracy. Other measures are in place to support teachers and drive up standards.
  There is no choice for children who cannot access the curriculum, and because they leave school with such poor core skills, there is limited choice when they move into the world of work.
  Mr. Don Foster: If the hon. Lady shares my concern for the bottom 25 per cent. of pupils, does she agree that there ought to be a set of targets for those pupils in literacy and numeracy?
  Liz Blackman: I agree that when teachers deliver literacy hour, they should take account of the diverse ability of their charges and the point that the children have reached in their learning, as all good teachers do. In certain elements of the literacy hour, teachers can do that.
  I am not against choice or a fair admissions policy that allows choice. I am certainly not against high standards across the board, as that gives real choice. I am not against diversity. I have a beacon school and a specialist school in my constituency. Challenging and appropriate work ought to go on from early years, right the way through school, including literacy hour.
  1120
  I am extremely pleased with the Government's initiative which allows an alternative curriculum for pupils over 14 if it is more appropriate for them. Some of the children in school are disaffected or unable to access the curriculum for all the reasons that we are discussing. They would be better served by a tailor-made curriculum, designed in co-operation with local colleges and other education providers.
  Every school should have its own ethos, and does in my constituency, but the Government should take responsibility for determining standards. There has been a standards vacuum for the past 18 years. There ought to be central guidance, as there are many changes to be made.
  A great deal of work is being demanded of teachers. A large part of the teaching profession is committed to that. Radical change cannot be introduced in any walk of life without commitment and hard work, but if the changes are worth making, it is worth asking teachers to go that extra distance to deliver the positive results that we already see speeding through. The benefits of national literacy hour and of numeracy hour as it comes on-stream will be enormous, not only for this generation, but for generations to come.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: None of us, whether speaking as a Member of Parliament or as a parent, would disagree with the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) that we should be doing all in our power to help to raise educational standards, in particular those of children who are not the most able. I agree that they have been neglected by decision makers in politics and in education for decades. However, I confess that I would have listened to her with greater sympathy had she paid due regard to the various initiatives of the Conservative Government: the introduction of independent inspection, regular testing, the publication of test results, league tables and the supply of information to parents. Ministers are now willing to take many of those initiatives on board in some form or other, even though they fought them tooth and nail from the Opposition Benches as Conservative Ministers took them through the House.
  A number of colleagues hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall concentrate on two issues: grammar schools and sixth forms, both of which are of particular interest to my constituents. I must take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). In response to one of my hon. Friends, he referred somewhat disparagingly to what he described as nice schools for nice kids. He used that expression to caricature the approach of those of us who argue for selection in education, whether on academic abilities conventionally measured or on aptitude. I believe passionately that he is wrong to do so.
  I was a governor of a north London comprehensive some years ago and I found that the way to guarantee that the so-called nice kids—the children from the well-to-do families—attended the nice schools was to confine parental choice to the neighbourhood catchment comprehensive so that selection was by parents' ability to afford a mortgage in the catchment area of the right school.
  Mr. Don Foster: Although I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing me back to the Chamber to listen to his

  1121
  contribution, I fundamentally disagree with him. For every grammar school, we needed three secondary moderns; people tried to tart them up and call them something else. Surely we want to end competition between schools. We need choice within each school and all schools providing high-quality education rather than choice between schools.
  Mr. Lidington: That was the dream of the champions of comprehensive education in the 1950s and 1960s, when they advocated the end of selection. The trouble was that it did not deliver the improvement in educational attainment that the advocates of the comprehensive system had argued would take place. To deliver a wide choice of subjects in a single school, people were led ineluctably to argue for the creation of large secondary schools, which entailed all the difficulties of pastoral care, schools on split sites and, in some cases, keeping order.
  As the hon. Member for Bath knows, my county is the only one to retain an entirely selective secondary system and the only one to.maintain, without a break, overall Conservative control of its council. I believe that the model of selection that is developing there is true to the vision of R. A. Butler and the Education Act 1944. This country went wrong when, in the old days, it looked on secondary modern schools as a dumping ground and thought that only the grammar schools mattered. Nothing could have been further from what Butler wanted to achieve.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, even though he is in full flow. I cannot resist asking him a simple question: how many parents in Kent, where people are so proud of the selective system, have contacted him to say that they want their child to go to a secondary modern school?
  Mr. Lidington: As I am not a Kent Member of Parliament, the question does not really arise.
  I have found that certain schools in my constituency are achieving better results—as measured by public examinations—than comparable comprehensive schools in Hertfordshire and Milton Keynes. We would expect grammar schools to achieve higher standards—and they are: that has been acknowledged by the chief inspector of schools, who has singled out a number of Buckinghamshire schools, both grammar and upper, as demonstrating excellence. Even the Government have recognised the achievement of those standards: they have nominated Aylesbury high school, a selective girls' grammar school, as one of their "beacon schools".
  In other schools in my constituency, children are being very well educated in conventional academic subjects and—especially in the sixth form—being educated in general national vocational qualifications. That is introducing a new enthusiasm among both students and staff.
  Dr. Stoate: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a fully selective system poses a danger? Schools that are non-selective, such as secondary modem schools, tend to involve a high level of special needs and are, therefore, greatly disadvantaged when it comes to competing. Because schools in my constituency, such as Dartford West high school for boys, have extremely high special
  1122
  needs levels, they receive the worst reports from the Office for Standards in Education. As a result, they are branded as special needs schools, and the county council closes them, or attempts to close them. That reduces parental choice.
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a point that is by no means specific to a selective system of education. In my constituency, the problem that he mentions applies to individual schools with certain types of catchment area. The hon. Gentleman will probably agree that he would find comparable problems involving the disproportionate concentration of children with special educational needs in an all-comprehensive system, because that is the nature of a system that relies on catchment areas.
  The selective system in Buckinghamshire works well. It is achieving results: my county is at or near the top of the Government's league table in regard to both A-levels and GCSEs. It is wrong for the Government to create the uncertainty that they have created with their legislation on grammar school ballots, leaving schools unsure, year by year, whether they will have to engage their energies in fighting to maintain their current status. Moreover, local education authorities must always bear in mind whether they are likely to face a huge financial and organisational upheaval.
  The Labour party has gone a bit quieter—in the Chamber, if not in Buckinghamshire county council—about its opposition to selection, but I was pleased, from a constituency point of view, to hear the hon. Member for Bath restate so firmly his party's opposition in principle to selection in education. That is something that Liberal Democrat councillors in Buckinghamshire tend to keep mum about at every opportunity.
  It is nice to hear, from time to time, the honesty of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). I suppose that, by analogy, he must imply something less than honesty on the part of Liberal Democrats councillors in my local education authority.
  Mr. Hilary Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lidington: I will give way briefly.
  Mr. Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
  If comprehensive reform has been such a failure—and that seems to fly in the face of the evidence of a rise in educational attainments and achievements since its introduction—will the hon. Gentleman explain why there is absolutely no evidence that parents wish to return to a widespread system of selection? Does he accept that, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) suggested, no parents want their children to attend secondary modern schools?
  Mr. Lidington: The evidence with which I am most familiar—from my own constituency, where a selective system has been maintained consistently—shows that there is considerable public support, as demonstrated in local election results, for a selective system. The approach in areas that have opted for a comprehensive system should be to develop the initiatives of the previous

  1123
  Government, by allowing greater specialisation, in specific subjects, in individual comprehensive schools within a local education authority area.
  Sixth forms were one of the subjects dealt with in the Government's recent White Paper. I should, at the outset, say that I think that the idea of encouraging co-operation between local education authority schools and colleges is sensible, and that, equally, I fully support the Government's announced emphasis on trying to raise the standards of those who are not the highest fliers academically.
  One of my fears—I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will allay some of them—is that the Government have a hidden agenda. Despite the assurances that the Secretary of State gave in his statement, the current edition of The Times Educational Supplement remarks that only
  "A last-minute intervention by the Prime Minister…saved small sixth forms from abolition",
  that
  "The original plans for this week's White Paper on post-16 reforms intended that sixth forms and colleges should be given equal funding",
  and that that
  "change would have left small sixth forms vulnerable."
  The article goes on to say that the Prime Minister
  "called for changes"—
  not out of principle, but—
  "because any perceived attack on sixth forms would lose votes in Middle England."
  I have several fears about the Government's options for the future of sixth forms. It is proposed that, at the very least, local education authorities should be subject to departmental guidance on how they plan and manage post-16 education. One of the options is that, rather than local education authorities being funded by revenue support grant, they should be funded by the new learning and skills councils.
  One fear is that the Government are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Government have promised to maintain sixth form funding at current levels in real terms, but they have already said that they will not provide extra money to school sixth forms to cope with the proposed new A-level curriculum. I wonder whether Ministers have a similar plan to cap sixth form grant or expenditure in subsequent Department for Education and Employment initiatives.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
  There is a risk of a top-down system that relies not on the preference expressed by students or their parents, but on the decisions of central planners on a regional committee.
  What will happen to capital expenditure decisions? Who will take them? I am very interested in the answer to that question, as the population of Aylesbury—and of mid-Buckinghamshire generally—is growing fast and, at some point in the not-too-distant future, my constituency
  1124
  may need another secondary school. Under the Government's new proposals, how would a decision on accommodation for post-16 education be taken?
  Do the Government have a view on the minimum size of a viable sixth form? In the previous Parliament, when I was on the Education Select Committee, one expert witness said that 250 was the bare minimum.
  Mr. Don Foster: Three in a primary school.
  Mr. Lidington: Am I am being bid up to 300 by Liberal Democrat Members?
  A minimum limit of 250 would have very serious implications, particularly for sixth forms and for secondary schools in rural areas. I hope that the Government, in future plans, will take account of the fact that many parents prefer school sixth forms to colleges—because of the pastoral care that they can provide, and their ability to offer minority subjects, such as classics, and opportunities in music, drama and sport, which many employers think help to provide a rounded candidate, with the right core skills, when it comes to selecting an applicant for a job. Such concerns have been expressed to me by education managers and teachers, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them.
  9 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I welcome the debate on choice and diversity. Soon we shall approach the end of the century, our first of full democracy and citizenship. Universal suffrage came for the first time, and this century enjoyed the advent of the welfare state and the national health service. The provision of state education also arrived for primary school children and, with the Education Act 1944, for secondary school children, too. It is interesting to note how recently state secondary education arrived.
  We ought to try to relate two sets of themes. Equality and fairness sometimes seem to conflict with diversity and choice, but they need not. The new agenda facing education is how we relate those two themes to each other. The advent of state education for every child brought the principle of equality into practice. Each and every child was important and deserved good state education. The left and right of British politics may have talked differently about equality, focusing on equality of opportunity or some more fundamental form of equality, but all of us agreed on the goal of equal provision for every child.
  It is useful to review the results of our first century of citizenship and democracy. I do not have the time to do a full audit, but there have been successes and failures. Numeracy and literacy have risen and more of our children have been able to achieve good GCSEs and A-levels. It is fantastic that about a third of our children will go to university. One day it will be 40 per cent., and perhaps one day 50 per cent. That is a remarkable success story.
  However, the success is blended with some failure. Gross inequalities have continued in our society in education and in many other matters. It is a sorry fact that knowing which house or estate a child came from, or knowing his or her postcode or his or her parents' occupations, allowed us to make a good—though not always accurate; there are many exceptions—stab at

  1125
  predicting that child's educational outcome. We could also predict the child's broader life chances in health and in many other areas.
  The annual report of the Universities and Colleges Admission Service shows that only 10 per cent. of university entrants came from social classes 4 and 5, although those classes represent nearly a quarter of the population. That is a gross inequality. The youth cohort study shows that by 1996, eight out of 10 state school pupils from professional families gained at least five good GCSEs, while only a fifth of children from households in which no one was in paid employment achieved the same. Despite our successes, which I applaud, at the end of our first century of state education, the system still mirrors inequalities rather than breaking them down.
  Equality and fairness are among the great themes of our century; diversity and choice provide the other important strand. The 1944 Act had its own agenda on diversity and choice. Although it brought in secondary schools, it also brought in grammar schools, technical schools that never developed in any great quantity, and secondary modern schools. Later, Labour Governments in particular pushed comprehensive schools and we got into the debate about the comprehensive school versus the grammar school. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that that debate has become rather old-fashioned. Equality and diversity appear to have been in conflict in the public and private sectors.
  Although many working-class children go to grammar schools, there is still an equation between socio-economic background and access to grammar school. I was struck by the evidence printed in Hansard on 20 May that used free school meals as an indicator of socio-economic disadvantage. It tells us how many children at grammar schools receive free school meals and compares that figure with the number of children in the relevant local education authorities who were receiving free school meals. In Barnet, 16 per cent. of children attending secondary schools receive free school meals, compared with 1.4 per cent. of those attending grammar schools. In Bromley, 14 per cent. of children receive free school meals, compared with 1.2 per cent. of children at grammar schools. In Birmingham, 34 per cent. of children receive free school meals, compared with only 5 per cent. of children at grammar schools. In Liverpool, 39 per cent. of all secondary school children receive free school meals, compared with just 6 per cent. of children at grammar schools. In Buckinghamshire, which is a pretty wealthy county, 7 per cent. of children receive free school meals compared with just 1.6 per cent. of those at grammar schools. The point is proven.
  Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends ask those who support grammar schools to say more about the children who never get to grammar school—in other words, most children. We have to recognise the skew in terms of socio-economic background. It is not surprising, but it is worth emphasising.
  Let me change gear now and say that the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which I have the honour to chair, is interested in these themes. We are about to undertake an inquiry into the relationship between public and private education. Owing to the involvement of the private sector in education action zones and other developments in which—perfectly properly, in my view—the Government are trying to bridge the gap between public and private education, we
  1126
  feel it appropriate and timely that the Select Committee should undertake an inquiry into the role of private companies in the management and supply of state education services. We take our first evidence on 10 July and I hope that our report will be of interest to the whole House.
  Another illustration of the need for diversity and choice is the necessity to pay more attention to highly able children. The Government prefer the term "gifted" children. I am not worried about the terminology, but we are all concerned—as was the Select Committee when we published our report—by the fact that most schools neglect highly able children. To put it rather graphically, a number of potential Nobel prize winners are sitting in our schools rather sulkily, bored out of their minds because they are not being stretched. That is partly because schools are often more concerned with helping children who are struggling and with average standards.
  We neglect the highly able child at our peril, however. The Select Committee made the strong recommendation that every primary and secondary school should have a senior member of staff as a co-ordinator, looking out for the highly able boy or girl.
  I said at the beginning that this was the end of the first century of democracy and citizenship in our society. In the education agenda, we find ourselves hovering rather anxiously between three centuries. I do not think that anyone would have predicted in 1944, or at the beginning of this century, that two of the major concerns of Parliament and Government at the end of the 20th century would be literacy and numeracy.
  That was the agenda in the 19th century, when primary education was introduced, yet here we are—perfectly properly, because too many children do not get to grips with reading, writing and arithmetic—introducing literacy hours and numeracy strategies. There is something sad and ironic about the fact that we are tackling a 19th century problem when we are trying to summon up the energy to enter the 21st century. The 21st century education agenda should be about creativity and new technology unleashing all sorts of benefits for our young people.
  How are we to relate the two important themes of equality and fairness, and diversity and choice? Parents and children want choices. What policies and practices will enable us not to take sides but to pursue the two themes together? That is the challenge in education today.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Education is rightly put at the heart of the political debate. It affects everything, from the nation's competitiveness, skills and employment to the social conditions of our society. I cannot put it better than the headmistress of Parkstone grammar school in my constituency, in a recent letter:
  "Education is the single most effective route out of poverty."
  The Secretary of State said that he wanted to talk about the many, not the few. I want to do the same: the whole issue of diversity and choice is about the many, not the few, as Conservative Members have said. There are 39 schools in my constituency. Above all, we have choice. There are seven secondary schools and active sixth forms, with two grammar schools, Parkstone and Poole. Many of our schools feature regularly at the top of

  1127
  the league tables. For good measure, we have one independent school. Four of the seven secondary schools are grant maintained.
  In my election pledge, I stated that
  "we owe it to our younger generation to give them the best start in life to succeed in a competitive world.
  There must be choice and opportunity for all abilities so that we can all be members of a skilled and prosperous workforce, embracing the technological revolution."
  Two and a half years later, I stand by those words; but can the Government claim to have stuck to their words and pledged intentions?
  The 1997 Labour manifesto stated:
  "Labour will never force the abolition of good schools whether in the private sector or the state sector".
  I believe that the Government's plans for grammar schools renege on that pledge. The plan to allow the fate of grammar schools to be decided through a ballot of parents from feeder schools is a centralist plan imposed on a local community.
  The question is not balanced, as in some schools parents will not be able to vote, yet parents with children at feeder schools, who may not want to send their children to the grammar school, will have the final say on the future of other people's children. The proposals will alter who has a say on the issue, and are thus unfair: after all, if one asks a loaded question, one tends to get a loaded answer.
  Above all, this country needs choice in education. The right to decide is imperative for a parent. Every child is different and parents know best what is right for their child. Not all children are academic, and vocational skills must be taken into consideration. Taking away choice and diversity limits the opportunities that will best suit the child.
  The whole community should decide the fate of a school. A constituent wrote to me recently:
  "Why do we need a ballot, (surely a good school will thrive and a bad school will wither.) If there are 5 people chasing every place at a grammar school—the choice has been made, the school should be kept."
  We also have excellent non-selective or grant-maintained schools in my constituency which produce superb results and are equally popular, and which have equal standing in the eyes of the community and of parents, who have a valid role to play in the diversity and choice in the education that they have chosen for their children.
  If a school's status or the choice available to parents is changed, repercussions will inevitably be felt in an area's whole education system and in the pattern and structure of admission numbers. However, the cost of the exercise could easily render it a wasted effort when it comes to raising pupil achievement.
  Mr. Alex Clark, the headmaster of Poole grammar school, told me:
  "If the Government genuinely believes in the overriding priority to address standards and not structure, why does it not at least postpone the issue of grammar school ballots by three or four years? This will allow the maximum effort to meet the required standards by 2002. In that time they may…come to realise the very important dimension to education provided by grammar schools."
  1128
  The irony is that certain members of the Labour party have, in the past, exercised choice for their own children. There is nothing wrong with that, but the drawbridge is being pulled up after them to prevent other parents having the same choices and opportunities.
  I turn now to the Liberal Democrats in my constituency. Unfortunately, they run Poole council for the time being. However, East Dorset and Purbeck councils have been Tory since May, so there at least we can express an opinion about education. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats still run Dorset county council. If they remain in power, they will have the choice to pursue their agenda, but parents will not have a choice.
  The Liberal Democrats have made what they think about grammar schools clear. During proceedings on the School Standards and Framework Bill, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said:
  "We make it clear that we are opposed to grammar schools and selection, partial or otherwise."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998; c. 616.]
  The Liberal Democrats say that they are opposed to ballots as well, so what will people in my constituency do when the time comes for the two grammar schools to be subject to a local ballot, as will happen? The position of parents will not be represented fairly. Given that the Liberal Democrats on the council are not in favour of a ballot and they do not agree with selection in schools, the parents will be on a hiding to nothing.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fraser: No, as I promised to keep my remarks brief.
  I am afraid that my constituents whose children attend those grammar schools will be sorely misrepresented by the present council.
  Regulations stifle diversity. The increase in bureaucracy has involved 322 new directives in the two years since the Labour Government took office. The fine words about cutting red tape and raising standards have evaporated into a thick og of regulation that has had an adverse impact on schools.
  I visit a lot of schools in my constituency, and have got to know the head teachers. They have made it clear that increased bureaucracy could seriously damage children's education, rather than improve it. Head teachers repeatedly tell me of the frustration they feel. The ever increasing amount of regulation and change comes at the expense of work at the chalk face. After two years of the Government's management of the education system, teachers have come to realise that the real agenda is to control the country's 25,000 schools directly from Whitehall, and to stifle all local initiative.
  Another constituent wrote to me last week, as follows:
  "Although the Government has repeated the mantra of 'standards not structures', the barrage of initiatives which has been launched this year by the Government seems to have left the central theme of pupil achievement by the wayside."
  In my speech, I have used real quotations from constituents. They are concerned about education: it is their children who must use the schools in my area. I want the Government to tackle the genuine anxieties that they have expressed. The Government have dismantled the framework and management of grant-maintained schools, and the preoccupation with staffing and financing that has been unleashed is very often to the detriment of children.

  1129
  Schools in the new unitary authority of Poole must also deal with reassessing their needs and sorting out what happened under the old local education authority. The relationship with the LEA has naturally overlapped with what is being undertaken now.
  The process has not been easy. Schools must now deal with the Government's new fair funding system, but they are coping. However, Dorset has lots of rural areas, and schools in the rural part of my constituency are not being treated so well. Mr. Stuart Clarke, a head teacher there, has written to me on the subject. He is the head not of a grammar school, but of a comprehensive school—Lytchett Minster upper school. He voiced his concerns when he told me that
  "rural schools such as mine which attract neither urban nor rural priority…are located in an authority which delegates funds at a lower rate than most other authorities."
  He said that such schools
  "find themselves in a funding vacuum that prevents them from forging ahead with new initiatives. The Government is also determined to ignore them."
  In Dorset and the borough of Poole, we have a problem with lack of funding; it is an issue. Despite that, the range of schools in my constituency do well, as they are well-managed and offer not only excellent academic standards but a true choice that reflects the diversity of the community that they serve. I would like that to continue.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: At its heart, the Conservative motion supports not a diverse but a divisive education system, the aim of which is to increase selection, to protect GM schools and to make the post-16 debate into a campaign to save sixth forms—a choice for a few, but not the many. That may be the real world in a small part of the country, but that agenda bears no relationship to the country as a whole—a country which, under the previous Government, saw unbridled competition leading to sink schools, large classes, schools in disrepair and poor standards. As many hon. Members have said, there were appalling levels of numeracy and literacy, which effectively debarred any child from achieving anything. There were real-term cuts in school funding.
  The new Labour Government have set about modernising the education system, based on the comprehensive principle and social inclusion. That will mean real choice and diversity. We have new money for books and buildings, numeracy and literacy strategies, class size initiatives, increases in the standards fund, and money to improve pay for teachers.
  May I tell the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Minister for School Standards why I am proud of the new Labour Government? We want excellence, academic success and achievement, but we want it for every child. That is why so much of what the Government are doing in education links with their other social policies. If we want to tackle under-achievement across the board, we will have to tackle the problems of social exclusion and social failure and the context in which schools operate and work.
  That is why sure start is so important, starting when children are at an early age alongside nursery education. That is why the new deal for communities and excellence in cities, education action zones, health action zones and
  1130
  the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are so important. All those things will be crucial if we want to tackle the under-achievement that is endemic in half our schools.
  The new educational maintenance allowance is crucial, but if we could extend it to all pupils, it would help more to go into further education. Relaxation of the key stage 4 curriculum is important, too. It gives the vocational element to 14 and 16-year-olds where they become particularly disaffected. They have something more tangible to be at school for. The post-16 White Paper, protecting sixth forms but looking to extend and to expand opportunity for all, is another important move. That is real choice, real diversity, a celebration of success, while meeting head on the challenge in the most difficult areas.
  I go on to a pet theme of mine. If we really want to do something to improve achievement in our secondary schools, we will have to look at the curriculum in terms of 14 to 19. We will have to get some of our people to stay on at 16 if we hope to get them into higher education.
  The Tories seem to want to protect only the privilege of a few, but we seek to extend opportunity for the many. So much will depend on the joined-up nature of all that.
  On teachers, of course, the contract needs modernising. I say to many of my friends in the teaching profession: for years, the cry was that a teacher could get promoted only out of the classroom—they had to take a management responsibility to get promoted. Under the new contract, they can get promoted for being a good teacher and then stay in the classroom. That will do much to improve standards. Alongside that, it is important that we do not set a quota on the number of teachers who can cross the threshold. If they are good enough, they should be paid and allowed to pass through.
  One legitimate concern, which I know the Minister shares, is the work load. We need to take account of the fact that teachers are telling us that they are finding it difficult. If we can continue our efforts to find ways to reduce bureaucracy, it would be helpful. We need to keep talking and negotiating to achieve a just outcome. I met some head teachers in Nottinghamshire on Friday. The work load was the issue to which they drew my attention—it was more important to them than pay and many of the other issues that are often raised.
  This Government will go down in history as one of the truly radical Governments—a Government who have sought to deal with the social context in which schools operate, as well as the operation of schools themselves. If we want to raise achievement, it is essential that we realise that schools cannot continue to operate as social hospitals, with teachers being asked to deal with almost every social problem that can arise. Of course, teachers and schools have a responsibility and duty to do something about the problems that come to them, but schools need the support of the community around them. They need the other policies that we have mentioned if they are to achieve their goal of raising standards.
  The Tory objective is simple. People often say that there are no differences between the Labour and Conservative parties—it has been said to me. In all honesty, people who read the Hansard of this debate will see clear water between us, and I am proud of that. In essence, the Tory party today is standing for more selection, the protection of grammar and grant-maintained schools, and the protection of an education system that is

  1131
  rooted in the past. That policy would allow some schools and pupils to achieve, but it would not give opportunity to all children.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on being part of a team that has recognised that, if we are to achieve what we want in our schools, we need to tackle social exclusion and to ensure that all pupils have the opportunities to which they are entitled. We need to ensure that all schools succeed and that none are written off, as they have been in recent years.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I will be as quick as possible. I want to make a brief contribution about the need to apply the principle of choice and diversity in Wales. I would argue that diversity ought to apply territorially, especially at this time, and not specifically in relation to the Government's proposals for the teaching profession.
  That subject was recently debated in the National Assembly for Wales, of which I am proud to be a Member. I spoke in that debate to a Plaid Cymru motion that rejected the notion of payment by results and called for an alternative approach to be developed in Wales. During that debate, it became evident that a clear majority in the Assembly were in favour of the Plaid Cymru motion. The motion that we tabled certainly reflects the majority view in Wales as a whole.
  As was said in that debate, Plaid Cymru accepts that the system of teacher remuneration and professional advancement needs reform. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) about that. It is important that teachers should be rewarded for remaining in the class room and for being good teachers—I agree 100 per cent., speaking as a former teacher who never left the classroom for a management position. For that to happen, it would require an evaluation of teacher's performance—their expertise, commitment and professional development.
  We are not arguing at this stage—we would not want to close off options for the future—for a separate pay bargaining structure for Wales, or for disparities in pay levels. However, we are arguing that Wales must be allowed to identify and apply criteria and processes for professional advancement and higher pay that might be different from those to be implemented in England. To make it clear, one element that we find totally unacceptable in the Government's proposals is the link between teachers' remuneration and pupil performance—or outcomes. That is certain to lead to injustice and to undermine teamwork. I am sure that many in this Chamber would agree with that.
  We also reject the notion of linking teachers' eligibility for annual increments to the process of annual appraisal, as is stated in the technical notes that were published in both England and Wales. That would be intensely bureaucratic and time consuming and undermine the useful role of the annual appraisal when it is used well in schools. That process is based on trust. It is about identifying teachers' strengths and weaknesses, about teachers confessing, as it were, to their weaknesses, and about identifying means by which strengths may be developed and weaknesses corrected.
  However, I do not want to get into detailed consideration of the merits and demerits of the Government's proposals, which are, by the way, just
  1132
  about identical for England and Wales, even though we have had a separate Green Paper. I emphasise that it would be entirely unacceptable if Wales, especially now that it has its own National Assembly, were forced to swallow the Government's nasty medicine in order, according to the Government, to make us better.
  The suggestion has been made—it was made just before the election by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—that, unless we in Wales agree to implement the Government's package in total, including payment by results, resources to improve teachers' pay will not be made available. That is totally outrageous. If it were applied, it would arouse fury in Wales and would be very damaging to the Government party in Wales, which has already suffered some damage, although there may be more to come.
  In the debate in the Assembly, our group showed that it was prepared to be flexible. We did not oppose the amendment tabled by the Government of Wales, which was weaker than our motion. We suggested inserting the adjective "crude" before the sentence on links between pay and results. Ironically, both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats in the Assembly voted against the Government amendment, whereas we abstained.
  We were flexible on the understanding that the relevant Assembly Committee and its Cabinet would develop an alternative set of proposals, based on a Welsh consensus, that addresses the needs of Wales, and that the Assembly would be able to implement such a set of proposals. It should be clearly understood that, if that does not happen, and if the Assembly Cabinet merely develops proposals that simply toe the United Kingdom Government line, the Assembly can and will defeat the proposals.
  In this debate, I merely wanted courteously to ask the Government to ensure that the Assembly be given the flexibility—freedom is the right word, I think—to do what it regards as best for teaching and learning in Wales. That is no more or no less than we deserve.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: This has been an important and valuable debate, which has highlighted the way in which the Government's policies are curtailing choice and opportunity in education. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) began the debate with a powerful speech, in which she described the damage that the Government have caused, and are threatening to cause, not least to pre-school provision, rural primary schools, sixth forms, grant-maintained schools and grammar schools.
  My hon. Friends have made some excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a very thoughtful speech, outlining the threats posed to Buckinghamshire educational system and to sixth forms in his constituency. He made some thoughtful points about the unconvincing assurance given by the Government on future funding of sixth forms and the possible problems in coping with future demands on them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) touched on some important issues for his constituency and its two grammar schools. My hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) have been listening attentively, and I know from previous debates,

  1133
  including an Adjournment debate last week, that they are very concerned about the threat to local grant-maintained schools and their funding.
  It is always a great pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The theme of his speech was moving on. Thinking back to our debates on the Education Bill in 1993, when the hon. Gentleman spoke at length, I found it hard to identify how he had moved on. He was still saying that the Government were not spending enough and the Liberal Democrats would spend more. I listened for long enough and eventually we heard about the magic penny as well. I agreed with the hon. Gentleman on targets for the lowest 20 or 25 per cent. Without going into the overall merits of target setting, we need to have high expectations for all our pupils, including the lowest 20 or 25 per cent.
  After praising the Government, the hon. Gentleman then attacked them on their education funding record, pointing out that the Audit Commission had said that funding per pupil had gone down under this Government. It is difficult to know what the Liberal Democrats found to praise after the hon. Gentleman attacked the central pillar of the Secretary of State's case.
  I also listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks). I did not agree with all of it, but he made an important point about the need to increase the number of children from lower income families who go on to university. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we must look with concern at the effects that the Government's package on tuition fees and maintenance grants has on the number of children from those backgrounds who have the opportunity to go on to higher education.
  I am afraid that I do not have sufficient time to mention all the contributions from Labour Members. Suffice it to say that I think that there was a narrow majority of those who had the benefit of a grammar school education over those who with the benefit of a public school education.
  The Secretary of State also took as his theme the need to move on. On grammar schools and grant-maintained schools, the Government have moved on most from the promises that they made before and immediately after the general election. We heard this afternoon about the promises that the Prime Minister gave to the voters of Wirral, South in 1997 that parents there need not worry about a Labour Government doing away with their grammar schools. Barely a month before the general election, he promised in The Times Educational Supplement that "grant-maintained schools will prosper". In her analysis of the funding position of grant-maintained schools and her long list of schools throughout the country that have had difficulties, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead gave the lie to that.
  After the general election, we were told by the then Minister for School Standards that the Government's aim was to level up, not level down. He told the Standing Committee considering the School Standards and Framework Bill:
  "We have said that our objective is not to cut the amount being spent on pupils in GM schools, but to increase the funding for pupils in other schools. We are therefore levelling up."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 February 1998; c. 461.]
  If that was the Government's objective, they have failed. Nobody has admitted that more clearly than the Secretary of State, who said that there was a need to introduce cash
  1134
  protection and transitional funding for grant-maintained schools to protect them from the budget shortfalls that they have experienced.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead cited grant-maintained schools throughout the country that have experienced serious difficulties because of budget deficits, causing great problems for the education of their children. My hon. Friend could have added to that list schools in my constituency, including Wroxham school, which I visited this morning. The Secretary of State spoke of moving on, but all that have moved on from Wroxham school are classroom assistants and learning support assistants, who have been forced to do so by the school's £30,000 deficit.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: Yes. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell us about the difficulties experienced by schools in her constituency.
  Miss Johnson: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I asked the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) earlier. Does he support the present Tory leader of our county council, who proposes not to send an extra 6 per cent. of funding to schools next year? Those schools include ones in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine, which will have to make cuts as a result of the failure to send on the extra money that the Government are spending on education, or that they would spend if Tory-run councils would let them.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady knows that the budget for Hertfordshire was set by the so-called administration group, which was Liberal-Labour controlled. The Secretary of State had to write to that group to complain about the amount of money that it was withholding from schools.
  Schools have suffered up and down the country. The Secretary of State prayed in aid the words of Mr. Bob Lloyd of the grant-maintained schools joint monitoring group. That is the same Mr. Lloyd who provided us with an analysis of the position this year, rather than next year, which the Secretary of State was talking about. Mr. Lloyd describes the present position in grant-maintained schools and the practical consequences of the Government's policies. The average grant-maintained secondary school on cash protection—two thirds of them are on cash protection—is £96,000 worse off, which equates to approximately four teaching posts. Grant-maintained primary schools are, on average, £22,000 worse off, which equates to one teaching post.
  Wroxham school in my constituency is aware of the Secretary of State's announcement about next year, and it is hardly dancing with glee about his alleged generosity in providing the school with barely enough of an increase to match inflation, when the school is already suffering a serious deficit in its budget and the classroom and learning support assistants have already gone. That is the overall picture for grant-maintained schools and, if that is prosperity, goodness save us from this Government and their idea of prosperity.

  1135
  The Prime Minister has clearly moved on from his promises about grammar schools made before the election. He said:
  "The reason why I don't say it's part of the Government's policy to get rid of all grammar schools is that I think if a school's doing a good job, then you don't want to get rid of that school."
  Having listened to this debate and heard speaker after speaker express hostility to grammar schools, I know that the Prime Minister's sentiment is not shared by the vast majority of his Back-Bench colleagues or, apparently, by many Labour activists.
  Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about ballots?"] Hon. Members mention ballots. The Prime Minister told us today that there was no need to worry because there had been no ballots and there was no need for scaremongering. In fact, ballots cannot be held until September. The Department for Education and Employment has received inquiries from campaigners against grammar schools, many of whom are Labour party activists, about petitions to get rid of grammar schools. The Minister will be aware of newspaper reports about Labour activists throughout the country using Labour party offices, presumably with the blessing of some of the MPs who have spoken this evening, for their campaign to get rid of grammar schools.
  I agreed with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. What do those activists think will be the effect on children and teachers in those schools of the prospect of upheaval of months and months of campaigning? Nothing could be more calculated to damage the provision of education in those schools.
  What will be the consequence in the long run? [Interruption.] Hon. Members do not want to know, but let me remind them of the likely consequences of the upheavals that they propose. Eric Hammond, former union boss and governor of Gravesend grammar school, who is battling to keep selection in Kent's grammar schools, said:
  "I wouldn't like to see selection by merit replaced by selection by purse."
  That is one of the possible outcomes.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North talked about free school meals and gave us a sociological analysis. There could be no clearer division than the one that we face if those activists have their way because, if those schools become independent, the only people who will go to them are those who can afford to pay full fees. The Government are delivering educational opportunity for the few at the expense of educational opportunity for the many, as Labour Members might say.
  When one looks at the picture and sees what the Government have done to take away opportunities, by abolishing the assisted places—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I appeal to hon. Members to calm down and listen to the hon. Gentleman. I also appeal to the hon. Gentleman to calm down.
  Mr. Clappison: Labour Members are displaying the vigour with which they wish to abolish grammar schools.
  1136
  That is how the Government pursue their ends—often by stealth, but always with vigour, but so that the Prime Minister can hold up his hands, say, "Not me, guv—it's all scaremongering," and give bland reassurances about the future. Meanwhile, his Back Benchers and his party outside Parliament work and campaign to undermine the promises he solemnly made to voters before the last general election.
  When I look at what the Government have done to take away opportunity, especially from those who are less well-off, by abolishing assisted places and attacking grant-maintained schools and grammar schools, I have to ask, what is it that the Labour party has against the less well-off that it wants to take educational opportunities from them at every turn? This debate has highlighted the real threat that the Labour Government pose to choice, opportunity and diversity, with their almost Cromwellian determination to sweep across the country attacking any adornment or centre of excellence in the state education system.
  I invite Ministers and Labour Back Benchers to think about the damage that they are doing to schools, the uncertainty that they are causing and the teachers and classroom assistants who might have to be made redundant. The Secretary of State boasted that the Government are making a difference, but, for all too many children in our schools, that difference is that they will receive an inferior education because of the Labour Government's policies.
  9.47 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. In the past two years, there appears to have been rapid turnover in the shadow Education and Employment team. I think that this is the third team we have faced; let us hope, for their sake, that they do better than the previous two.
  It would appear that one of the qualifications for appointment to the Opposition Front Bench is selective amnesia extending back over the 18 years of Tory rule. In his first speech as an education spokesman, the hon. Gentleman spent nigh on 15 minutes talking about two subjects, and two subjects only: grammar schools and grant-maintained schools. From their speeches today, I gather that the great thing that the Conservatives achieved during 18 years in office—the thing that they most want to defend, the thing that they most mind losing and the thing that, to them, encapsulates diversity—is their policy on grammar schools and grant-maintained schools. Let us see what they achieved with that policy.
  The result of the Conservatives' policy on grammar schools was not a grammar school in every town or an expansion of grammar schools, but a steady contraction of grammar schools as the Tory years rolled on. When they left office, they left 160 grammar schools, compared with thousands when they took office in the 1970s. If grant-maintained schools were the second strand of their diverse education system, it amounted to only 1,000 schools. So what the Tories are celebrating today is having left a system that was meant to be diverse and was made up of two elements—160 grammar schools and 1,000 grant-maintained schools. All that after 18 years! If that is what the Tories come to the House today and talk

  1137
  about with pride, with not one word about the 23,000 other schools that make up the English education system, it is not surprising that they lost the last election with such great force.
  The Conservative Government fiddled with creating 1,000 grant-maintained schools and thought that that would solve the nation's problems, but they left the nation not an education system rich in diversity but one in which four out of 10 11-year-olds could not read and write properly; in which more than half of 16-year-olds could not achieve five or more higher grade GCSEs; in which 2.3 per cent. of schools were failing; and in which one in 10 schools had serious weaknesses and a third were not as good as they should have been. They left a £4 billion backlog of repairs and an expensive and wasteful nursery voucher scheme. They put a standstill on the expansion in higher education numbers. Schools had to cope with reduced budgets year after year under the Tory Government.
  There was no system for dealing with failing LEAs. The Conservative Government had no levers to raise standards. That was what their vision of diversity brought about. That was what Tory diversity and choice was all about—a system that let down too many of the nation's children.
  Mrs. May: The Minister has just said that there were no levers for raising standards under the previous Government. Does she accept that we introduced tests and the Office for Standards in Education? The Government are able to talk about standards in schools only because we introduced a rigorous inspection regime that publishes accountable statistics about the standards in schools.
  Ms Morris: The hon. Lady talks about that, but the truth is that the Tory Government only did half the job. Tests and inspection reports reveal the problem. The real levers for raising standards are the action taken when the problems have been identified. In cases where inspection has revealed that a school is failing, we now have clear targets for improvement and options for action if it is not made. Where performance tables show a shortfall in the performance of schools, we have targets for improvement. There is monitoring, support, pressure and action where targets are not reached. Those are the levers for raising standards that are needed. It is not a case of letting someone else find the information and turning one's back on it. The Government must accept responsibility to use the levers for raising standards.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady tell the House how she and her party voted on the introduction of Ofsted and the inspection of schools?
  Ms Morris: I was not a Member of the House at that time so I did not cast a vote. The Labour party did not vote against Ofsted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) was right when he said that as we approach the millennium the challenge for the educational system is that which it has never been before. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) also intimated that. The challenge is not about raising standards for a few or sectioning off certain schools and giving them more funding. It is about raising standards for all children and making sure that every youngster who leaves school does so with the basic skills, committed to lifelong learning and with the
  1138
  attitudes that will serve them well in adult life. That is the sort of choice and diversity that we have been acting on in the past two years. That is why we turned our back on the old, sterile arguments that were for the last century, not the next. That is why we have taken action to double the number of three-year-olds in nursery places and guarantee a place for all four-year-olds. We have introduced a sure start programme with £450 million. We have made sure that in 18 months' time there will be no five, six or seven-year-old in a class of more than 30.
  We have put money into measures to reduce exclusion. We have made sure that every teacher will be trained to use information and communications technology, that every school will be connected to the national grid for learning and that we shall have a teaching force and school system that is kitted up to do the best that it can to meet the challenges of ICT.
  The hon. Member for Bath was right. We wait for the Tories to adopt the new and pressing agenda for the nation. Not one word from the Opposition today gives me any confidence that, after two years in opposition, they have learned that lesson. The parents of this country want a Government who face the future and do not look back to the past. What we have heard today is a Conservative Opposition who harp on about arguments that they have lost. They lost with parents, they lost with teachers and, two years ago, they lost at the ballot box.
  Conservative Members referred to the 160 grammar schools, and we will leave that matter to the parents. The Conservatives took action at central Government level to abolish more grammar schools than any other party did in a similar time scale.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Morris: No, I am nearly out of time. Grant-maintained schools were about differential funding—not on the basis of the needs of children, but on the basis of the status and structure of schools. We have put that argument behind us.
  The saddest thing was that, having failed to adopt the new agenda and having wasted three hours talking about grammar schools and grant-maintained schools while the rest of the world has moved on, the Conservatives could not even embrace the success of the literary and numeracy strategy. The hon. Member for Maidenhead quoted out-of-date figures and painted a picture of what teachers feared would happen at the start of the year. All the evidence from Ofsted, the National Foundation for Educational Research and teachers themselves shows that 90 per cent. of heads feel that it is a good system and 80 per cent. of teachers believe that it will raise standards.
  I know that the hon. Member for Maidenhead does not believe the Ofsted evidence or the research from the NFER. What I know she likes is evidence quoted in teacher union magazines, so I shall quote from one of her favourite sources—the journal of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers. Adam Gibson, starting his third year at a new primary school in Derby, said of the literacy hour:
  "Most primary teachers feel the literacy framework is at worst a superb scheme of work and at best a genuine educational innovation."
  I rest my case. Those words are not based on Government research. They are the words of the hon. Lady's tried and trusted friends—those who write in trade union journals.

  1139
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere not only has a selective memory—he was ungracious in his comments. I was waiting for him to turn away from his sterile arguments of the past and to acknowledge that, in the past two years, we have spent £1.8 million to reduce class sizes in his constituency. In his own area, 2,500 fewer infant children are in classes of over 30. In his own area, there will be 102 extra teachers and nine new classrooms this September to deal with infant class sizes. In his area, £9 million is being put in for capital expenditure to repair schools.
  If we throw in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Maidenhead and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), we find that 4,000 five, six and seven-year-olds are in smaller classes. Between the three constituencies, there are 35 extra classrooms and 200 extra teachers. Between them, they have £35 million capital to repair their schools. That is what two years of Labour has done for three Opposition constituencies. Multiply that many times over, and that shows the nature of the choice and diversity that we have created.
  Our policy is not about separation or favouring the few, but about real choice for parents between excellent schools. Our policy on diversity means that parents have the option of out-of-school learning activities, and can choose schools on their strengths. However, the policy is not just about choice and diversity, but about standards. We will be judged by that and by nothing else. All the evidence shows that so far we are making good progress. Over the next few years we will see something happen that has never happened before: we will have an education service that is fit and ready for the next millennium.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 352.

  Division No. 228]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Amess, David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, Nigel

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Flight, Howard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gibb, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Burns, Simon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gray, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Green, Damian

  Clappison, James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Collins, Tim

  Hammond, Philip

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  1140

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ty)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Horam, John

  Ruffley, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spring, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Leigh, Edward

  Steen, Anthony

  Letwin, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lidington, David

  Syms, Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, William

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Townend, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mates, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Wardle, Charles

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wells, Bowen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wilshire, David

  Norman, Archie

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Page, Richard

  Woodward, Shaun

  Paice, James

  Yeo, Tim

  Pickles, Eric

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Prior, David

  Randall, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brake, Tom

  Alexander, Douglas

  Breed, Colin

  Allan, Richard

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Browne, Desmond

  Ashton, Joe

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burden, Richard

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burgon, Cohn

  Austin, John

  Burnett, John

  Baker, Norman

  Burstow, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Barron, Kevin

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Battle, John

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cann, Jamie

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Casale, Roger

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Caton, Martin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benton, Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clapham, Michael

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clelland, David

  Boateng, Paul

  1141

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hope, Phil

  Cotter, Brian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hurst, Alan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keetch, Paul

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kemp, Fraser

  Etherington, Bill

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kidney, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flint, Caroline

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Galloway, George

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gapes, Mike

  Linton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Livsey, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lock, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAllion, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gorrie, Donald

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWilliam, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hanson, David

  Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Harvey, Nick

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  1142

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

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

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Speller, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moore, Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Stott, Roger

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Timms, Stephen

  Osbo Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Tipping, Paddy

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Todd, Mark

  Pendry, Tom Pend

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pond, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pope, Greg

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pound, Stephen

  Tyler, Paul

  Powell Sir Raymond

  Vaz, Keith

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watta, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Webb, Steve

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  White, Brian

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rammell, Bill

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Willis, Phil

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Audrey

  Roy, Frank

  Wood, Mike

  Ruddock, Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Worthington, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wray, James

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Keith Hill and

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 149.

  Division No. 229]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cranston, Ross

  Ainger, Nick

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cummings, John

  Allen, Graham

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Austin, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barnes, Harry

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barron, Kevin

  Denham, John

  Battle, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dowd, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Drew, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe

  Efford, Clive

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Berry, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Best, Harold

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Fisher, Mark

  Blackman, Liz

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Flynn, Paul

  Boateng, Paul

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Galloway, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burgon, Colin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Casale, Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gunnell, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coleman, Iain

  Hope, Phil

  Colman, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  1144

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hutton, John

  Mudie, George

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pike, Peter L

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pond, Chris

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Laxton, Bob

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lepper, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lock, David

  Roy, Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAllion, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McCabe, Steve

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sawford, Phil

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonnell, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWatter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Spellar, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meale, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Merron, Gillian

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stringer, Graham

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Ms Dail (Stockton S)

  1145

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Todd, Mark

  Winnick, David

  Touhig, Don

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wise, Audrey

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Woodla Mike

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wray, James

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Watts, David

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Allan, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Gale, Roger

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gamier, Edward

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gibb, Nick

  Baker, Norman

  Gill, Christopher

  Beggs, Roy

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bercow, John

  Gorrie, Donald

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gray, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Green, Damian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Boswell, Tim

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hammond, Philip

  Brake, Tom

  Hancock, Mike

  Brazier, Julian

  Harvey, Nick

  Breed, Colin

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Burnett, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Keetch, Paul

  Collins, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cotter, Brian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cran, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Dafis, Cynog

  Leigh, Edward

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Livsey, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham,)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fallon, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Luff, Peter

  Flight, Howard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  1146

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Stunell, Andrew

  Moore, Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Norman, Archie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Paice, James

  Thompson, William

  Pickles Eric,Prior David

  Tredinnick, David

  Randall, John

  Trend, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ty)

  Wardle, Charles

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Webb, Steve

  Ruffley, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Willis, Phil

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wilshire, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shepherd, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

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

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's success in cutting infant class sizes after 10 years of rising class sizes and the successful introduction of the literacy hour, which is restoring phonics, spelling and grammar to the primary school curriculum; notes the plans to extend daily numeracy lessons nationwide from September, which will place strong emphasis on mental arithmetic; recognises the Government's strong commitment to diversity through the rapid expansion of specialist schools and beacon schools; welcomes the success to date of the Government's policy in support of failing schools; supports the considerable work already undertaken to reduce bureaucracy in schools following years of neglect; supports the Government's new code of practice on school admissions; welcomes the new White Paper on reform of post-16 education and the clear guarantees it offers on sixth form funding; supports the Government's plans to reward good teaching; and believes that the extra £19 billion allocated to education is beginning to make a real difference to the money available to schools, not least in tackling the substantial repairs and maintenance backlog.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  CIVIL AVIATION
  That the draft Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Amendment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Question agreed to.

  Preston Guild Community Health Trust
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  10.26 pm
  Audrey Wise: In 1990 the then Preston health authority appointed Mr. Les Howell as general manager. He is now suspended and has been informed that his contract has been terminated. The purpose of tonight's debate is to examine that situation and relate it to wider concerns about mental health and community services in Preston.
  When Mr. Howell was appointed, his remit was to merge two directly managed units—one covering mental health and the other dealing with community services—that would together form the priority services unit. The previous general manager of the mental health services had been dismissed and the services provided were variable to poor, except for those covering learning disabilities, which were good. Mental health services were in a disgraceful condition.
  The trouble had been long standing. In 1972, there was a major statutory inquiry—the Payne inquiry—into Whittingham mental hospital. The report showed abuses and ill-treatment of patients. One patient died as a result of ill-treatment.
  On taking over in 1990, it appeared to Mr. Howell that little had changed. As always, some staff were doing their level best, but in general the standards at Whittingham hospital were appalling. For example, toilets on the corridors were locked to stop patients accessing them. Sexual abuse of patients was discovered, a senior psychologist was dismissed and a charge nurse was sent to prison for two years for having unlawful intercourse with a patient. Pornography was found, and attempted suicides were frequent and sometimes successful. In one case a 16-year-old girl was found hanging from a shower rail.
  In 30 years in the national health service the new general manager, Mr. Howell, had never experienced such a bad situation and seriously considered leaving six months after his appointment. However, he stuck it out, successfully integrated two management teams and created the new combined unit and later the Preston Guild community trust.
  The closure of Whittingham hospital was successfully managed. It included negotiations with 46 other organisations to achieve the successful transfer of patients and resources. The closure programme was agreed at 36 months and delivered on time with only 18 compulsory redundancies, although 760 staff had been declared at risk.
  Although hospitals such as Whittingham certainly needed to be closed, there are many unresolved issues. In the case of Whittingham, unusually, local people supported the existence of mental health facilities on the site. Mr. Howell proposed developing the site into a health park that would provide a comprehensive range of mental health services such as forensic services including high security, also palliative care, and a range of holiday and respite facilities for mentally and physically disordered people.
  The idea was presented to the regional chief executive, Professor Tinston, received politely, and deferred. Mr. Howell formed the view that it was not favoured.
  1148
  That may be because it is preferred that the site should be sold for housing development, which is very much against the local community's wishes and will not help to meet any of the clear needs for improved facilities for mental health services. I would much prefer an imaginative idea such as Mr. Howell's, and I regard it as characteristic of the man that he was working on such a proposal.
  My hon. Friend the Minister suggested to me that the trust should
  "build on its past record".—[Official Report, 8 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 460.]
  That implies that there is a record worth building on; and there is. The Guild trust has a unique facility for the care of patients with advanced Huntington's disease, which is a genetically carried severe degenerative disease—one of the most distressing diseases that there is. Frank Gardham house is the only dedicated facility in the country; the only other one in the world is in Melbourne, Australia.
  It is generally acknowledged that the inspiration for Frank Gardham house came from Mr. Howell. It was designed and developed and is managed jointly with carers. Last August, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health presented Mr. Howell with a special NHS 50th anniversary award to the trust for Frank Gardham house. The only problems are that it should be replicated elsewhere and that North West Lancashire health authority should fund more beds for local people. Current funding allows for only three or four people from our area.
  As the local Member of Parliament, I am painfully aware that that is insufficient. As with all genetic diseases, there can be area clusters, and Preston is such an area for Huntington's disease. Unfortunately, the health authority does not share the view of the NHS or the Secretary of State about Frank Gardham house and I have had to raise questions about funding and provision for my constituents that have not, in my view, been dealt with satisfactorily.
  I am sorry to say that the situation has worsened since Mr. Howell's suspension last autumn. Indeed, I have since been informed by the health authority that
  "The Authority has consistently maintained that, as far as possible, services for people with this condition should be provided in the community."
  In 1995, I made representations about the need to admit a patient with Huntington's who was living in a night shelter. I have copies of correspondence that show a complete lack of understanding by North West Lancashire health authority of the needs of patients with Huntington's. There was even a claim that their needs could be met by a social care package from social services.
  There was considerable unwillingness to pay for a suitable service. In a letter to me, the chief executive, Mr. David Edmondson, simply passed the buck to the Guild and blamed it for failure to admit the patient. He did not tell me that the Guild had already raised the patient's plight, nor did he then make it clear that the health authority really did not like paying for the provision and would prefer it to end.
  I now understand from both the acting chief executive of the Guild and North West Lancashire health authority that the Guild is reviewing its range of provision
  "with a view to moving towards a more community based service in the future, thus reducing the need for residential places."

  1149
  Frank Gardham house is a small specialist unit with deeply involved carers. In my view, it is part of the community; but of course it costs more than care in the patient's home or a nursing home.
  I have already informed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I intend to fight hard for the maintenance of the service. I consider that Mr. Howell's removal was seen as an opportunity to worsen the service. One of the criticisms levelled at Mr. Howell is that he has a bad relationship with Mr. Edmondson. I strongly suspect that that may be connected with Mr. Howell's propensity to want more funding for services such as Frank Gardham house, arising from his passionate concern for patients.
  The Preston area contains many people from minority ethnic communities. Under Mr. Howell's leadership, very good relationships have been built with those communities. Projects include jointly organising workshops and local conferences sponsored by the Guild trust. They have helped local communities express their views on how to make services more accessible and appropriate for their cultures. Projects have included mental health, women's issues and services for children, and the results have been recorded in various languages and reported back to the communities. That is why there is such support for Mr. Howell among the ethnic minorities.
  Last September, a national conference on health care for minority ethnic groups was organised by the Guild trust, with the co-operation of six other trusts, and three universities and colleges. Unfortunately, the appropriate health authorities, including North West Lancashire, declined to take part.
  Apart from a conference organised by the Department in 1997, that was the first national conference on the issue. Having participated, I can vouch for its resounding success. It was informative, constructive and thought provoking at every level. It involved both professional and lay people from all communities in the UK, and it crossed the health and social services divide which, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, is usually all too wide.
  I do not believe that that conference would have taken place without Mr. Howell's inspiration and guidance. It was intended to be the first step towards setting up an institute of minority communities health and social care, but I have not observed any progress towards that aim since his suspension.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Audrey Wise: No. The hon. Gentleman had an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, and should be satisfied with that.
  Since Mr. Howell's suspension, I have received many expressions of support for him from all sections of the minority communities in Preston and throughout Lancashire. I have also received expressions of support for him from carers of trust patients.
  One of those who wanted to get rid of Mr. Howell described him as
  "very clever, imaginative and passionate about the Health Service."
  That is quite a good reference from an opponent. However, a person who brings single-minded commitment to his job, which entails sorting out problems such as I have outlined, is apt to make enemies, and Les Howell has clearly done that.
  1150
  Now the opportunity has been taken to get rid of him. How did that opportunity arise? As is not uncommon in organisations dealing with mentally disturbed patients, incidents have taken place that have sparked concern and inquiries.
  Two such incidents occurred in 1996. The first involved two patients, Julie Byelong and her husband Douglas. Douglas Byelong was on conditional discharge by order of the Secretary of State, the condition being that he lived in his flat, which he failed to do. Julie Byelong absconded on unsupervised leave granted as part of a medical decision. They committed the serious offences of attempted murder and kidnap. Both had been patients at the Langdale unit, a medium-secure forensic unit for Lancashire and south Cumbria. The majority of its patients are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, and most suffer from severe mental illness.
  A detailed report into the matter states:
  "The service has been historically under resourced."
  I regard that as a very significant statement. Various recommendations were made and were being progressed according to plan, but it seems to me that problems of under-resourcing almost certainly persist.
  The second incident involved a discharged patient, Daniel Holden, who later committed murder. The court found that he was not mentally ill at the time of the murder. It was agreed—by the court and by a subsequent inquiry—that the trust bore no responsibility for the fact that he committed murder. However, the inquiry found that there were deficiencies in the care that he had received in the community while a patient, and made some recommendations about that. Surprisingly, it also imported into the report some strong criticisms of the chief executive. I have analysed the report carefully, and those criticisms do not seem to me to be properly justified by the report's factual findings.
  Mr. Howell took exception to the report, and made what I consider to be a mistake in the way that he handled it. That gave his opponents an opportunity, and they took full advantage of it.
  Mr. Howell replied to the draft Holden report before he consulted the board, although he did consult the then chairman. Mr. Howell's reply was a defence of the trust as well as of himself. It was understandable and probably justified, but it was a lapse of judgment to send it before consulting the board. The chair, Mrs. Diamond, was then pressured into suspending him on threat of a vote of no confidence in herself as well.
  The Galbraith inquiry was then set up. Mr. Howell had understood that his suspension was without prejudice and he was in favour of an inquiry. However, the inquiry panel interpreted its terms of reference as meaning that it should set aside all issues of Mr. Howell's achievements and consider only whether there had been a loss of confidence in him.
  Every other inquiry had given lists of those who gave evidence and had made detailed reference to factual matters and documents. The Galbraith inquiry did not disclose who gave evidence, nor any documentary back-up, nor the basis on which it decided whom to interview and whom to refuse to interview. Having confidence in Mr. Howell was given no weight, but losing confidence in him carried great weight.
  The then trust chair is heavily criticised for having too much confidence in the chief executive. Insinuations are made about the capability of the then human resources

  1151
  director, who has now successfully obtained a position with another trust, but who also had, apparently, the fatal flaw of having confidence in the chief executive.
  Two non-executive directors, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Mallidi, had been very reluctant about the suspension in the first place, but three non-executive directors had favoured it. Therefore, the margin was not exactly huge, but the impression has been given that no one had any confidence in the chief executive and that he was unable to work with other people.
  Some staff were critical. I have discussed that with some of them, but they did say to me that Guild trust services were second to none and far better than others in Lancashire, and that they had a staff training system that was also second to none. However, they apparently gave the chief executive none of the credit for that of which they approved, and all the blame for what they did not like. Most of what they did not like appeared to result from changes in the NHS through the establishment of trusts, many criticisms of which I agree with.
  The Galbraith report established that some people have lost confidence in Mr. Howell, but not whether that loss of confidence was well founded or justified. I have never seen such a shoddy or flimsy document on which to base serious action. Mr. Howell has been thoroughly victimised. He has faced no specific charges, so has had no opportunity to rebut specific charges. Vague assertions of loss of confidence are not the same as being guilty of wrongdoing that justifies the deprivation of a person's livelihood, yet that is what is happening.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), told me that
  "the proper procedures have been followed"
  and that
  "there has been proper consultation with the regional office."—[Official Report, 8 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 460.]
  I wonder whether he really thinks it is permissible for the NHS to sack an employee without disciplinary procedures. I think that, on reflection, he will decide that it is not.
  A chief executive with a difficult job to discharge may become unpopular with some people, especially if he finds it necessary to complain about some of their work. Mr. Howell had indeed complained about the work of two of the executive directors—the director of finance, Mr. Tomlinson, and the then director of nursing, Mrs. Hedley. I have details of that available, but no time to elaborate here.
  As I have said, the board was divided. Three non-executive directors opposed Mr. Howell, while the then chairman and two non-executive directors supported him, although they reluctantly agreed to the suspension.
  At first, Mr. Howell was extremely anxious to return to the Guild trust. His first reactions were a robust desire to vindicate himself and the work of the Guild trust and to resume his work. However, his health has subsequently been badly damaged by what has been a long and bitter dispute, and by his feelings of injustice and victimisation. He has been isolated, had no access to papers from which to prepare a case and, indeed, no one to whom he could present a case. He was, and remains, strongly of the view
  1152
  that there should be a proper public inquiry into all those circumstances. However, as I said, his health has been badly damaged and he wishes to take early retirement on medical grounds, to which he may well be entitled. A proposal for early retirement had been put to him and he has accepted it, subject to clarification which was never received.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now appointed a new temporary chair and a new board. I have been astonished to find that, without even seeing Mr. Howell or his representatives, it has decided to terminate his contract. It has even ignored the fact that he is probably entitled to early retirement on medical grounds, which would not involve the trust in any expense. Instead it has issued press releases publicising its decision, even while ostensibly allowing Mr. Howell a right of appeal. Incorrect statements implying that Mr. Howell had been demanding large sums of money have been allowed to gain credence and his reputation has been damaged—in his opinion, irreparably.
  Mr. Howell has played an important part in building an improved service in my area. He has committed no misdemeanours or offences of any sort, he is passionately devoted to patients and their families and to the national health service, yet he is rewarded by being deprived of several years' employment. That is damaging to the NHS as well as a great injustice.
  Mr. Evans: Let the Minister reply.
  Audrey Wise: I do not expect the Minister to give me a definitive reply and I am aware that I have left him little time, but I hope that he will earnestly reflect on what I have said. Indeed, I am sure that he will do so.
  10.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I should begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. The events at the Guild Community Health Care national health service trust have generated a considerable amount of public and political interest. Indeed, this is the second time that the House has debated events at the trust in just under a month.
  My hon. Friend has spoken of the good work of the trust and the achievements of the former trust chief executive, Mr. Les Howell. His contract has recently been terminated and he has appealed against that decision. Obviously, hon. Members will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the correctness of the action or the appeal that is pending at this time.
  The trust's difficulties have been widely discussed and reported in recent weeks, but, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, they go back much further than that. The former chairman's decision, formally to suspend the chief executive on full pay and without prejudice from 5 October 1998, followed successive inquiries and reports by different, independent panels, all of which had identified unsound practices and failure to follow the appropriate procedures.
  The effect on a trust whose patients are often disturbed and vulnerable people was obviously a matter of the utmost concern to those who commission its services, to the local community and to the people who work in it.

  1153
  At the risk of repeating some of the history, in early 1997, the North West Lancashire health authority received the report of an inquiry that it had commissioned into an incident involving a patient who had absconded from the Langdale unit. That report made 44 recommendations for improvements to the clinical, nursing, administrative and security services at the trust. The report also referred to some poor external relations, most notably the relationship between the Guild and the lead commissioner of its services, North West Lancashire health authority. Furthermore, the report observed that
  "the provision of community services"
  had
  "evolved in an unplanned and inchoate fashion".
  The draft report into the care and treatment of Daniel Holden, however, which East Lancashire health authority received in the summer of 1998, precipitated the actions to suspend, and subsequently to dismiss, the chief executive. Daniel Holden was on the Langdale unit's supervision register when he murdered a neighbour in Darwen in March 1997. Since the patient was an East Lancashire resident at the time, it fell to that health authority to launch an independent inquiry in line with statutory requirements. The report concluded that the chief executive's
  "responsibilities had not been adequately discharged"
  and that the board should, therefore, consider how to bring about changes in anagement style that would enable the trust to make a fresh start.
  The inquiry had been conducted over six months, and its final report, the Holden report, itemised failures by the trust to carry out certain fundamental procedures correctly, if at all. By last summer, there were indications that the trust had taken steps to address the recommendations of earlier reports and that some of the clinical, nursing and administrative inadequacies identified had been put right.
  On 20 August 1998, however, East Lancashire health authority invited the trust to check the draft Holden report for
  "any factual inaccuracies, so that a final report could be produced and formally received and considered by the Health Authority."
  I am advised that the response of the trust's chief executive to the draft report was the cause of concern for some members of the trust board.
  On 1 October, three executive and three non-executive directors of the Guild visited the regional offices of the NHS executive to voice their concerns to the chairman of the north-west regional office and the regional director. On 2 October, the three non-executive directors gave the chairman, Mrs. Diamond, a letter in which they called for Mr. Howell's suspension.
  Regional officials met Mrs. Diamond a week later. She had already spoken to Mr. Howell and advised him to stay at home on extended leave while the trust board considered how to respond to the Holden report. The regional director explained to her that, unless Mr. Howell were formally suspended from his post, he would remain the accountable officer for the trust and that that would not be satisfactory. As a consequence, Mrs. Diamond wrote to Mr. Howell suspending him on full pay and without prejudice from 5 October.
  The trust board then unanimously agreed to commission an investigation into the specific criticisms of the chief executive in the Holden report. The regional
  1154
  office offered advice about suitable candidates to undertake this work; a list of several names was put forward for consideration, and the chairman and non-executive directors took the final decision.
  The inquiry team consisted of a chairman, Mrs. Ann Galbraith, former chair of a major trust in another region, and one other panel member, Mr. Neil Campbell, chief executive of the Dumfries and Galloway health board. The terms of reference were agreed unanimously by the trust board on 20 October.
  The panel drew up a list of people to be interviewed and then offered all Guild employees, by means of a special edition of the staff bulletin, the opportunity to give confidential evidence to the inquiry. The panel's report, known as the Galbraith report, was completed just before Christmas. It upheld many of the findings of the Holden report and concluded that the chief executive's position was "untenable". The report refers to people being
  "keen to record their appreciation of Mr. Howell and to illustrate his achievements during his employment at the Guild",
  but it also stated:
  "The panel is greatly concerned by the sheer weight of opinion showing a lack of confidence in the management style of Mr. Howell."
  The panel advised the trust board that Mr. Howell had lost the confidence of a significant number of the individuals and organisations with whom and with which he had had regular contact.
  At a meeting on 29 December 1998, the chairman and non-executive directors agreed to accept the report's first recommendation, which indicated that Mr. Howell's position had become "untenable". After discussing her own position with the regional chairman on 9 January 1999, Mrs. Diamond resigned as chairman two days later. Between January and March, the non-executive directors had further discussions and on-going negotiations with Mr. Howell's representatives.
  On 19 April, the Secretary of State met Mrs. Kirk, the current chair of the trust, and concluded that she was the right person to lead the trust. She agreed to take up the post for six months with effect from 17 May. The Secretary of State and Mrs. Kirk discussed the need for a fresh start, and the House will know for reasons that I have previously outlined that three non-executives were subsequently removed from office and two resigned. A new non-executive team was appointed from 18 June.
  Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: No, I cannot possibly give way at this time.
  After looking into the background to Mr. Howell's suspension, Mrs. Kirk concluded that the need to establish strong leadership was paramount and that the trust's genuine attempts to negotiate with him had stalled. She recommended to her trust board that Mr. Howell should be dismissed. It unanimously approved that course of action and the chairman wrote to inform Mr. Howell that his appointment would be terminated from 11 June. He has since exercised his right of appeal, and I understand that a meeting has been arranged for 13 July to exchange documentation and agree the process for the appeal and the dates for the hearing.
  Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Denham: No. The hon. Gentleman had an extended Adjournment debate just a few weeks ago.

  1155
  The appeals panel that has been established by the trust consists of Mr. Ian Pirnie, the former chairman of Ashworth high security hospital and present chairman of Morecambe Bay health authority, Dr. Nuala Swords-Isherwood, chairman of Stockport Acute Services NHS trust and Mr. Mike Deegan, chief executive of Warrington Hospital NHS trust, who was previously director of human resources for the NHS Executive. The panel is charged with establishing whether the chairman and non-executive directors of the trust have acted appropriately in terminating Mr. Howell's contract of employment. The dispute is between Mr. Howell and his ex-employers, and it is for the panel to judge whether the interests of natural justice have been properly served.
  1156
  This has been a unique and difficult chapter in the history of NHS trusts, but our overriding objective throughout has been to ensure that the patients and staff of Guild Community Health Care NHS trust are provided with the best possible conditions in which to receive and deliver treatment and care. I hope that matters will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible, that all the people affected by the events of recent months can resume their normal lives and that the trust can get on with the business of providing good quality health services to the local community.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from her Department in attendance; if she will list the number of times each met; if she will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if she will make a statement. [88470]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Officials from my Department regularly attended European Communities working groups when matters of importance to Northern Ireland were being discussed. Occasionally my Department can be represented by officials from the United Kingdom's Permanent Representation to the European Union.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by her special advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89996]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Severn Trent Water
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate the level of charges by Severn Trent Water for water at educational establishments; and if he will make a statement. [86870]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]: This is a matter for Severn Trent Water. The Director General of Water Services has the general function of overseeing companies' use of their charging powers to ensure that there is no undue discrimination between different classes
  528
  of customer but he has no role in approving their detailed charges. The Water Industry Act 1999 will give the Secretary of State and the Director General new powers to approve charges schemes which should tackle this problem.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) pedestrians and (b) cyclists have been (i) killed and (ii) seriously injured in accidents involving motor vehicles in each of the last five years. [89540]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The numbers of pedestrians and cyclists recorded as being killed and seriously injured in accidents involving motor vehicles are shown in the tables.

  Pedestrian casualties in accidents involving a motor vechicle

  Year

  Casualty Severity Fatal

  Serious

  1994

  1,119

  11,703

  1995

  1,032

  11,155

  1996

  995

  10,518

  1997

  967

  9,956

  1998

  904

  9,494

  Cyclist casualties in accidents involving a motor vehicle

  Year

  Casualty severity Fatal

  Serious

  1994

  159

  3,440

  1995

  189

  3,364

  1996

  186

  3,264

  1997

  170

  3,118

  1998

  145

  2,882

  Bicycle Accidents
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many pedestrians have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured (i) in accidents involving bicycles ridden on pavements and (ii) by bicycles ridden on the road when the cyclist was at fault, in each of the last five years. [89538]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The party at fault in a road accident is not recorded on a national basis.

  However, the numbers of pedestrians recorded as being killed and seriously injured who were hit on the footway or verge by bicycles are shown in the table.

  Pedestrians hit by pedal cyclists on the footway or verge

  Year

  Casualty Severity Fatal

  Serious

  1994

  1

  30

  1995

  1

  36

  1996

  0

  23

  1997

  1

  36

  1998

  1

  23

  529
  The following table shows the numbers of pedestrians recorded as being hit while in the carriageway.

  Pedestrians hit by pedal cyclists in the carriageway

  Year

  Casualty severity Fatal

  Serious

  1994

  3

  68

  1995

  3

  62

  1996

  2

  63

  1997

  1

  54

  1998

  1

  45

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cyclists have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in accidents on roads or cycle paths when the pedestrian was at fault in each of the last five years. [89539]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The party at fault in a road accident is not recorded on a national basis.

  However, the table shows the numbers of cyclists recorded as being killed or seriously injured on the carriageway or cycleway in accidents which involved a pedestrian and did not involve any motor vehicles. These numbers do not include casualties on cycleways which are segregated from the public road.

  Cyclist casualties in accidents involving a pedestrian and not

  involving a motor vehicle

  Year

  0

  14

  1995

  1

  19

  1996

  1

  15

  1997

  3

  15

  1998

  0

  14

  Council Housing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the cost, at current prices in pounds per dwelling, of major repairs to council housing stock(a) by local authority, (b) by region and (c) nationally in each of the last five years. [89584]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A copy of the data available has been placed in the Library. The tables show the average expenditure per council dwelling receiving major renovation work (repairs and improvements costing more than £500 per dwelling) in each local authority, region and nationally. Every year, about 22 per cent. of council owned dwellings receive renovation work costing at least £500.

  Figures are presented for the years for which data are available centrally (1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98), at 1997–98 price levels. This information was not collected centrally before 1995–96.

  These figures are submitted to the Department by local authorities as part of the annual Housing Investment Programme round. Some local authorities did not supply detailed information of their expenditure on capital works.
  530
  Such LAs are excluded from this analysis: they have been removed from the LA listings and are not included in regional and national averages.

  Differences in average expenditure between regions do not only reflect different quantities of work completed, but also the significant variations in the costs of carrying out the same work in different regions.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the amount of(a) average management and maintenance allowances, (b) guideline rents and (c) the difference between (a) and (b) in pounds per dwelling per week and in thousands of pounds per annum, (i) for each local authority in England, (ii) for each region and (iii) nationally for 1998–99 and 1999–2000. [89585]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Empty Property Strategy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many empty homes owned by(a) Government agencies and (b) local authorities were brought back into use in 1998 as a result of the developing empty property strategy promoted by his Department. [89678]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In general information is not collected centrally on the numbers of empty homes brought back into use. Instead data are collected on the numbers of vacant dwellings, which is the key outcome of action to reduce the number of empty homes. Figures for vacant dwellings in England at 1 April 1998 were published in Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Information Bulletin 189/99 on 2 March 1999 which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the numbers of young, single homeless people in(a) the district council areas of (i) Easington, (ii) Durham City, (iii) Chester le-Street, (iv) Derwentside, (v) Wear Valley and (b) the boroughs of (i) Sedgefield, (ii) Darlington, (iii) Sunderland and (iv) Hartlepool. [89834]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None, but we are working up a methodology to allow local authorities to produce such estimates. There are real problems in attempting to measure the scale of youth homelessness, either nationally or locally. Few estimates of single homelessness break figures down by age. The term 'homeless' may also be used to represent a number of different levels of housing need. At one extreme, rough sleeping is the most visible and disturbing form of homelessness. But there are also young people accommodated in emergency night shelters, direct-access hostels, squats, bed-and-breakfast accommodation and longer-term hostels. Some people, especially the young will stay with friends and relatives on a temporary basis, sometimes under difficult and trying circumstances. Although there have been a number of estimates commissioned by the voluntary sector to assess the extent of youth homelessness they have not been able to overcome these inherent difficulties and have come up with widely differing estimates.
  531
  My Department has recently commissioned research into youth homelessness as part of the Youth Homelessness Action Partnership. One output from this research will provide a more reliable estimate of the numbers of young people affected by various types of homelessness. A tool-kit will also be produced which will be made available to local authorities and the voluntary sector to help them produce accurate figures locally.

  Market Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the title and purpose of each item of market and opinion research commissioned by or through his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, stating in each case whether the results were published. [89698]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: The only central list of market and opinion research currently held in my Department is for research commissioned for information campaigns. The research is used to help ensure the effectiveness, appropriateness and value for money of such campaigns. Since May 1997, the following have been commissioned:
  1997–99

  Monthly road safety advertising quantitative tracking research

  1997

  Kill your speed campaign—pre-campaign quantitative research

  Child Road Safety "Hedgehogs" campaign—qualitative creative development research

  Drink Drive campaign—qualitative creative development research

  Radonx2014;qualitative strategic and creative development research

  Drinking Water Inspectorate—qualitative creative development research

  Drinking Water Inspectorate—quantitative awareness research

  New Leadership for London Green Paper popular leaflet—qualitative creative development research

  London Referendum—qualitative strategic and creative development research

  1998

  Review of 25 years of Drink Drive advertising—quantitative research

  are you doing your bit? Spring 1998 campaign—qualitative creative development research

  are you doing your bit? Spring 1998 campaign—quantitative pre-and post-campaign research

  are you doing your bit? Greener Vehicles 1998 campaign—quantitative pre- and post-campaign research

  are you doing your bit? Autumn 1998 refresher campaign—quantitative awareness research

  Child Road Safety campaign—quantitative tracking research

  Drink Drive campaign—qualitative strategic research

  Drink Drive campaign—qualitative creative development research

  Kill Your Speed campaign—qualitative creative development research

  London referendum—quantitative pre- and post-campaign research

  532 1999

  Sustainable Development—qualitative strategic development research

  are you doing your bit? campaign—qualitative creative development research

  Leaded Petrol—quantitative awareness research

  are you doing your bit? campaign—quantitative research into water usage habits

  Summer Drink Drive campaign—qualitative creative development research

  Cowboy Builders—qualitative creative development research

  Millennium Drink Drive campaign—qualitative creative development research

  1999–2000

  Monthly are you doing your bit? campaign—quantitative tracking research.

  Research results are not published. However, copies of quantitative research reports are available on request. In addition, the Department's Survey Control Unit is currently compiling a database of non-publicity surveys conducted since the merger of the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment in 1997. This will not include the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies, which are responsible for their own research.

  Drinking Water Inspectorate
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the ninth Annual report of the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be published. [90304]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Drinking Water Inspectorate will publish its ninth Annual Report on Wednesday, 7 July.

  The Inspectorate will also publish two leaflets for consumers. "How Good is the Drinking Water" will summarise the main points of the Report. "DWI Report on (Each) Water Company" will give brief details of the quality of drinking water supplied by individual water companies.

  Copies of the Report and leaflets will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 153, if the stakeholders' forum he intended to instigate has been superseded by the two commissions announced by the Minister for the Cabinet Office in his oral statement of 21 May 1999, Official Report, columns 1371–84, on biotechnology. [90066]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: The two Commissions announced by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 21 May do supersede earlier proposals for a stakeholders forum. The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) will advise on applications of biotechnology in healthcare, and the impact of human genetics on people's lives; and the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) will cover the use of

  533
  biotechnology in agriculture and its environmental effects. The two bodies will include a wide range of interests including lay members, specialists in ethical matters, consumers and those with a knowledge of the industry. One of the functions of the Commissions will be to consult key stakeholders and the public in formulating their advice to Government.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his special advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89981]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speech writing and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend(a) the red route network and (b) the bus priority network to other cities. [89474]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The red route project and powers are exclusive to London. Elsewhere, it is primarily for local authorities to use their existing traffic management powers to give appropriate priority to buses. We look to them to do so, in the context of developing their local transport plans and bus strategies.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to phase in the effects of the 2000 revaluation on non-domestic rate bills in England. [90495]

  Ms Armstrong
  I fully understand non-domestic ratepayers' concerns about the revaluation and their keenness to know, as early as possible, how they will be affected. They need time to plan ahead. However, we do not yet have complete information about the detailed effects of the revaluation, and will not do so for a while.

  We therefore aim to publish in late September a consultation paper outlining options for handling the impact of the revaluation in England. We recognise the need in formulating the proposals for this consultation paper to take account of the views of business organisations. I am therefore convening a consultative forum of national bodies representing business interests to consider this issue and I expect the first meeting to be later this summer.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidance he has issued to the Crown Prosecution Service on the prosecution of asylum-seekers in transit in the United Kingdom who have been stopped for bearing false documents. [89672]

  The Attorney-Genera
  I have not issued specific guidance on this point. The Crown Prosecution Service has set up a multi agency group to look at policy in relation to this issue and will consider, inter alia, whether specific guidance to prosecutors should be issued. In these cases, as all others, Crown Prosecutors must apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors when making the decision to prosecute. This is a set of general principles requiring the prosecutor to apply an evidential and a public interest test to determine whether a prosecution should take place or not.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings of the JCC he has attended. [89278]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 362.

  "Your Right to Know" White Paper
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many submissions were made in the course of the consultation on the 1997 White Paper, "Your Right to Know"; and how many raised objections concerning the substantial harm test as set out in the White Paper. [89361]

  Mr. Straw
  572 pieces of correspondence received in response to the White Paper "Your Right to Know" were published in six volumes, under the title "Your Right to Know—Consultation Responses". Copies were placed in the Library and published on the Internet. Correspondence where the author requested confidentiality has not been published.

  31 of the published items of correspondence made explicit statements regarding the substantial harm test as set down in the White Paper. Of these, seven (23 per cent.) did not express an opinion as to the desirability or otherwise of the substantial harm test, five (16 per cent.) expressed an opinion in favour of substantial harm, and 19 (61 per cent.) raised objections.

  The five in favour of substantial harm were from the Canadian Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Chief Constable of Durham, Charter 88, the National Steering Committee of Nuclear Free Local Authorities and the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

  The 19 that raised objections about substantial harm were from a number of individuals and organisations including British Nuclear Fuels Plc, Coopers and Lybrand, British Energy, the Building Societies Commission, the

  535
  Commission for the New Towns, Lancashire County Council and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). No one particular interest group or sector dominated the correspondence, objections to substantial harm were received from members of the public and from organisations.

  Comments made include:
  "substantial harm, as a test, is unworkable";
  "British Energy's preferred approach is that harm would be caused or that there is a reasonable expectation of harm";
  "it is difficult to form an objective interpretation of any adjective such as 'substantial' in this context. It would be better to have no adjective because it is already difficult to run the public service really effectively, and if disclosure is likely to cause 'harm' then it is better not to disclose";
  "the proposals already recognise the need to supply a 'simple harm' test to disclosure of policy advice. It would not, therefore, seem to follow that it would be sensible to apply a 'substantial harm' test to the other categories, particularly those relating to law enforcement and safety issues";
  "the CBI believes the test governing disclosure should be one of 'Simple' harm and not 'substantial' harm…if the test is to be one of 'substantial harm' then we believe the competitiveness of business will be affected".

  Clearly, a significantly greater number of correspondents who commented on substantial harm saw difficulties with the test than saw it as unproblematical. This was one of the considerations taken into account when we decided, in preparing the draft Bill, to revisit this test and see whether it could be made more workable.

  Metropolitan Police Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many subject access requests have been received by the Metropolitan Police for each of the last three years; and what plans he has to use his powers under the Data Protection Act 1998 to restrict, at the request of the data subject, a subject access request to personal data which relate to criminal records. [89654]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the number of subject access requests received by the Metropolitan Police for each of the last three years has been:

  1998: 24,984

  1997: 18,705

  1996: 13,896.

  The Data Protection Act 1998 makes provision for a new offence to deal with enforced subject access to certain types of record, including criminal records. Because of the close link with the introduction of criminal record checks, provided under Part V of the Police Act 1997, the new offence will not be brought into force before such checks can be undertaken. The Criminal Records Bureau is being established to enable these checks to be carried out.

  Work on the implementation and timing of Part V of the Police Act 1997 is being taken forward.

  Security Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the figures regarding numbers of personal files held by M15 which he gave the House on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–54,
  536
  differ from those in the 1997–98 Annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee; and whether the MI5 records held in microform are classified within the traffic light system. [89638]

  Mr. Straw
  The figures given by the Intelligence and Security Committee and those given in my reply on 29 July 1998 to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell),Official Report, columns 251–54, are not incompatible. The Committee's breakdown of figures is different from that in my reply. In my reply, I said that the Security Service held approximately 440,000 files, 290,000 related to individuals who may have been the subject of an inquiry or investigation. The 290,000 was further broken down as: 230,000 closed files; 40,000 microfilmed; and 20,000 active files. In its report, the Committee gave the figures as 250,000 hard copy personal records with a further 40,000 on microfiche. It broke the 250,000 down as: 17,500 Green (ie Active) files; 97,000 Amber; 135,000 Red; and additionally, 3,000 temporary Green (Gens). Any minor variance in the figures is a result of rounding. All Security Service microfilmed records are closed and are categorised as Red in the traffic light system.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many records from the period 1909 to 1945 it is intended will be retained by MI5 under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958; on what grounds they are to be retained; how many of them are operational records; and what types of operational record they are. [89640]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service is currently engaged in reviewing its records from between 1939 and 1945. It will then begin the process of reviewing records from the inter-war period. The decision whether to keep or to destroy records that are no longer required for operational purposes is taken by the Security Service subject to the guidelines relating to the retention of material for historical purposes. I set out the criteria that are applied when deciding whether a record is likely to be of historical interest in my reply to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on 20 January 1998, Official Report, column 520. The decision as to which records should be released to the Public Record Office is taken by the Service in the light of an assessment of their sensitivity and the need to protect agents and methods of operation. Further information concerning operational records is not made public.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the release to the Public Record Office of MI5 records from the period 1919 to 1939 will take place;[89639]

  (2) what reasons underlie the proposed time scale for the release of post-1945 MI5 records to the Public Record Office.[89641]

  Mr. Straw
  As I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–54, the Security Service is currently reviewing its files relating to the period 1939–45, for release to the Public Record Office. When this work has been completed the Service will turn to the inter- and post-war years. Progress on this will be determined by the resources available to carry out this work.
  537
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the Government refused the request by the Advisory Council on Public Records in 1998 to be allowed to consider the conditions under which MI5 records are released; and if the Government will review that refusal. [89642]

  Mr. Straw
  In July 1998, I invited the Advisory Council on Public Records to review the criteria employed by the Security Service to select files for permanent preservation on grounds of historical interest. The Advisory Council reported in December last year. I placed the report in the Library and announced the Government's response in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), 3 February 1999,Official Report, columns 619–20.

  During the course of the Advisory Council review the Chairman of the Council wrote to me to ask whether I would be prepared to extend the terms of reference to encompass issues relating to access to Security Service records. I replied that I was not then contemplating changing the arrangements under which external access to Security Service personal files which had not been released to the Public Record Office (PRO) was strictly limited to the Commissioners and Tribunals acting in pursuit of their functions. That remains the position. I did, however, agree that officials of the PRO with the necessary security clearance should be invited to examine files earmarked for destruction following review by the Security Service.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent of surviving Police Special Branch historical records; and for what reasons retention in Department, under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, still applies to these records and to those of MI6. [89643]

  Mr. Straw
  The Public Records Act 1958 applies to the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, but not to Special Branches in other police forces. The inclusion of the Metropolitan Police reflects the relationship that continues to exist between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Metropolitan Police Service.

  However, all Special Branches in England, Wales and Scotland operate under the published "Guidelines on Special Branch Work in Great Britain". Paragraph 20 of the Guidelines requires each Special Branch to maintain an effective system for:
  "the identification and destruction of information which can no longer be clearly related to the discharge of its functions".

  Because Special Branches need to meet local policing needs—as determined by their respective Chief Constables—as well as assisting the Security Service in carrying out its statutory duty under the Security Service Act 1989, they may need to keep records on individuals who, while ceasing to be of interest to the Security Service, remain of interest in a wider policing context. Decisions on the retention of such records are, therefore, an operational matter for the Chief Constable of the force concerned. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary does, however, reinforce the importance of ensuring that the Guidelines are adopted nationally as the basis for handling personal records.
  538
  With respect to the retention of Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) records under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 12 February 1998, Official Report, column 324.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the release to the Public Record Office of M15 records from the period 1919 to 1939 will take place; [89625]

  (2) what reasons underlie the proposed time scale for the release of post-1945 M15 records to the Public Record Office. [89627]

  Mr. Straw
  As I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell), 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–54, the Security Service is currently reviewing its files relating to the period 1939–45, for release to the Public Record Office. When this work has been completed the Service will turn to the inter- and post-war years. Progress on this will be determined by the resources available to carry out this work.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the Government refused the request by the Advisory Council on Public Records in 1998 to be allowed to consider the conditions under which M15 records are released; and if the Government will review that refusal. [89628]

  Mr. Straw
  In July 1998, I invited the Advisory Council on Public Records to review the criteria employed by the Security Service to select files for permanent preservation on grounds of historical interest. The Advisory Council reported in December last year. I placed the report in the Library and announced the Government's response in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), 3 February 1999,Official Report, columns 619–20.

  During the course of the Advisory Council review, the Chairman of the Council wrote to me to ask whether I would be prepared to extend the terms of reference to encompass issues relating to access to Security Service records. I replied that I was not then contemplating changing the arrangements under which external access to Security Service personal files which had not been released to the Public Record Office (PRO) was strictly limited to the Commissioners and Tribunals acting in pursuit of their functions. That remains the position. I did, however, agree that officials of the PRO with the necessary security clearance should be invited to examine files earmarked for destruction following review by the Security Service.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the figures regarding numbers of personal files held by M15 which he gave the House on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–54, differ from those in the 1997–98Annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee; and if M15 records held in microform are classified within the traffic light system. [89624]

  Mr. Straw
  The figures given by the Intelligence and Security Committee and those given in my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell),
  539
  29 July 1998, Official Report, columns 251–54, are not incompatible. The Security Committee breakdown of figures is different from that in my reply. In my reply, I said that the Security Service held approximately 440,000 files, 290,000 related to individuals who may have been the subject of an inquiry or investigation. The 290,000 was further broken down as: 230,000 closed files;40,000 microfilmed; and 20,000 active files. In its report, the Committee gave the figures as 250,000 hard copy personal records with a further 40,000 on microfiche. It broke the 250,000 down as: 17,500 Green (ie Active) files; 97,000 Amber; 135,000 Red; and additionally 3,000 temporary Green (Gens). Any minor variance in the figures is a result of rounding. All Security Service microfilmed records are closed and are categorised as Red in the traffic light system.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent of the surviving Police Special Branch historical records; and for what reasons retention in Department under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, still applies to these records and those of M16. [89629]

  Mr. Straw
  The Public Records Act 1958 applies to the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, but not to Special Branches in other police forces. The inclusion of the Metropolitan Police reflects the relationship that continues to exist between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Metropolitan Police Service.

  However, all Special Branches in England, Wales and Scotland operate under the published "Guidelines on Special Branch Work in Great Britain". Paragraph 20 of the Guidelines requires each Special Branch to maintain an effective system for:
  "the identification and destruction of information which can no longer be clearly related to the discharge of its functions".

  Because Special Branches need to meet local policing needs—as determined by their respective Chief Constables—as well as assisting the Security Service in carrying out its statutory duty under the Security Service Act 1989, they may need to keep records on individuals who, while ceasing to be of interest to the Security Service, remain of interest in a wider policing context. Decisions on the retention of such records are, therefore, an operational matter for the Chief Constable of the force concerned. Her Majesty' s Inspectorate of Constabulary does, however, reinforce the importance of ensuring that the Guidelines are adopted nationally as the basis for handling personal records.

  With respect to the retention of Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) records under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 12 February 1998, Official Report, column 324.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many M15 records from the period 1904 to 1945 it is intended will continue to be retained by M15 under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958; on what grounds they are to be retained; how many of them are operational records; and what types of operational record they are. [89626]
  540
  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service is currently engaged in reviewing its records from between 1939 and 1945. It will then begin the process of reviewing records from the inter-war period. The decision whether to keep or to destroy records that are no longer required for operational purposes is taken by the Security Service subject to the guidelines relating to the retention of material for historical purposes. I set out the criteria that are applied when deciding whether a record is likely to be of historical interest in my reply to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 520. The decision as to which records should be released to the Public Record Office is taken by the Service in the light of an assessment of their sensitivity and the need to protect agents and methods of operation. Further information concerning operational records is not made public.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of when the prison population will return to the level at May 1997. [89832]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No such estimates have been made. The latest projections of the future prison population were produced in May 1999 and a summary is included in the April "Prison Population Brief' which has been placed on the internet at http"//www/homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the subject of LD 50 tests on animals; and if he will make a statement. [89724]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have received a number of letters on this topic. The most recent correspondence is with the legal consultant to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. It would be inappropriate to make a statement at this time as the matter may come before the courts and I do not wish to anticipate or prejudice any such proceedings.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in transit in the United Kingdom have been stopped from their onward journey and(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for bearing a false document in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998 and (iv) 1999 to date. [89674]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of the number of asylum seekers prosecuted and convicted cannot be identified separately from the information held on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database. I understand that many of the prosecutions relate to people whom the carrying companies refuse to carry. The Home Office will not necessarily be involved and no record is kept of the number of such cases.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed changes to the distribution mechanisms for civil defence grants. [89960]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office provides £14.038 million civil defence grant per annum to eligible local authorities in England and Wales as a contribution towards the cost incurred in meeting their civil defence duties. The grant is not intended to meet the full cost of their emergency planning services.

  The current system of grant distribution is based on a formula, agreed with the then Local Authority Associations in 1992, and largely based on a two-tier system of local government. The reorganisation of local government created new Unitary authorities in England and Wales, all with a responsibility for emergency planning and, consequently, access to civil defence grant. This reorganisation created numerous anomalies within the funding arrangements that could only be properly addressed by introducing a new mechanism.

  The sole avenue of consultation on this issue has been with the Local Government Association (LGA). Following discussions with the LGA a new three-tier grant distribution mechanism has been announced. The mechanism is based on the following rationale:
  all 178 grant eligible authorities will receive a basic allocation of £45,000 to ensure a minimum level of service, and the delivery of basic standards of preparedness;
  County Councils will receive an allocation of £10,000 for each of the District Councils within the County boundary in recognition of the service that a County must provide to constituent Districts; and
  remaining grant after the first two elements have been addressed will be allocated according to Bellwin thresholds. The Bellwin Scheme, operated by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, sets a level of expenditure above which central government may contribute to costs incurred by local authorities in responding to major incidents. The use of Bellwin acknowledges the relationship between population size and the workload of emergency planning teams in large areas.

  This new mechanism provides funds to all eligible authorities and now has the advantage of being clear, readily understood and equitable.

  To ensure protection to those areas where grant will reduce, the full impact of the new mechanism will be phased over one year, 2000–01, with no authority losing more than 10 per cent. of its current allocation.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has responded to Shropshire County Council's letter of 18 June regarding the proposed distribution mechanism for civil defence grants; and if he will make a statement.[89961]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Head of Emergency Planning replied to the letter from the Chief Executive of Shropshire County Council on 6 July.

  Sexual Offences
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the definitions in law of sexual offences. [90117]
  542
  Mr. Boateng
  The Sex Offences Review has been set up to review the law in England and Wales. Its remit is to recommend clear and coherent sex offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation; to enable abusers to be appropriately punished; and to be fair and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The review started in January this year and hopes to report at the end of the year.

  Compensation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to decide whether compensation will be paid under the terms of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to(a) Nicholas Mullen and (b) Gilbert Thomas Patrick McNamee. [90071]

  Mr. Straw
  I expect to be able to decide these applications by the end of August.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time between receipt of applications for compensation for miscarriages of justice under the terms of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and a decision by the Secretary of State as to whether compensation would be paid for each year from 1991 to date. [90072]

  Mr. Straw
  All applications for compensation for wrongful conviction are considered first under the provisions of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and then, if those requirements are not met, under the ex-gratia arrangements announced by the then Home Secretary in his reply to the then hon. Member for Beaconsfield, 29 November 1985,Official Report, columns 689–90, by which I have agreed to be bound.

  The readily available information requested relates only to successful applications. The average time taken from the date of application to a decision to pay compensation under the statutory or ex-gratia arrangements, for applications decided in 1991–98, was as follows:

  Year

  Days

  1991

  153

  1992

  75

  1993

  100

  1994

  122

  1994

  122

  1995

  276

  1996

  309

  1997

  205

  1998

  37

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  "Sustainable Energy From Waste"
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to publicise his Department's "Sustainable Energy from Waste" pamphlet; and if he will make a statement. [89118]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department of Trade and Industry's pamphlet "Sustainable Energy from Waste" was published on 8 June at the annual conference and
  543
  exhibition of the Institute of Wastes Management in Torbay. It was very well received and is being distributed through the Energy from Waste Association and other relevant trade bodies and through companies and local authorities actively supporting energy from waste as an essential element of an integrated approach to sustainable waste management. The pamphlet complements three other publications produced under the Department's new and renewable energy programme: "An Introduction to Household Waste Management"; "Energy from Waste—Best Practice Guide"; and "Household Waste Management—Some Examples of Current Practice". The latter publication was jointly sponsored with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and all are available from the New and Renewable Energy Enquiries Bureau at ETSU, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RA (tel: 01235 432450). On 30 June DETR published "A Way With Waste—A Draft Waste Strategy for England and Wales" for public consultation. This envisages that increased recycling and energy from waste will be vital in the next decade. During the month of June 1999 the "Sustainable Energy from Waste" pamphlet was the single most requested publication from the New and Renewable Energy Enquiries Bureau. It will be publicised further in issue 41 of "New Review", the magazine for renewable energy, which is expected to be published at the end of July and will also be available from the New and Renewable Energy Enquiries Bureau.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy that all homes within the United Kingdom should be connected to mains electricity by the end of 2002; and if he will make a statement. [89851]

  Mr. Battle
  Obviously it is desirable that the relatively small number of homes without mains electricity (less than 1 per cent. of the total UK housing stock) should enjoy such a service. Unfortunately, since the majority of these households are in remote areas, the costs involved can be significant. As is recognised in existing legislation, it would be unfair for existing customers to subsidise the cost of connection to bring down the price for new ones. However, in cases where a supply has been requested and a quote for the connection has been given, the charge can be subject to determination by the Director General of Electricity Supply. Some remote communities have benefited from EU fund assistance with the cost of connection.

  Energy Supplies (Millennium)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions Ministers have held regarding the maintenance of energy supplies over the millennium. [89858]

  Mr. Wills
  Action is being taken by my Department in co-ordination with the Cabinet Office, Action 2000 and the Regulator to monitor the progress being made by the energy sector to become millennium compliant. I am in regular contact with my colleagues to discuss progress.
  544
  Independent assessment has shown that the energy sector is well advanced in its compliance work and is on course for business as usual over the period of the millennium.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Government have made of the millennium computer compliance of systems relating to the(a) Channel Tunnel and (b) supply of electricity from the French power grid. [89855]

  Mr. Wills
  The Channel Tunnel has been assessed by the Independent Safety Authority as being 100 per cent. blue in Action 2000 terms—as having no substantive risk of material disruption. There were no significant failures during a full scale test of the systems at the beginning of July. However, the systems will continue to be monitored for compliance and existing contingency planning arrangements will be under constant review over the coming months.

  All control systems associated with the Anglo-French electricity Interconnector have successfully met all millennium compliance test criteria. Residual risks to Interconnector operation are currently being assessed and consideration is being given to part loaded operation over the millennium period to minimise the impact of unforeseen events.

  The total capacity of the Interconnector is 2x1,000MW circuits; the installed generating capacity in England and Wales is more than 65,000MW, and the typical peak demand over New Year's Eve is likely to be in the order of 37,000MW.

  The Government, Regulators and Action 2000 will continue to monitor the arrangements being made by those responsible for the provision of infrastructure services in seeking to ensure that it will be business as usual over the millennium period.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the tendering documents which were sent to those companies wishing to seek export credit assistance in respect of the proposed Ilisu Dam. [90122]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department does not require companies seeking export credit assistance to produce the tender document issued by the prospective buyer and therefore no copy is available.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria the Export Credits Guarantee Department will apply in relation to the proposed Ilisu Dam. [90124]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department will employ its normal underwriting criteria, to ensure that the provision of any support which it might give for this project involves an acceptable risk. Part of the underwriting process involves looking, with other Export Credit Agencies, at a range of issues, including the environmental and social aspects of the project. In this case, these include the resettlement of the local population and protection of cultural heritage. ECGD will also consider the economic and political risks involved.
  545
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the terms of reference for the report he has commissioned into the proposed Ilisu Dam. [90123]

  Mr. Wilson
  The terms of reference will be placed in the Library along with the report as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those individuals, organisations, other Governments, other United Kingdom Government Departments and public bodies who are to be consulted(a) during the preparation of the report he has commissioned into the proposed Ilisu Dam and (b) before a decision is made to provide assistance in respect of the Dam under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. [90125]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) is consulting other Government Departments including DTI, DFID, FCO, HMT and DETR, both with regard to the preparation of the report and on the provision of support, and has commissioned work from an international environmental consultancy and an independent social development expert. ECGD is also consulting other export credit agencies including the Swiss, American and German agencies. ECGD has discussed with relevant Turkish Government departments and public bodies.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whom he has commissioned to prepare an independent report into the proposed Ilisu Dam; when the report was commissioned; when he expects it to be finished; and how much it will cost. [90126]

  Mr. Wilson
  An international environmental consultancy was commissioned to carry out an independent review of the Swiss commissioned Environmental Impact Assessment. Discussions regarding the commissioning of this report commenced in May 1999 and it is expected to be finalised shortly. The estimated cost will be around £5,000.

  Additionally, a field study is to be carried out by an independent social development expert to gauge the views of the local population. This report was commissioned in early June 1999. It is hoped that it will be carried out shortly. The estimated cost will be around £20,000.

  Brewing Industry
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the effect of current takeover bids in the pub trade on the United Kingdom brewing industry. [89971]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: Where a merger qualifies for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decides, in the light of the independent advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, whether or not to refer the merger to the Competition Commission for investigation. All cases are considered on their individual merits.

  Tele-conferencing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the growth of tele-conferencing in United Kingdom business; and if he will make a statement. [89929]
  546
  Mr. Wills
  The Department of Trade and Industry's recently published international benchmarking study, "Moving into the Information Age 1999", shows that UK businesses are making increasing use of `video-conferencing' (usage rose to 22 per cent. from 14 per cent. in the previous year), and lead the G7 countries in this area. No separate figures are collected for telephone conferencing.

  The Department is encouraging further use of `video-conferencing' through its Information Society Initiative, which encourages UK businesses to take better advantage of information and communications technologies to improve their performance.

  Working Time Regulations
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to help business to implement the Working Time Regulations. [90594]

  Mr. Byers
  Today, I wrote to a number of representative groups to consult on two deregulatory amendments to the Working Time Regulations. The proposed amendments draw on our experience of the Regulations being in force for their first year and reflect the concerns that have been raised with us in that period. The proposed amendments will relieve some significant administrative burdens on employers, without removing the protection that the Directive provides to workers. A copy of the consultation letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Unsolicited Faxes
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he and his Department(a) have taken and (b) plan to take to tackle the problem of unsolicited faxes. [90182]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 12 May 1999,Official Report, column 149.

  Libya
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) advice and (b) assistance has been provided by his Department to delegations intending to visit Libya. [90099]

  Mr. Wilson
  Following the suspension of UN Sanctions in April, the Department has encouraged several private sponsors of trade missions to take forward their plans for taking business delegations to Libya this summer and autumn. However, up until now that encouragement has fallen short of formal endorsement of particular missions or offering financial assistance. Without a functioning Commercial Section in a British Embassy in Tripoli, British Trade International is currently unable to offer the full range of assistance which is usually associated with visits which receive full Government assistance. We are actively pursuing the re-establishment, at the earliest opportunity, of a fully operational commercial section.
  547
  In light of the welcome announcement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary today, Official Report, columns 1033–43, on WPC Fletcher, I am able to outline the following staged approach to supporting trade promotion with Libya:
  British Trade International's desk officer for Libya will travel next week with a trade mission. This will enable us to handle with first hand knowledge business inquiries and a planned programme of presentations and promotional events around the country. British Trade International has already established a WebPage to make available information on Libya as it becomes available.
  We have invited sponsor organisations to apply for British Trade International support for trade missions in the period 2000–01. Officials are also discussing with other government departments their own plans for future trade missions and the possibility of Ministerial visits.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding Air Passenger Duty. [89548]

  Janet Anderson
  We have had no discussions with the Chancellor specifically on Air Passenger Duty. However, I am aware of the industry's concerns and have passed these on to the Treasury.

  Archaeology
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last met and when he next intends to meet(a) the British Archaeological Trust and (b) the Council for British Archaeology. [89406]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]: My hon. Friend the Minister for Arts met the Council for British Archaeology on 17 November 1998. I have not yet met the British Archaeological Trust. Any future meetings with either body will be arranged as appropriate.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his Special Advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89990]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments

  Films
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many films supported by the National Lottery have been released through British-owned distributors; and what proportion this represents of the total number of Lottery-funded films. [89408]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]: To date, 53 Lottery-funded feature films have already been released, await release or are in production/postproduction with assured distribution. Of these, 31 films have been or will be distributed by British-owned distributors. This represents 58.5 per cent. of that total.

TREASURY

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people who are currently taking advantage of the option to drawdown capital from their pension fund rather than purchasing an annuity. [89462]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not collected, but indications from pensions industry sources are that around 30,000 people may have income drawdown arrangements.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) of 24 June 1999,Official Report, column 457, what definition he used for a child in poverty; and, using that definition, what estimate he has made of the number of children in poverty (a) at present and (b) by the end of 2002. [90087]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: For the definition of child poverty, I refer the hon. Member to the written answer which the Economic Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 14 April 1999, Official Report, columns 244–45. The latest data on the number of children living in low income households can be found in "Households Below Average Income, 1979–1996/7", which is published by the Department for Social Security.

  Higher-rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of taxpayers who are higher-rate taxpayers(a) in each county in England and (b) in equivalent areas in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales and (iii) Northern Ireland. [89812]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table shows approximate estimates of the percentage of taxpayers who are subject to higher rate tax for 1996–97, the latest year for which these estimates are available. These estimates are based on a sample survey and the sample size is not large enough to allow separate estimates to be made for some unitary authorities in Scotland and Wales or for Northern Ireland areas other than Belfast.
  549

  Area

  Percentage of higher rate taxpayers

  England

  9

  North East

  Former County of Cleveland

  6

  Durham

  5

  Northumberland

  8

  Tyne and Wear

  4

  North West and Merseyside

  Cheshire

  9

  Cumbria

  6

  Greater Manchester

  6

  Lancashire

  6

  Merseyside

  5

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Former County of Humberside

  6

  North Yorkshire

  8

  South Yorkshire

  5

  West Yorkshire

  6

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  6

  Leicestershire

  8

  Lincolnshire

  7

  Northamptonshire

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  6

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  8

  Shropshire

  7

  Staffordshire

  5

  Warwickshire

  11

  West Midlands

  5

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  11

  Essex

  11

  Hertfordshire

  14

  Norfolk

  6

  Suffolk

  7

  London

  12

  South East

  Berkshire

  15

  Buckinghamshire

  18

  East Sussex

  8

  Hampshire

  10

  Isle of Wight

  3

  Kent

  8

  Oxfordshire

  13

  Surrey

  18

  West Sussex

  11

  South West

  Former County of Avon

  8

  Cornwall

  5

  Devon

  5

  Dorset

  8

  Gloucestershire

  8

  Somerset

  6

  Wiltshire

  8

  Scotland

  7

  Aberdeen City Unitary Authority

  9

  Aberdeenshire Unitary Authority

  11

  Angus Unitary Authority

  10

  Argyll and Bute Unitary Authority

  11

  Dumfries and Galloway Unitary Authority

  3

  Dundee City Unitary Authority

  6

  550

  Area

  Percentage of higher rate taxpayers

  East Dumbartonshire Unitary Authority

  6

  East Lothian Unitary Authority

  7

  East Renfrewshire Unitary Authority

  14

  Edinburgh, City of Unitary Authority

  10

  Fife Unitary Authority

  6

  Glasgow City Unitary Authority

  3

  Highland Unitary Authority

  7

  Moray Unitary Authority

  6

  North Ayrshire Unitary Authority

  8

  North Lanarkshire Unitary Authority

  4

  Perth and Kinross Unitary Authority

  8

  Renfrewshire Unitary Authority

  6

  Scottish Borders, The Unitary Authority

  8

  South Ayrshire Unitary Authority

  8

  South Lanarkshire Unitary Authority

  7

  Stirling Unitary Authority

  7

  Rest of Country

  4

  Wales

  3

  Carmarthenshire Unitary Authority

  3

  Cardiff Unitary Authority

  6

  Conwy Unitary Authority

  6

  Flintshire Unitary Authority

  6

  Gwynedd Unitary Authority

  4

  Monmouthshire Unitary Authority

  5

  Powys Unitary Authority

  3

  Swansea Unitary Authority

  5

  The Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Authority

  7

  Wrexham Unitary Authority

  6

  Rest of country

  3

  Northern Ireland

  5

  Belfast

  6

  Rest of country

  5

  Note:

  'Rest of country' covers areas where sample sizes were too small to allow reasonable estimates to be made for individual areas.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average personal income levels for each parliamentary constituency. [89713]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Sanitary Products (VAT)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on reducing the rate of VAT on sanitary products. [89965]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the last two years Treasury Ministers have received almost three hundred letters and a few small-scale petitions on reducing the rate of VAT on sanitary products. There have also been two early-day motions on the subject.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the latest period for which information is available, how many drug trafficking groups which deal primarily in Class A drugs were disrupted or dismantled by enforcement agencies; and if he will make a statement. [87445]
  551
  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest figures from HM Customs and Excise show that 131 and 104 drug trafficking groups were disrupted or dismantled in 1997x2013;98 and 1996–97 respectively. These do not identify Class A drugs separately.

  From the year 2000, all relevant agencies will be required to collect information showing the number of drug trafficking groups disrupted or dismantled each year, and will identify Class A drugs separately.

  National Savings
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what performance targets have been set for National Savings for 1999–2000. [90496]

  Ms Hewitt
  National Savings has as its declared aim to add value by helping to reduce the costs to the taxpayer of Government borrowing and by supporting Government savings policies. This is supported by two objectives:to market Government debt to retail investors so as to help to minimise the combined cost and risk of the total national debt and to contribute to the Government's funding needs;
  to promote Government savings policies among personal investors.

  In meeting these objectives the Agency will operate cost effectively and in a competitive and commercial manner that does not distort the savings market; and in a manner that benefits both Government and the retail saver–now and in future. During 1999–2000 National Savings will be set the following challenging targets:

  i. To work within the terms of the funding remit for 1999–2000;

  ii. Following the outsourcing of National Savings' operations, by 31 March 2000 to implement a productivity measure to monitor cost reductions;

  iii. No less than 97 per cent. of all customer sales documentation to be issued within the published time scales;

  iv. No less than 97 per cent. of all customer sales documentation to be 100 per cent. accurate;

  v. No less than 97 per cent. of all customer payments documentation to be issued within the agreed time scales;

  vi. No less than 97 per cent. of all customer payments documentation to be 100 per cent. accurate;

  vii. No less than 97 per cent. of after sales customer correspondence to be responded to within agreed time scales;

  viii. To introduce a new Pensioners Bond by mid July 1999;

  ix. To agree a new contract with POCL, by 30 September 1999, which secures improved commercial practice and enables development of a new relationship to incentivise value, service and cost competitiveness;

  x. To achieve IiP accreditation by 2000;

  xi. To make firm proposals for the resolution of the historic transaction accounting discrepancies by 31 October 1999;

  xii. To publish the first full set of audited product accounts by 31 December 1999.

  The funding remit sets out the costs and volume assumption that National Savings works to. The remit was published in the Debt Management report issued in March 1999.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EU Chocolate Directive
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the European Commission's objections to the proposed comitology provisions of the proposed EU Chocolate Directive. [90091]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Commission objected to a part of the proposed Directive which limited its powers to make technical changes to the law. However, I am pleased to say that a new Presidency compromise has now received Commission support and I am hopeful that a Common Position will be achieved during the Finnish Presidency.

  Wild Boar
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage individual identifications of wild boar on farms; and if he will make a statement. [89939]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no plans to require that wild boar be individually identified on farms. Producers are free to do so if they want.

  Intervention Food Stocks
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the daily cost to the European Union for the destruction of intervention food stocks in the last year for which figures are available. [89833]

  Mr. Rooker
  Except in comparatively rare instances where they became damaged in store, intervention stocks of cereals, beef and milk products are sold back onto the market when circumstances permit.

  Special arrangements exist for recognised producer groups to withdraw from the market certain fish and fruit and vegetables subject to their meeting the required grading standards. Withdrawn fish stocks may be returned to the sea or denatured for use in the production of fish meal. Fruit and vegetable stocks are destroyed by biodegradation or composting but may also be provided free to non-profit making organisations where their use can be shown to be additional to the organisations' normal requirement.

  Unpublished EU figures 1 for the financial year ended 15 October 1998 show the total cost of compensation paid to producer groups as:

  £million

  Fruit and vegetables

  96.56

  Fish

  6.98

  Separate figures for the various means of disposal are not available.

  Figures for the UK are:

  £million

  Fruit and vegetables

  1.89

  Fish

  1.89

  553
  In the marketing year 1998–99 the UK supplied fruit and vegetables to the value of £14,100 to non-profit making organisations.

  Withdrawals occur on a seasonal basis and the daily cost could only be determined by assuming that the expenditure was spread evenly over the year.
  1 Source:EU Commission DGVI GI Data Ecu converted to UK £ using representative rate current at 31 December 1998.

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what qualifications are needed for membership of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes; and if he will list the members of the committee. [89525]

  Mr. Rooker
  Members of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) are appointed by Ministers so as to ensure that the Committee has a broad spectrum of relevant scientific expertise and knowledge at its disposal, including that in nutrition, microbiology, genetic modification, food technology, immunology, toxicology and allergy. In addition it has members with experience in consumer affairs and ethics.

  The membership of the ACNFP is currently as follows:

  Professor J. Bainbridge BSc, PhD, Grad. Cert. Ed. (Tech.), MOSFHT, FRSA—(Chair)

  Director of Science and Technology, University of Teesside

  Dr. M. J. Gasson BSc, PhD—(Deputy Chair)

  Head, Genetics and Microbiology Department, Institute of Food Research, Norwich

  Professor P. J. Aggett MSc, MB, ChB, FRCP(L)(E)(G) DCH Head of Lancashire Postgraduate School of Medicine and Health

  Dr. Philip Dale BSc, PhD

  Research Group Leader, Genetic Modification and Risk Assessment, John Innes Centre, Norwich

  Dr. J. Heritage BA, DPhil, MLBiol

  Senior Lecturer in Microbiology at the University of Leeds

  Professor D. A. Ledward MSc, PhD FIFST

  Professor of Food Science, University of Reading

  Reverend Dr. M. Reiss BSc, MA, PhD, FIBiol

  Senior Lecturer, Homerton College, University of Cambridge (ethical adviser)

  Mrs. E. Russell BSc

  Consumer Representative

  Professor I. Rowland BSc, PhD

  Professor of Human Nutrition at the University of Ulster; Head of Northern Ireland Centre for Diet and Health

  Professor T. A. B. Sanders BSc, PhD

  Head of Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Kings College, London

  Professor H. Sewell MB, ChB, BDS, Msc, PhD, FRCP (L) (G), FRCPath, F. Med. Sci

  Head of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University HospitalMedical School, Nottingham

  554

  Dr. N. A. Simmons FRC Path. FIFST

  Emeritus Consultant in Microbiology, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital Trust, London

  Professor R. Walker PhD. CChem. FRSC FIFST

  Emeritus Professor of Food Science, University of Surrey

  Professor J. Warner MB, ChB, DCH, MRCP, MD, FRCP, MRCPCH, FRCPCH

  Professor of Child Health at University of Southampton

  Professor H. F. Woods BSc, BM, BCh, DPhil, FFPM, FRCP (London and Edin).

  Sir George Franklin Professor of Medicine, University of Sheffield (Chairman of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment).

  Monsanto
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the trips, facilities, gifts and other offerings of a financial value provided by Monsanto to(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants in his Department since 1 May 1997. [88955]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: I am not aware of any trips, facilities, gifts or other offerings of a financial value being provided by Monsanto to Ministers or officials in this Department since 1 May 1997.

  Chemical Residues (Crops)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the chemical residues retained as a result of crop treatment in(a) imported US genetically modified soya and (b) imported nonenetically modified soya. [88942]

  Mr. Rooker
  Two genetically modified (GM) types of soya are currently grown in the USA. One is tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate, and the other to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium.

  Experimental studies indicate that two major residues may be found in glyphosate treated soya. The residues concerned are glyphosate itself and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA). These two residues occur in both conventionally bred soya and genetically modified (GM) glyphosate tolerant soya. However, the levels of the metabolite AMPA are generally higher in GM crop.

  In the case of glufosinate-ammonium the major residue in conventionally bred varieties is glufosinate. In GM varieties the major components of the residue are glufosinate and a metabolite n-acetyl glufosinate.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many invitations(a) he and (b) the Minister have received to visit slaughterhouses since their appointments; and how many each has visited. [88337]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State has visited slaughterhouses on eight occasions since 1 May 1997.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Trial Postponements
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many trials have been (a) postponed and (b) rescheduled to fit in with the trial judge's social and holiday commitments in the last 12 months to date; and if he will make a statement. [89556]

  Mr. Vaz
  The information is not kept.

  Company Liability
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to ensure that companies are legally liable for injuries caused to overseas workers as a result of operational decisions taken in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [89350]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]: Under English and Scots law companies are liable for injuries to their workers caused by their negligence. The courts decide in accordance with well established legal principles under each legal system whether claims may proceed in the English or the Scottish courts when it is alleged that the cause of injuries to overseas workers was operational decisions taken in the United Kingdom. The Government has no plans to legislate in this area.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he plans to bring UK law into line with Article 2 of the 1968 Brussels Convention on court action against companies registered abroad [89349]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]: Under Article 2 of the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, to which the United Kingdom is a party, a defendant is entitled to be sued in the courts of a member state of the European Union where he is domiciled. Once this basis of Jurisdiction has been established the courts of that state generally have no discretion to refuse to hear the case. However, this rule applies only to those cases falling within the scope of the Convention. In all other instances, and notwithstanding that jurisdiction has otherwise been established under English law, a court in England and Wales has a discretion to refuse to hear a case if in all the circumstances of that case it is satisfied that there is another jurisdiction which is clearly more appropriate to hear the case. The courts in England and Wales apply this long-established discretion in the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice and the Government has no plans to amend it.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many court actions for mortgage repossessions were brought at Newton county court in each year since 1990. [89680]
  556
  Mr Vaz
  This question relates to Nelson county court. The numbers of mortage actions between 1990–98 were:

  Year

  Actions entered

  1990

  238

  1991

  286

  1992

  277

  1993

  203

  1994

  205

  1995

  235

  1996

  214

  1997

  180

  1998

  246

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance has been issued to magistrates and crown courts on the trial and sentencing of asylum seekers who have been stopped in transit in the United Kingdom for bearing false documents. [89673]

  Mr. Vaz
  There are no guidelines for trials in these precise circumstances. Like any other criminal trial, such cases are subject to the relevant statutory provisions, rules of court, practice directions, and case law. There are also no guideline judgments reported on sentencing in these circumstances. Within the statutory sentencing framework laid down by Parliament, the nature and severity of penalties imposed by the courts are matters of judicial discretion. Guidance can however be found in recent decisions by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), in particular in Ali Osman (1999) 1CR.APP.R.(S.) 230 and Daljit Singh (1999) 1CR.APP.R.(S.)490.

  Police Authority-Magistrates Court Committee Chairmen
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the number of people in England and Wales who are both chairman of a police authority and of a magistrates court committee where the areas of operation are approximately the same; and if he will make a statement. [89725]

  Mr. Vaz
  Of those areas where the magistrates courts committee is approximately the same as the police authority area, there is one area where the same individual is chairman of both the police authority and magistrates court committee.

CABINET OFFICE

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by his Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [87273]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government is committed to making sure that policies are inclusive and take full account of the needs and experience of all those affected by them. Guidelines on Policy Appraisals for Equal Treatment published in November 1998 commit policy makers to assessing how proposals affect different groups of people.
  557
  Application of guidance is the responsibility of individual Departments. Within this Department we are making use of consultation, research projects and desegregated statistics to identify the impact of policy upon women.

  The only piece of legislation that this Department is responsible for in the current session is the House of Lords Bill.

  Details of our consultation document "Reform of the House of Lords" were published in the Women's National Commission Briefing, which was issued to their 50 full and 33 associate members on 1 April 1999. Some requests for the document were received, but no further representations.

  The present under-representation of certain elements of our society within the House of Lords is an issue that needs to be rectified. As a first, self-contained, step we intend to remove the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. We are determined to remove the hereditary peers from the House of Lords because we simply do not accept, as a matter of principle, that in social, economic or, above all, by gender or ethnic origin the hereditary peers can reasonably be considered to be representative of the people of the country. Women are grossly under-represented in the House of Lords; they constitute just 2.5 per cent. of the hereditary peers.

  The Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords will report back at the end of this year with recommendations for wide-ranging reform of the House of Lords. It will address the role that a fully reformed House should fulfil and it will consider how to bring the best possible range of representatives into the second chamber, whether by direct or indirect election, nomination or a combination of these methods.

  A nominated, or partly nominated, chamber has the advantage of widening the possible range of representation. Gender, ethnicity, region, age—all these areas can be represented within a chamber that includes an element of nomination.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of statutory instruments introduced by his Department into Parliament in(a) 1998, (b) 1992, (c) 1985 and (d) 1973 had the European Union as their legislative source. [89168]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The total number of statutory instruments (SIs) registered as General Instruments in 1998, 1992, 1985 and 1973 is listed in the table. I have indicated the number of SIs which were made by my Department and its predecessors to comply with European Community obligations.

  Year

  Number of SIs

  Number implementing EC obligations

  1998

  1,565

  0

  1992

  1,692

  0

  1985

  1,204

  0

  1973

  1,260

  0

  Older People (Public Services)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what estimate he has made of the number of older people who have received improved public services as a result of the first year of theBetterGovernmentforOlderpeopleProgramme; [90068]

  (2) how many copies of "Making it Happen", the report of the first year of the Better Government for Older People Programme have been produced; at what cost; and to whom unsolicited copies have been sent; [90063]

  (3) if he will list the improvements made to public services as a result of the first year of the Better Government for Older People Programme; [90067]

  (4) what was the cost to public funds of the first year of the Better Government for Older People Programme. [90069]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Better Government for Older People Programme (BGOP) began in April 1998 and runs until April 2000. It is steered by a partnership led by the Cabinet Office and supported by Age Concern, Anchor Trust, the Carnegie Third Age Programme, Help the Aged, the Local Government Association and the Warwick University Local Authorities Research Consortium. It is an important part of the drive to modernise government so that public services are better equipped for the 21' Century. The Modernising Government White Paper sets as one of its targets that, by the end of the year 2000, older people should benefit from joined up services and integrated planning in at least half our local authorities.

  Older people represent a significant and growing proportion of the population. For example, there are currently 10.5 million people over state pension age in the UK. This figure is expected to have increased to around 15 million by 2040, by which date 24 per cent. of the UK's population—the highest percentage in the EU—will be 60 or over. All these people, and many others, are the potential beneficiaries of the BGOP Programme.

  Evaluation is an ongoing and integral part of BGOP. We will publish the results when the Programme comes to an end. Older people are already beginning to feel the benefit of improvements achieved at the local level by the 28 pilot projects, many examples of which are featured in "Making It Happen", the report of the first year of the BGOP Programme. But by far the biggest group of potential beneficiaries is those who will experience better-designed and delivered public services as a result of learning from the pilot projects.

  BGOP's Learning Network brings together older people, the pilots and other partners in the Programme as well as local authorities. Its role is to help examine what does and does not work in relation to public services used by older people. It will inform the development of good practice and new models for better service delivery in the future. It links, through the Cabinet Office and the Inter-Ministerial Group on Older People to central government.

  7,000 copies of "Making It Happen" have been printed at a cost of £9,925. Copies are being sent to all MPs, party leaders in the House of Lords, local authority chief executives, the pilot projects, all members of BGOP's Learning Network and others who have asked to be kept

  559
  informed of developments. We are doing this to spread good practice, raise awareness and keep Parliament informed about the Programme.

  As one of the six partner organisations steering the Programme, the Cabinet Office provides £51,000 per annum to support the work of the Programme's Core Team, which co-ordinates its activities. Other Departments making substantial contributions include £154,000 from the Home Office, £30,000 from the Department for Education and Employment and £30,000 from the Health Education Authority. Further contributions and support come from the other Programme partners, the 28 local authorities leading the pilots and their partner organisations. The programme raises additional funds from charging local authorities for membership of the Learning Network.

  The overall cost of the Programme (including contributions from partner organisations) is estimated to be around £750,000 in the 1998–99 financial year. This represents an excellent investment in ensuring that older people receive in the future the improved public services they deserve.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his Special Advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89986]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the annual cost of reducing class sizes to 25 for all primary school children. [89375]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have estimated that the cost would be around £3 billion, made up of about £1 billion a year for extra teachers and around £2 billion for the capital investment required. Eventual costs would depend on a range of factors affecting implementation, including the results of local consultation, the availability of existing accommodation and parental preference.

  Archaeology
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop NVQs in archaeological studies. [89401]
  560
  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]The development and maintenance of NVQs is undertaken by National Training Organisations. Since April 1998 archaeology has been the responsibility of the Cultural Heritage NTO. It was previously covered by the environmental lead body, COSQUEC. The first NVQs, accredited in 1994, were removed in 1998 from the national framework by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) as there was very low take up.

  The Cultural Heritage NTO is waiting for the findings of an archaeological training needs study called "Profiling the profession", being undertaken by the Archaeological Training Forum, before making a new case for NVQs. The report is expected in autumn 1999.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the national minimum wage on the costs to employers of New Deal recruits. [89422]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]From April 1998 to end of March 1999, the monthly average of New Deal participants entering jobs was 7,600. During April 1999, after the introduction of the national minimum wage, 12,400 entered jobs.

  As part of the national evaluations of New Deal for Young People and New Deal for the Long Term Unemployed we are carrying out a survey of participating employers. This will include questions on the wages being paid to New Deal employees (for example gross starting pay; hourly rate; most recent gross pay; whether or not the wages are the same as for the previous job holder and why not). Any references by employers to the national minimum wage and its impact will be recorded. The survey is taking place in the autumn of this year and will involve face-to-face interviews with 1,500 participating employers.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the numbers of participants in New Deal programmes who have not obtained a job after they have completed their participation. [89415]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]The information is available from the published Government Statistical Service statistics. They show that between January 1998 and April 1999 32,000 people left New Deal for Young People for known destination other than jobs. An additional 49,420 left for an unknown destinations. However, a recently published study reports on a survey of a sample of those leaving New Deal for unrecorded destinations between April and August 1998. Of all those who responded to the survey, 43 per cent. stated they had left New Deal to go into paid employment.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made with the Trailblazer Round of the Sure Start programme. [90595]

  Ms Jowell
  Today, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced a further 30 Sure Start trailblazers. They are part of the first round
  561
  of a £450 million investment over 3 years in 250 local programmes across England. Sure Start will combine health care, good quality early learning and family support services to improve life chances of under fours in areas of disadvantage, so that children are ready to thrive at school.

  The 30 trailblazers announced today are based in:
  Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Bradford, Copeland, Derby, Doncaster, Enfield, Fenland, Great Yarmouth, Greenwich, Halton, Hastings, Knowsley, Mansfield, Newham, North East Lincolnshire, Norwich, Oldham, Penwith, Plymouth, Redcar and Cleveland, Sandwell, Sedgemoor, Southampton, Stoke-on-Trent, Telford and Wrekin, Thurrock, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Wolverhampton.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of (a) the cost of the climate change levy to his Department and (b) the savings from the reduction in national insurance contributions that will occur when it is introduced. [88861]

  Mr. Timms
  The net impact of the climate change levy and the associated reduction in the main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions on the Department of Social Security will depend on the rates of climate change levy. The final rates of climate change levy will not be set until Finance Bill 2000.

  In addition, we are still considering a number of detailed issues on the tax treatment of different energy products which could have a significant impact in some instances. It is, therefore, not possible to give definitive figures about the impact of the climate change levy on the Department of Social Security.

  Tax-benefit Models
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish tax-benefit model tables under the system operating when the working families tax credit is introduced for a lone mother with two children aged under 11, where her earnings are(a) nil, (b) £3 per hour and (c) £3.60 per hour, where, if she is an earner, she works for (i) five hours, (ii) 10 hours, (iii) 15 hours, (iv) 20 hours, (v) 25 hours, (vi) 30 hours, (vii) 35 hours, (viii) 40 hours, (ix) 45 hours and (x) 50 hours, where she has to pay average council house rent and council tax, and where, if she is an earner, she has child care costs of (A) £20, (B) £30, (C) £40, (D) £50 and (E) £60; [89313]

  (2) if he will publish tax-benefit model tables under the existing system for a lone mother with two children aged under 11, where her earnings are (a) nil, (b) £3 per hour and (c) £.60 per hour, where, if she is an earner, she works for (i) five hours, (ii) 10 hours, (iii) 15 hours, (iv) 20 hours, (v) 25 hours, (vi) 30 hours, (vii) 35 hours, (viii) 40 hours, (ix) 45 hours and (x) 50 hours, where she has to pay average council house rent and council tax, and where, if she is an earner, she has child care costs of (A) £20, (B) £30, (C) £40, (D) £50 and (E) £60; [89297]

  (3) if he will publish tax-benefit model tables under the system operating when the working families tax credit is introduced for a married couple with two children aged
  562
  under 11, with average council house rent and council tax, where there is (a) no earner, (b) one earner on £3 per hour and (c) one earner on £3.60 per hour and where, if there is an earner, he works for (i) five hours, (ii) 10 hours, (iii) 15 hours, (iv) 20 hours, (v) 25 hours, (vi) 30 hours, (vii) 35 hours, (viii) 40 hours, (ix) 45 hours and (x) 50 hours. [89309]

  Angela Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many meetings of the JCC he has attended. [89281]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 5 July 1999, Official Report, columns 362–63.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 1999, Official Report, column 882, on disabled people, when he expects to take a decision on the need for a take-up campaign for disability benefits. [89378]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have no plans for a take-up campaign at the present time. However, the potential t
  ake-up of benefits is increased through greater public confidence about decisions on entitlement, and we continue to work with disability organisations to improve the administration of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance, and to ensure that decisions about entitlement are right at the outset and are kept correct.

  Non-working Parents
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the position under the social security system of women who stay at home in order to look after children. [89889]

  Angela Eagle
  We recognise the need to provide practical support to help parents do their best for their children. That is why we have put into place a series of measures which open up choices for parents, including the highest ever increase in Child Benefit, the New Deal for Lone Parents, the National Childcare Strategy and the Working Families Tax Credit (including the child care tax credit).

  In addition, our plans for the Second State Pension will build on safeguards already offered by the Home Responsibilities Protection scheme to help those whose work records are interrupted by caring responsibilities build up a worthwhile retirement income.

  For women who stay at home to look after their children access to contributory benefits is based on their own or, as appropriate, their husband's national insurance record and the ability to satisfy the benefit entitlement conditions. Income related benefits will be based on the needs and income of the family unit.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to support parents who remain at home to look after their children by paying a benefit directly to the parent. [89880]
  563
  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to pay a benefit direct to a parent for remaining at home to care for a child other than the provisions already in place to support lone parents and parents of children with disabilities.

  We have a role in ensuring that all families have an adequate level of income, whether in work or out of work. We have put into place a series of improvements and changes to benefits which support all families and which target families with lower incomes in particular. We have increased Child Benefit by the largest ever amount, we are introducing the Working Families Tax Credit with its integral child care tax credit (and which can be paid directly to the carer where a couple choose) and we are bringing in the Children's Tax Credit from 2001 which will be worth up to £416 a year for taxpaying families with children.

  Housewives
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to treat housewives as independent individuals for social security purposes. [89888]

  Angela Eagle
  Women are already treated as independent individuals for most contributory benefit purposes (apart from Widow's Benefit or where an addition for an adult dependant is being claimed). Within the income related benefits we target benefit on those in greatest need by looking at the family unit. A couple is treated as a single unit and benefit calculated on the basis of the couple's needs and resources.

SCOTLAND

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in Scotland to date have received compensation under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. [89160]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Sixty children who were vaccinated in Scotland have received payment under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. Information on the number of children currently living in Scotland who have received payments under the Act is not available.

  The payments are neither compensation nor an interim payment. They are designed to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from vaccine damage and their families.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from her Department in attendance; if she will list the number of times each met; if she will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if she will make a statement. [88485]
  564
  Clare Short
  To answer the question in the format requested would be subject to the disproportionate cost rule. In general, UKREP attend most EC working group meetings. The need for DFID staff participation is decided according to the agenda for each meeting.

  Listed are the working groups with which DFID are most closely involved and the usual frequency of meetings:

  Working Group

  Frequency

  Development Co-operation

  Weekly

  ACPFIN

  Monthly

  Food Aid Post Lome

  Meeting about twice per week during current treaty negotiations. At other times meetings would be quarterly

  ACP Working Group

  Monthly

  GSP

  Quartely

  This Department also follows the outcome of a range of other working groups on subjects that have a bearing on DFID responsibilities, as below:

  Asia and Oceania

  Central Europe

  Eastern Europe and Central Asia

  Asia/Latin America

  Maghreb/Mashraq

  Western Balkans.

  In addition, DFID staff also attend a number of EC management committee meetings chaired by the Commission covering EC programme/project management issues including European Development Fund (EDF) and the Asia Latin America, Mediterranean, Phare, Tacis, Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid programmes.

  Sudan
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on what assistance the Government are giving to support a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Sudan. [90050]

  Clare Short
  We are pressing throughout the international system for more effort towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Sudan. We are working in particular with the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and with the IGAD Partners Forum.

  At the latest meeting of the IGAD Partners Forum on 10 March in Oslo, proposals for a special envoy and dedicated secretariat to maintain a sustained and accelerated peace negotiation were accepted in principle. We are pursuing the implementation of these proposals before the next IGAD peace talks take place between the Government of Sudan and the SPLA; these are scheduled for 18–23 July.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries with which her Department held discussions in 1998 with regard to the use of child labour for making goods imported into the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [89925]
  565
  Clare Short
  There have been no direct bilateral discussions, but throughout 1998 and 1999, the Government has actively participated in joint discussions with other members of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on the causes of child labour and how best to combat it. We have also continuously supported the ILO's International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC), and the adoption of the new International Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. The Convention, adopted by consensus at the International Labour Conference in June this year, aims to put an end to the intolerable exploitation of children in hazardous work, conditions of slavery, and practices similar to slavery.

  Coral and Mangrove Ecosystems
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the conclusions of the conference at London Zoo on 29 to 30 June relating to overseas dependent territories on the importance for poor people of coral and mangrove ecosystems. [89930]

  Clare Short
  The Conference considered environmental issues in the UK Overseas Territories and highlighted the diversity of natural resources in these small island states. Coral reefs and mangrove forests are among their more threatened environments. They directly provide a range of services important to poor people, including food, income, building materials, and tourist-related employment. Mangroves and coral reefs are often the only resources to which poor people have ready access. The Conference discussed the importance of controlling the exploitation of these ecosystems at sustainable levels by engaging the coastal peoples in their management, and helping to develop alternative livelihood options. We are actively engaged in supporting such programmes in UK Overseas Territories and other island states.

HEALTH

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by his Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [87189]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government are committed to making sure that policies are inclusive and take full account of the needs and experience of all those affected by them. Guidelines on Policy Appraisals for Equal Treatment published in November 1998 commit policy makers to assessing how proposals affect different groups of people.

  Application of the guidance is the responsibility of individual Departments. The Department is in regular contact with a wide variety of voluntary organisations within the health and personal social services field, seeking views on such matters as relevant aspects of proposed legislative change and the development of general policy, including those organisations receiving funding from the Department. Although some of these organisations seek to focus exclusively upon women's issues, the large majority would reflect the more generic views of their members, including often a significant proportion of women. We are currently funding and are
  566
  in regular contact with the Women's Aid Federation of England on matters of mutual interest in relation to issues of domestic violence, while we would also expect to take the views of a wide range of organisations active in the field of young or elderly people, for example, with a substantial number of women among their membership.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Excellence and Equity in Cancer Care Strategy, published by the All-Party Group on Cancer. [89263]

  Mr. Denham
  The themes in the All-Party Group's five pledges on the excellence and equity in Cancer Care Strategy reflect the issues raised at the cancer seminar in Downing Street in May at which the Prime Minister announced a plan of action to tackle cancer and save lives. The Government are committed to improving quality of and access to cancer services and a comprehensive programme of work is in hand to tackle the issues raised at the Downing Street meeting.

  Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total(a) annual budget and (b) staffing of the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service. [89366]

  Mr. Denham
  The total annual budget of the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service for 1999–2000 is £558,000.

  The total staffing of the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service is currently 6.5 whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance targets have been agreed with the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service in relation to processing(a) inquiries and (b) applications. [89368]

  Mr. Denham
  The contract for the provision of a centralised service processing all applications seeking entry to pre-registration nursing and midwifery diploma courses was negotiated in accordance with a detailed specification, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service deals with each year. [89367]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of applications varies from year to year. The number of applications differs to the number of applicants. This is because each applicant can submit up to and including four applications for different higher education institutions. The figures for applications and applicants are:

  Applications

  Applicants

  1997–98

  50,026

  20,088

  1998–991

  94,952

  33,803

  1These are the latest figures for 1998–99. Final figures are not yet available.

  Source:

  Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service

  Drug Tariff
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the increase in the drug tariff to the NHS, in actual and percentage terms, of(a) Thyroxine tablets (100 mcg) per 1000, (b) Erythromycin tablets (250 mg) per 500,

  Prices in drug tariff in May 1998 and May 1999, and movement in price

  May 1998 (p)

  May 1999 (p)

  Change (p)

  Actual percentage increase

  Chlordiazepoxide capsules 10mg (500 pack)

  684

  2300

  1616

  236

  Erythromycin tablets 250mg EC (100 pack)

  412

  1100

  688

  167

  Thyroxine tablets 100mcg (1,000 pack)

  299

  4489

  4190

  1401

  Warfarin tablets 5mg (500 pack)

  2186

  4570

  2384

  109

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the control of drug tariff prices to the NHS for(a) generic drugs and (b) branded drugs.

  Mr. Denham
  Reimbursement prices for medicines may or may not be listed in the Drug Tariff, and are the actual or averaged list prices of one or more versions of the drugs concerned. For generics, list prices are set by the market. Branded prices are governed by the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme.

  Medicinal Drugs
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (i) percentage and (ii) amount of the NHS budget was spent on medicinal drugs in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [89675]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is provided in the tables.

  Total expenditure on National Health Service drugs

  Total NHS expenditure on drugs, medicines and listed appliances

  £billion

  Year

  Total

  1993–94

  3.7

  1994–95

  4.0

  1995–96

  4.4

  1996–97

  4.7

  1997–98

  5.2

  Total NHS expenditure on drugs, medicines and listed appliances

  as a percentage of total NHS expenditure

  Year

  Percentage

  1993–94

  11.8

  1994–95

  12.1

  1995–96

  12.7

  1996–97

  13.3

  1997–98

  13.7

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his Department's reviews of the effects on health of fluoridation of water; and what have been the results of these reviews. [89825]
  568
  c Warfarin (5mg) tablets per 500 and (d) chlordiazepoxide (10 mg) capsules per 500 between May 1998 and May 1999; and if he will make a statement. [89692]

  Mr Denham
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Denham
  Relevant reviews conducted by, for, or with the participation of, the Department of Health or its predecessors, are as follows:Forrest J. R., Longwell J., Stones H. H., Thomson A. M. (1953). The fluoridation of domestic water supplies in North America as a means of controlling dental caries. Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO), London.
  Ministry of Health, Scottish Office, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1962). The conduct of the fluoridation studies in the United Kingdom and the results achieved after five years. Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects No. 105. HMSO, London.
  Department of Health and Social Security, Scottish Office, Welsh Office, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1969). The fluoridation studies in the United Kingdom and the results achieved after eleven years. Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects No. 122. HMSO, London.
  Working Party on Fluoridation of Water and Cancer (1985). Fluoridation of water and cancer: a review of the epidemiological evidence. HMSO, London.
  Evaluations by the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, in 1983, 1984 and 1990.
  Evaluations by the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, in 1984, 1985, 1987, 1990 and 1995.
  Medical Research Council Working Group on fluoridation of drinking water-link with osteoporosis, 1993.
  Panel on Dietary Reference Values of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (1994). Dietary reference values for food energy and nutrients for the United Kingdom. Report on Health and Social Subjects No. 41; sixth impression. HMSO, London.
  Subgroup on Bone Health, Working Group on the Nutritional Status of the Population of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (1998). Nutrition and bone health: with particular reference to calcium and Vitamin D. Report on Health and Social Subjects No. 49. The Stationery Office, London.

  In addition, the Department and the Medical Research Council support research as appropriate. The Department also monitors and assesses the extensive published research conducted by others, and the many reviews commissioned by other groups, including the World Health Organisation. We agree with the conclusions of Sir Donald Acheson's Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health (conducted for the Department, and published in 1998) that
  "Fluoridation of the public water supply has been shown to reduce caries … [and] … should decrease inequalities in dental caries … The balance of scientific evidence is against harmful effects on health of fluoridation."
  569
  However, we are not complacent and in the Public Health White Paper published on 6 July we announced that we have commissioned an up-to-date scientific review of fluoride and health. If the review confirms that the health benefits of fluoridation are considerable and that there are no significant risks, we intend to introduce an obligation on water companies to fluoridate where there is strong local support for doing so.

  Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds there are currently at Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford; and how many there will be in October. [900021]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently 568 acute beds at Broomfield hospital, including intensive care, cardiac care and the burns unit. The current ward closure proposals, which form part of the development plan for Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust, will be discussed fully at a public meeting being held on 22 July 1999 at 7.30 pm in the Social Hall at St. John's hospital, Chelmsford. Until this meeting has taken place, it would not be appropriate to comment on the future provision of acute beds at Broomfield hospital.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish his response to the report of the Centre for Policy on Ageing on national required standards for residential and nursing homes for older people. [90070]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are currently considering the Centre for Policy on Ageing's report setting out their proposals for national regulatory standards for older people in care homes. We will be issuing the CPA's proposed standards to a wide range of organisations and individuals for consultation nationally in the summer.

  We will carefully consider all the comments we receive on the CPA's report before finalising and publishing the standards and the arrangements for implementing them.

  Skin Disorders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence of skin disorders is(a) overall and (b) in each region. [89570]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of admissions to National Health Service trust hospitals in England from 1995–96 to 1997–98 where a primary diagnosis has been recorded for skin disorder is shown in the tables.

  Admissions for skin disorders: NHS trusts hospitals in England 1995–96

  Regional health authority

  Admissions

  Northern

  14,245

  Yorkshire

  21,844

  Trent

  22,521

  East Anglian

  9,302

  North West Thames

  14,255

  North East Thames

  15,331

  South East Thames

  14,327

  South West Thames

  12,497

  Wessex

  10,623

  Oxford

  13,557

  South Western

  14,930

  570

  Admissions for skin disorders: NHS trusts hospitals in England 1995–96

  Regional health authority

  Admissions

  West Midlands

  22,311

  Mersey

  11,216

  North Western

  24,186

  England

  221,145

  Notes:

  1. Figures are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data

  2. Ordinary Admissions and Daycases combined. ICD 10 codes used are, L00-L99, Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissues

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Admissions for skin disorders: NHS trusts hospitals in England 1996–97 to 1997–98

  Admissions

  Regional offices

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Northern and Yorkshire Regional

  35,385

  29,706

  Trent Regional Office

  20,740

  23,704

  Anglia and Oxford Regional Office

  17,416

  21,447

  North Thames Regional Office

  26,754

  28,973

  South Thames Regional Office

  26,755

  24,019

  South and West Regional Office

  25,245

  26,237

  West Midlands Regional Office

  21,827

  22,659

  North West Regional Office

  35,916

  38,174

  Not known

  —

  129

  England

  210,038

  215,048

  Notes:

  1. Figures are provisional, no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data, (ie the data is ungrossed)

  2. Ordinary Admissions and Daycases combined. 1CD 10 codes used are, L00-L99, Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissues

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Smallpox
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the retention of samples of smallpox-related material. [88274]

  Ms Jowell
  [pursuant to her reply, 6 July 1999, c. 494]: The recently published report by the United States of America Institute of Medicine presents strong arguments for the retention of smallpox stocks, which we accept. Since the eradication of naturally occurring smallpox over 20 years ago, very few people have been immunised against smallpox. It is vital before the virus stocks are destroyed that investigations of the genetic structure and pathogenesis of smallpox are carried out to ensure that we have all the information we need to protect the population should smallpox re-emerge as a threat in the future. We are advised that this work requires the retention of the smallpox vaccine stocks and that their retention will also allow the development of effective anti-viral treatments and new vaccines.

  We will be working with the World Health Organisation to develop and take forward research on these issues.

WALES

  European Elections
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the arrangements for the European elections in Wales. [88536]
  571
  Mr. Michael
  None. I would not expect to do so as that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Match Funding (Objective 1)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss match funding for Objective 1 for west Wales and the valleys from January 2000. [88537]

  Mr. Michael
  I expect to meet my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury soon to discuss a range of financial issues.

  Agricultural Sector
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Assembly Economic Committee to discuss the performance of the agricultural sector. [88538]

  Mr. Michael
  Responsibility for this matter lies with the Assembly but it may help the right hon. Gentleman to know that this matter lies with the Assembly Committee for Agriculture and the Rural Economy.

  Election Turnout
  Mr. Syms:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met Assembly Secretaries to discuss moves to increase turnout at elections. [88539]

  Mr. Michael
  As Secretary of State I have had no such meetings.

  Young Unemployed
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on measures to help the young unemployed in Wales. [88540]

  Mr. Michael
  Since the New Deal was launched across Wales in April 1998, there has been a 44 per cent. reduction in the number of 18–24 olds who have been unemployed for six months or more. During its first year the New Deal has helped 5,400 young people in Wales into sustained employment; 1,200 are undertaking full-time education or training and a similar number are gaining valuable work experience on the Environment Task Force and Voluntary Sector options.

  From 1 July, these measures will be taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in partnership with the National Assembly for Wales.

  Structural Change (Economic Activity)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans to encourage structural change in economic activity in Wales. [88541]

  Mr. Hain
  As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales I had responsibility for this matter until 1 July.

  We continued to pursue the objectives identified in Pathway to Prosperity-our new economic agenda for Wales. We asked the Welsh Development Agency to develop a Wales Entrepreneurship Action Plan; we strengthened Business Connect; established the Rural
  572
  Partnership; made RSA more accessible, improved the flow of capital and advisory services to companies. Our aim in doing all this was to encourage and support more growth and development in existing companies and create more new enterprises.

  Since last Thursday these responsibilities have passed to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Child Care Strategy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet the Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services to discuss the funding of the child care strategy for Wales. [88542]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I have no such plans. This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will meet the Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services to discuss funding the child care strategy for Wales. [88545]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend has such plans. This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Further Education
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet the Assembly Secretary for post-16 Education and Training to discuss funding to increase access to further education in Wales. [88543]

  Mr. Hain
  I have had discussions with the Secretary for Post 16 education and training but this is now a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will meet the Assembly Secretary for Post-16 education and training to discuss funding to increase access to further education in Wales. [88549]

  Mr. Hain
  I have had discussions with the Secretary for Post-16 education and training but this is now a matter for the National Assembly.

  Economic Regeneration
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet the chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee of the Assembly to discuss economic regeneration in former mining areas. [88544]

  Mr. Hain
  I have no such plans. This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. I am pleased that the Welsh Coalfield Communities will be included in the £50 million Coalfields Regeneration Trust, set up in March.

  New Deal
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to discuss the New Deal in Wales. [88546]

  Mr. Hain
  I have no such plans. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in partnership with the National Assembly for Wales.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss broadcasting in Wales. [88547]

  Mr. Michael
  I have no such plans. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and in future he will involve the National Assembly for Wales in his deliberations.

  GPs
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the National Assembly on measures to encourage more general practitioners to practise in the valleys of south Wales. [88548]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I have had no such discussions. This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Livestock Industry
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Welsh livestock industry. [88550]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State I had responsibility for this matter until 1 July. We took a number of initiatives, either unilaterally or jointly with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to address the difficulties faced by the livestock sector. We provide:

  Over £12 million aid for Welsh cattle and sheep farmers in December 1997.

  Almost 15 million extra for HLCA claimants in Wales in November 1998.

  Publication in March 1999 of industry-led Action Plans for the Lamb and Beef, Dairy and Organic sectors.

  Complete deferral for this year of the Specified Risk Material inspection costs-a saving of £2.5 million for Welsh farmers.

  Since last Thursday these responsibilities have passed to the National Assembly for Wales. The First Secretary and his Cabinet colleagues will be happy to brief Members of the House of Commons on the Assembly's work.

  School Funding
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to have discussions with the Assembly Secretary for Education up to age 16 about funding of schools in Wales. [88532]

  Mr. Hain
  I have had discussions with the Education Secretary on this and other matters but this is now a matter for the National Assembly.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for the translation of press releases from Government Departments into the Welsh language. [89679]

  Mr. Michael
  This is a matter for individual Departments. In the past, I made clear the willingness of my Department to advise on such matters. I have written to colleagues underlining the importance of this matter,574
  and the advice which is available to Departments from the Welsh Language Board. I am pleased to see that a number of Departments have prepared Welsh language schemes which set out their policy on the use of Welsh in press notices.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with representatives of livestock farms in Wales to discuss progress on the lifting of the beef export ban. [88529]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I have had many such discussions. Beef farmers in Wales have paid a heavy price for the incompetence of the previous Government. I have been pleased to support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in sorting out this mess.

  This is now a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

DEFENCE

  United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Defence Agency
  Ms Dan Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Defence Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [90524]

  Mr. Spellar
  The key targets set for the UK Hydrographic Office in 1999-2000 are as follows:

  To process and promulgate priority safety information within stated timescales from receipt of data.

  To achieve 100 per cent. of the endorsed and funded Defence Programme to cost, quality and timeliness targets as defined in Tasking Authorisation Forms (TAFs).

  To meet short-notice Defence operational requirements within agreed timescales.

  To achieve, by 31 March 2001, 85 per cent. of commercial orders for standard paper navigational charts despatched in full within six working days of receipt, while fulfilling Defence requirements for standard paper navigational charts.

  To break even taking one year with another.

  To achieve an average Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) during the plan period of 7.5 per cent.

  To achieve efficiency savings of 13.5 per cent. of controllable costs (based on controllable costs for FY95-96) by 31 March 2001.

  Duke of York Royal Military School
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Duke of York Royal Military School for the financial year 1999–2000. [90573]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of The Duke of York's Royal Military School has been set the following key targets for 1999–2000:

  To achieve 100 per cent. of GCSE passes at grades A* to G.

  To achieve 5 or more GCSE passes at grades A* to C; 1999–2000 target is 86 per cent.

  To achieve 88 per cent. of A level passes at grades A to E.

  To achieve 3 or more A level passes at grades A to E; 1999–2000 target is 80 per cent.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 July. [88554]

  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 such meetings later today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his special advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89983]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive governments.

  Balkans (EU Appointments)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made on EU appointments in connection with the Balkans region; and if he will make a statement. [90120]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We fully supported the candidature of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for the post of the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Representative in Kosovo. The UNSG has now appointed Mr. Bernard Kouchner to the post: he will have our full support as he carries out his important duties. Mr. Joly Dixon, a UK national working for the European Commission, has been appointed Deputy Special Representative responsible for reconstruction in Kosovo.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to reply to the letter written by the hon. Member for Totnes on 29 May about Mr. and Mrs. Michael Perkins of Chillington, Kingsbridge, South Devon. [90105]

  Mr. Hoon
  The hon. Member's letter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was received in the Foreign and Commonwealth office on 18 June. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary will reply shortly.
  576
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 15 March, 22 April and 27 May, with regard to Mrs. J. Otakoro, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. [89957]

  Mr. Hoon
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied to my right hon. Friend's letters on 8 June 1999.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) of 22 June 1999,Official Report, columns 354–55, on qualified majority voting, when the decision to hold a European Union Inter-Governmental Conference in 2000 was made; what are the main headings and items to be considered at that conference; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to publicise the conference. [89393]

  Ms Quin
  The decision to hold an Inter-Governmental conference (IGC) in 2000 was made at the Cologne European Council on 3–4 June. The items to be considered are set out in the Presidency conclusions, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported on the decision to hold the Conference in his Statement to the House of 8 June 1999,Official Report, columns 463–79. The Government will ensure that Parliament is kept fully informed of developments in the IGC.

  Internal Histories
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1999, Official Report, column 116, for what reason the titles of internal histories remain classified; what the level of classification is; and how many internal histories exist. [89808]

  Mr. Hoon
  Titles of internal histories less than 30 years old which have not yet been cleared for release or publication remain confidential, because to disclose such information would be premature in relation to publication plans under Exemption 10 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The level of classifications vary and include up to Secret. The number of internal histories held by the FCO is not recorded centrally. So far 15 have been identified.

  European Budget
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 197, concerning activities authorised under lines 3706 and 3708 of the EU budget, when he will deposit the substantive reply in the Library. [89810]

  Ms Quin
  I wrote to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Borders (Mr. Maclean) on this subject on 22 March. Through an administration error, copies of my letter were not deposited in the Libraries of each House at the time. I have now arranged for copies to be sent.

  Debriefing (Ambassador)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions
  577
  Ministers from his Department have debriefed ambassadors from British business; if such ambassadors are required to declare this position in meetings with foreign representatives of Government; if Government policy is discussed; and if he will make a statement. [89821]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ambassadors for British Business attended a working meeting with Ministers in July 1998.

  When making appointments for the Ambassadors for British Business our overseas posts make clear to interlocutors their status.

  The Ambassadors for British Business are provided with briefing on British government policy for them to use as they feel appropriate. They are, however, free to express their own views during their Ambassador for British Business engagements. The objective of their role is to promote the UK's wider British Commercial interests drawing on their own experience and expertise.

  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to encourage a settlement of the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea and a cessation of the deportations between the two countries; and if he will make a statement. [89861]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have made frequent and regular representations to the Governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea, at all levels, both bilaterally and through the European Union. Our message has been clear: both sides must stop fighting immediately and implement the OAU Framework peace proposals.

  We have urged both sides to respect the rights of civilian populations. The Ethiopian Government have assured us that their policy of expulsion of Eritreans has now stopped. The Eritrean Government maintain that the Ethiopians leaving Eritrea have done so voluntarily. I discussed the situation with OAU Secretary-General Salim Salim on 28 May and underlined our continued support for the OAU Framework peace proposals.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that when a Minister of his Department next visits Turkey he or she discusses with the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Turkey the lack of response to letters that have been sent to him by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, regarding the decision taken by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mrs. Loizidou v. Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [89817]

  Ms Quin
  We continue to make clear to Turkey, including in the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers' Deputies, the need to respect the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey. We supported the decision of the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to write to the Turkish Foreign Minister on 22 June requesting clarification from 578
  Turkey on how it intends to implement the judgment. We look forward to his response, and will be interested to hear what progress is being made on the issue when we next meet at Ministerial level.

  Burma
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to improve the conditions of ethnic minorities in Burma. [89937]

  Mr. Hoon
  We take every opportunity to try to improve the conditions of ethnic minorities in Burma. We raise concerns both here and in Rangoon directly with the regime, most recently about repression in Kayah and Chin States. We are also active in international forums, for example co-sponsoring UN resolutions which put pressure on the regime to improve the human rights situation. We were instrumental in the adoption of a resolution by the International Labour Conference on 17 June which stated that Burma's behaviour, notably the continued use of forced labour (a major burden on ethnic minorities), was incompatible with ILO membership. And we support the work of the Burma Consortium for those who have fled regime repression.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what influence he is bringing to bear on behalf of the UK Government to stop the violence in Kashmir. [89893]

  Mr. Hoon
  As longstanding friends of Pakistan and India, we are deeply concerned by the continuing fighting in the Kargil sector of Jammu and Kashmir following armed infiltration across the Line of Control. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I, and our High Commissions in Islamabad and New Delhi, have urged both countries to work to lower tensions and to refrain from action which might escalate the fighting. We have reinforced our concerns in the EU statements of 27 May and 24 June and the conclusions on G8 Foreign Ministers on 31 May and heads of Government on 19 June.

  MOX Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1999, Official Report, column 116, on MOX shipments, if he will place that advice in the Library. [89814]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's position on this matter was recently re-examined by the DTI in the course of preparing a response to a letter on the same subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) sent to my colleague the Minister for Energy and Industry. The Minister's reply to my hon. Friend for Northfield sets out the detailed conclusions reached and reflects the advice of the UK Safeguards Office. This was the same advice as that on which I based my earlier statement. A copy of that reply has now been placed in the Library.

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

Begging
Lord Gladwyn Lord Gladwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking any action to discourage begging in London.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government recognise that many people feel intimidated by people begging on the streets and in other public places. Begging in a public place and much of the behaviour associated with it are already offences. The Metropolitan Police have a dedicated unit dealing with rough sleepers and begging. Joint operations are also run with London Transport Police, targeting begging on the Underground. The clear message is that if people want to help those in need, they should give to one of the homeless charities, not to individual beggars.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept fully that the police cannot prevent a certain amount of begging and that their resources are limited. But is he aware that it is the perceived increase in the numbers of babies and children used in begging, as confirmed by the social services departments of several inner London councils, on the streets and on the London Underground system which distresses Londoners most? Last winter, the Home Office stated that such practice would not be tolerated. Since it is obvious that the women holding the babies are highly organised, is there not a case for a more co-ordinated approach to that problem, indeed to begging as a whole, along the lines of the Rough Sleepers Initiative?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, are sound. In 1998, almost 1,600 offences of begging were recorded. Last year, the Metropolitan Police recorded only 27 cases of using a child for the purpose of begging—a distinct criminal offence—but recognise that there are likely to be many more. In terms of co-ordination, there has been a well-organised and co-ordinated exercise dealing with beggars with children on the Tube lines between Mile End and Tower Hill. The Metropolitan Police, Bethnal Green division, worked with social services and the NSPCC because all have an extremely relevant interest.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recently in Knightsbridge I was stopped by a young girl who tapped me on the arm and produced a placard saying, "Money for food. I am from Kosovo"? When I arrived here and informed people of the incident,
870
they told me that the Tube was full of such people and they were not from Kosovo. Will the Minister elaborate further on what he has already said?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, anyone who importuned the noble Baroness in Knightsbridge or anywhere else is a better man than I am, Gunga Din! I know of that practice because it happened to me also, but not in Knightsbridge. It seems to me that it is doubly wicked for people to pretend to be from Kosovo and to prey on public sympathy when they are not from there. As I said, it is an offence to have a small child with you for the purposes of begging. Very often, if one offers the price of a sandwich and offers to deliver the sandwich, one is spurned. That is because, I am sorry to say, what is wanted is money, not food. The police are aware of that. Certainly, there is an intensive operation in the Charing Cross area which is starting to work.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, many years ago, my training taught me that collecting alms was not begging if a service was provided with it, for example, singing or music. There is a growing tendency, particularly on the Tube, for people to "entertain" the prisoners travelling by that means. Does my noble friend agree with me that the way to proceed against those people might well be under the Trade Descriptions Act, in view of the quality of some of the entertainment?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend was wrongly instructed by his superior officer. As is well known, there are offences relating to the pretence of singing, playing, performing or offering anything for sale if that is being done with a child under the age of 16. As the noble Lord will doubtless recall, they arise under Section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what is being done about another nuisance, another kind of begging; namely, the practice commonly called "squeegee" performed by "squeegee merchants"? You have stopped in your car at the lights when somebody suddenly appears, cleans the windscreen when you do not want it cleaned, and then stands beside the vehicle in a somewhat intimidatory fashion and suggests you might like to give them some money? I ask what is being done about that, particularly in view of the fact that the Home Secretary said that when his party came into power that matter would be dealt with as a matter of great urgency.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is indeed a matter of great urgency, but it has been overcome in the urgency stakes by reform of this House. What I do with squeegee merchants—and I have the cleanest windscreen in the western world—is just sit there and say, "I haven't got any money".
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, not long ago—and not for the first time—I saw a woman with a small child sitting begging at the foot of an escalator on the Underground. On my rather amateur reading of the Children and Young Persons Act, I am in some doubt

871
whether she was committing what is still technically an imprisonable offence under that legislation or whether she was covered solely by railway by-laws. Can the Minister resolve the point? Further, is he in a position to say what policy the transport police follow in dealing with these very difficult cases?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is a potential criminal offence, both under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and also under the Vagrancy Act 1824. I am happy to reassure your Lordships that the policy of the London Transport Police is to target particular problem areas and to deal with the matter in as sympathetic and firm a way as possible. Some people who are begging are genuinely destitute, but I am afraid that many of them are not.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, following the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government have considered how many of the beggars, or what percentage of them, really are genuine refugees in real need?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, many of them are not. Indeed, quite a lot of those who pretend to be homeless have settled accommodation and many carry misleading literature, as indicated by the noble Baroness. This is a confidence trick on the public and an offence of dishonesty.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work of the 12 officers of the Homeless Persons' Unit in the Charing Cross area who are widely respected by agencies working with rough sleepers? Is he aware that their remit has now been extended beyond the West End to the whole of Westminster and that it is felt by them, and many others, that they can no longer do their job effectively?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that tribute. In fact, the Rough Sleepers' Initiative, which was launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, is focusing entirely on this matter with the intention of reducing the numbers of the homeless and those who sleep rough by two-thirds by the year 2001.

Justice for All: Litigants' Resources
2.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross asked Her Majesty's asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the legal system wealthy litigants have an unfair advantage against litigants of modest means; and, if so, whether this is consistent with their aim of justice for all.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I am afraid that, across the whole of life, superior resources can secure advantages over those who are not well off. The legal system is no exception. However, the
872
reformed legal system that I am trying to deliver aims to prevent litigants with superior resources gaining unfair advantages in litigation. That is a major objective of the new unified Court Procedure Rules, which require judges to ensure that cases are conducted in a manner proportionate to the issues in dispute and the means of both parties.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. The Question occurred to me some weeks ago when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in announcing limits to trial by jury said, when speaking about the present arrangements:
"Delay pollutes the system".—[Official Report, 19/5/99; col. 363.]
Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, characterised as "manipulation of the system" for the purposes of delay does not apply only to remand prisoners electing for trial in the Crown Court? Will he acknowledge that such "manipulation of the system" can also arise in civil cases, and in higher courts, where a wealthy litigant can "prolong interlocutory proceedings"—I believe that is the phrase—in order to delay the full trial of an action, with the effect, if not the intention, of exhausting the resources of a poorer litigant?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the most fundamental change brought about by the recent civil justice reforms is the introduction of active case management by the judges, with timetables set and policed by the courts. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, namely, that the civil system can be sought to be manipulated in the same way as my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn acknowledged the criminal system could be. But the object of active case management is to prevent that happening. The court can, and should, apply strict sanctions for non-compliance with its timetabling orders; for example, it can strike out a statement of case or order costs against a non-compliant party. The financially stronger party will no longer be able to dictate the pace of litigation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware how very welcome and encouraging his answers to this important Question have been? Further, will he concede that it is possible to take early action as regards this abuse of proceedings whereby very rich men can exhaust the resources of those much poorer than themselves?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, one of the objects of "hands-on" case management by judges is that it will deal directly with that situation. It is intended to bear down firmly on the twin evils of the law, which are excessive delay and excessive cost. This really puts the judges on trial to make case management work and deliver. However, I acknowledge that it requires a substantial culture change and a judicial determination

873
to impose tough sanctions to ensure that timetables are strictly observed and that unnecessary procedures are not indulged in for reasons of forensic advantage.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, may be referring to is an action of defamation in which a wealthy individual, the defendant, appears to grind down a plaintiff of more modest means. Can my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor say whether the law in any way assists a plaintiff of modest means to bring or defend an action of defamation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a very particular question in relation to defamation. I know not whether the noble Lord who tabled this Question had in mind an action of defamation, but I can appreciate that in an action of defamation a wealthy defendant could seek to manipulate the system so as to grind down the plaintiff. As I say, case management is now designed to prevent that. Of course, the legal costs of bringing or defending defamation actions are high. I intend to bring into force early next year an important provision of the Defamation Act 1996 to help those of modest means involved in defamation proceedings. There will be a new summary procedure. This will enable a judge to decide a case—where the defendant has no reasonable prospect of success whatsoever—without a jury and to decide it without the high costs of a long-drawn-out litigation. The remedies include an order that the defendant publish a suitable correction and apology and pay compensation of up to £10,000. Defendants of modest means will also benefit from this procedure because a judge can strike out a hopeless claim; that is, one where there is no reasonable prospect of success.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that his proposals to remove legal aid from personal injury actions permit wealthy insurance companies to grind down their opponents and that they have shifted the balance in favour of the insurance companies when personal injury actions are brought'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not accept that. I have to say to the noble Lord—as I think I have said to him before during our debates on the Access to Justice Bill—that this Government won the general election on a pledge that they would heat schools and hospitals as their major spending priorities. We did not pledge that legal aid should be our number one spending priority. Lawyers who have vested interests in maintaining the slack old ways of conventional legal aid will simply have to learn to live with that fact. Most personal injury cases which are worth while can be funded perfectly well through conditional fee agreements provided by the private sector. Scarce public funds should not be allocated to funding cases which can be effectively pursued by other means.

Residential Care Homes
2.53 p.m.
Lord Laming Lord Laming asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the responsibilities of local authorities for the continuing care of the elderly people they place in independently run residential homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, local authorities have an ongoing responsibility for people they support in residential care. We are aware, however, that local authorities do not always keep placements of older people under regular review. In our White Paper Modernising Social Services we have made it clear that when people are admitted to a care home case reviews should be carried out by the local authority within three months, and thereafter at least once a year.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. Does she accept that local authorities have moved from being the dominant providers of residential care to being principally purchasers of care? That being so, does the Minister agree that it is important to remind local authorities that they have a continuing responsibility both to ensure that a placement is appropriate for the needs of the individual and of good quality, and also regularly to review an individual's needs, as these change over a period of time?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord obviously speaks with a great deal of experience in this area. In 1990 policy guidance was issued to remind local authorities that they should review the needs of people in receipt of services, whether those services were provided by local authorities or commissioned by them. The noble Lord is right to point out that we should recognise that regular reviews offer benefits both for the individual and for the service as a whole. Under the fair access to care services initiative, we are taking steps to ensure that local authorities will be required to undertake regular reviews. We are consulting on the details at the moment and we intend to issue draft guidance to them in April 2000.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what can be done to help those people who undertake to pay for their own care in a home—they may choose to do so because they want to be independent or they may do so for some other reason—but find after a time that they run out of money? As I am sure the Minister knows, these people find themselves in a difficult position because local authorities can be unwilling to accept responsibility for these people who have tried to be independent. Can the Minister say how we can make life simpler and more seamless for these people?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the responsibility to review care will apply to the care needs of all people, whether they are in local authority homes or in

875
independent residential homes, when they are funded by a local authority. However, as the noble Baroness rightly points out, not everyone is funded by a local authority. The House has considered some of the problems that can arise in that situation, most recently when we considered the Statement that accompanied the report of the Royal Commission on long-term care. Some of the fundamental, underlying problems of the funding of long-term care have to be analysed in the context of that report.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, what has been the fate of the report of the committee which looked into standards of residential care in homes for the elderly, which I believe was submitted to the department in January? Further, what progress has been made by the national beds inquiry into the whole issue of delayed discharge from acute beds into residential homes which has been caused by the lack of clear eligibility criteria?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pinpoints a number of areas. He is right to suggest that we have to make sure that we have in place proper hospital discharge policies that take into account both the need for adequate hospital care but also the need for adequate provision of non-hospital care when that is most appropriate to the needs of the individual. That entails co-operation and partnership between local authorities and health authorities. It also entails—I come back to the issue of reviews—ensuring that placements continue to be appropriate. I believe that the reviewing of a placement after three months is particularly important. We are interested in fostering independence. We have to consider whether placements—which are often allocated as the result of an emergency situation—are still appropriate or whether they might be more appropriate for others. We do not want placements to become permanent by default.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many independently run residential homes are being squeezed by government in two ways? On the one hand, they are constantly being told to raise their standards of care but, on the other, they are told by local authorities to accept below inflation levels of fee increases, notwithstanding nationally imposed pay increases for nursing staff that are well above inflation? Does the Minister acknowledge that this squeeze is placing many residential homes in a very difficult financial position indeed?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are pressures on those providing services, whether in the public or the private sector. However, I do not think anyone would think it acceptable for us to abrogate responsibility for ensuring that standards in private placements are of an adequate quality, especially when—as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, reminded us—many of those placements are commissioned and paid for by local authorities.

The Post Office
3 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to privatise the Post Office, or any part of its operations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Statement on the Post Office made by Peter Mandelson on 7th December last made it clear that at present wholesale privatisation would not be a realistic option. It would take a long time to introduce, cause massive uncertainty and diminish the chance of immediate reform. Further details on the full package of reforms will be announced in the White Paper on Post Office reform which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expects to publish tomorrow.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his, as usual, courteous and helpful reply—although I am sure he will admit that on this occasion it was not very informative. Perhaps the Minister can assure the House of one matter which surely is not affected by any Statement on the Post Office. Will he reaffirm the undertaking that it will remain the Government's policy for the rest of this Parliament that there will continue to be one universal rate of postage, with daily collections and deliveries at no extra charge for remote rural areas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I always try to be courteous to the House. However, if I am informative, I apologise. I have no intention whatever of being informative when a Statement is being made tomorrow—and that applies to the noble Baroness's second question.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I am a national honorary life member of the Union of Communication Workers. Does my noble friend accept that there is absolutely no commitment in the Labour Party manifesto, on which we were elected to power on 1st May 1997, to privatise the Post Office or any part of it? Does he further accept that all the statements made between the 1st May 1997 and today have indicated that there is no intention to privatise any part of the Post Office? Can my noble friend assure me that that will continue to be the position of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in my first Answer I quoted directly from the Statement made by Peter Mandelson on 7th December, which was that at present wholesale privatisation would not be a realistic option. That remains the position.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, without revealing the details of any Statement which may or may not be made tomorrow, or of the White Paper which is to be published tomorrow, can the Minister say whether consideration has been given to changing the

877
Telecommunications Act so that the Post Office can not only, as now, receive items by electronic means, but also dispatch them by the same electronic means?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that may or may not be one of the issues which will be covered in the White Paper tomorrow.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the question of ownership of the Post Office is perhaps less relevant than the question of whether the Post Office can operate as a fully fledged commercial operation? Since the last Statement by his colleague in another place, is he satisfied that the Post Office has the power to have the appropriate pay structure in place to operate on an international scale, as it clearly seeks to do? Does he accept that there is inadequate transparency in the operations of the Post Office, in particular with regard to the prices that are being paid for international acquisitions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord may think that; I cannot possibly comment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, whatever gloss the Minister puts on it either today or tomorrow in the Statement, is not the creation of a plc with share capital the first step on the route to privatisation? Before the noble Lord dismisses that question, perhaps he will discuss the matter with his noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury, who will confirm that that is the way BP was privatised. Are we not right in thinking that the Post Office will join the Tote, air traffic control and BNFL on the list of Labour's privatisations now that it is a convert to privatisation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to make any assumptions he likes about tomorrow's White Paper and Statement; I shall not add to his speculation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does not the noble Lord accept that the question I asked was whether consideration has been given to a particular area of Post Office activity, not what the result of that consideration will be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, subject to the Statement made on the 7th December, consideration is given to all options.
Lord Monson: My Lords, given that first-class letters habitually take two days to cross London and that correctly addressed letters are being delivered to the wrong addresses with increasing frequency, can the Minister say what steps are being taken to improve Post Office efficiency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if that question is relevant to the original Question, I shall not answer it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the White Paper being published tomorrow, I realise how difficult it is to
878
ask the Minister a question. None the less, does he agree that the Post Office has performed extremely well in recent years? Does he further agree that this area has become a competitive market, with other post offices around the world building their businesses? Whatever may or may not be in the White Paper, is it not desirable that the Post Office in Britain should be put in the same position?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not at all difficult either to answer or to fail to answer these questions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his first statement; the Post Office has done a good job.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does not the Minister concede that what he has told the House this afternoon is in direct contrast to what the Prime Minister said yesterday?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think he dealt with this.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can my noble friend explain what he means by "no wholesale privatisation"? What does the word "wholesale" mean in that context?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I have said anything new, it was entirely unintentional. The words "wholesale privatisation" were spoken by Peter Mandelson on 7th December. I assume "wholesale" means the whole of the range of Post Office services. My noble friend could have asked that question on 7th December.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on Libya.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 237 [Appointment of members by the Mayor]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 326C:
Page 129, line 28, leave out ("Mayor of London") and insert ("Greater London Authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 326C, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 326D, 327, 328A, 330A, 353 and 354, all of which stand in my name and the names of my noble friends.
I and many of my noble friends have battered our heads against the wall of the Government in an attempt to increase the authority of the assembly and to involve it more in the activities of the Greater London Authority. In this particular instance we are doing so in relation to the appointment of the board of the London Development Agency, but I should perhaps advert to the basic problem as I do not expect to get a hopeful or optimistic answer from the Minister on this particular issue. I should say to him at this stage that I am minded to attempt a different approach to the problem. That will be after the Committee stage has been completed because we have gone past the parts of the Bill to which my remarks apply.
The problem arises because the Government have borrowed a part of American practice. The terminology that goes with that practice is somewhat in conflict with the terminology that goes with standard English practice. In standard English practice the authority is a democratically elected one—and across the United Kingdom that happens to be the council.
The difficulty that we have in relation to the Greater London Authority is that there appear to be two authorities: one is the mayor and the other is, in English practice, the assembly. We have bashed our heads against that problem on many occasions. It seems that a resolution will be brought about by amending the Bill elsewhere. A satisfactory solution might be found by making it clear that the Greater London Authority is in fact the mayor, and he has an assembly alongside for convenience to provide some monitoring and supervision in regard to what he is doing.
To return to Amendment No. 326C, the problem with the appointment of the whole of the board of the London Development Agency being entirely in the hands of the mayor is that it concentrates power too strongly into one pair of hands without there being adequate power for the decisions to be monitored and checked in advance. We believe that that is wrong. We believe that there should be more people involved than simply the mayor in a matter as important as the appointment of the board of the London Development Agency. Therefore, we have suggested a change in the wording to leave out "Mayor of London" and insert "Greater London Authority". According to Clause 2, the Greater London Authority will consist of the mayor and the assembly. The amendment is consistent with that. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: A number of amendments in my name and those of my noble friends are grouped with this amendment. We, too, are concerned about the respective roles in London. When examining this clause, I wondered whether it would be appropriate to try in some way to replicate the role of the Chambers outside London. I was not nearly so ambitious as to have a go at that kind of provision. I recognise that the assembly has been given a
880
role in the matters of appointment and so forth with which the amendments in this group are concerned.
For example, in regard to Amendment No. 327A dealing with appointments, I acknowledge that the Bill gives the assembly the role of acting as consultee. We seek to provide the assembly with the opportunity also to say no to appointments. We have said throughout our debates on the Bill that an opportunity will be lost if the scrutiny role of the assembly is down-played. We are told that that is not what the Government have in mind in their modernisation programme, and that they believe that a scrutiny body can scrutinise, as it were, in advance. To down-play the assembly's role would represent a great loss of opportunity as regards the talent that we hope will be available in the new body. While this is not the model that we would wish to see, with a mayor who will almost certainly be elected substantially on the basis of personality as well as politics—or possibly personality more than politics—it would be right for the 25 assembly members to play a restraining and a constructive role. The amendments that we have tabled in this group continue that thread in our argument.
I have referred to Amendment No. 327A. Amendment No. 333A relates to the appointment of chairmen of the new authority. Amendment No. 348A relates to the disposal of land for less than the market value, or acquiring an interest in another body. We believe that the assembly as well as the mayor should give consent in such a situation. Amendment No. 350A would allow the assembly a role in the period within which a public meeting is to be held following the publication of the annual report and provisions for the conduct of the meeting. I suspect that that whole area, bureaucratic as it may be, is one to which we may want to return in general with regard to the assembly at a later stage. Its good and effective workings depend on such provision.
Amendment No. 350B adds a requirement for the assembly to give consent before the LDA issues a compulsory purchase order. That could be an important part of its activities, Amendment No. 351A deals with a major matter—namely, if the LDA changes its name, it will be required to tell the assembly that it has done so. If the Minister tells me that I am being rather prescriptive, I shall accept his criticism. Amendment No. 351B would require the assembly to approve by a simple majority the decision of the mayor to remove a member of the LDA whom the mayor regards as unfit to carry on the functions. It would also give the assembly the power on its own to vote to remove an unfit member from office.
These are in themselves small matters, but they amount to important indicators as to the respective roles of the people who will have the responsibility to make sure that London, and London's regeneration, work well.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: This part of the Bill deals with the London Development Agency. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised explicitly, and to some extent also the noble Baroness, the amendments in this grouping relate back to the constitutional part of the Bill and how it feeds through into this section. Although they

881
may be related to matters dealing with the LDA, they stem from a difference of opinion on the respective roles of the mayor and the assembly.
In that context, I find it difficult to tackle the amendments each and severally, because they all stem from a fundamental difference. We propose that the mayor should play the executive decision-taking role in this as in other areas, and that the assembly should provide scrutiny of the mayor's actions. The majority of the authority's functions will be exercised by the mayor. They include all of the functions that are dealt with by these amendments: consenting to the appointment and remuneration of LDA staff; consenting to the acquisition of company shares; and approving the LDA strategy. Those are all functions exercisable by the mayor. It is not appropriate that those decisions should be exercised jointly, or partially jointly, with the assembly. That would not be a recipe for efficient and effective government, and it is not what we have discussed from the very beginning, prior to the referendum, in terms of how the authority operates.
The role of the assembly is very important. It is to hold the mayor to account for the way in which his executive functions are exercised. That is a model for good, accountable administration. All of these amendments seem, to suggest some degree of joint executive power in areas which we would reserve for the mayor. If we give joint executive power, how can the assembly then effectively scrutinise its own exercise of that executive power—and in particular, in relation to these amendments, with respect to the LDA? If the assembly is already party to the decision, or has second-guessed the mayor's decision, how can it then exercise an independent scrutiny function?
I do not wish to go any further, but the amendments undermine our essential approach. We believe that they would be unworkable, particularly in this area which relates to important economic decisions. If there were a difference of opinion on the nature of the regeneration plan for all or part of London and the assembly and the mayor could not reach a compromise, how would we be able effectively to operate the LDA's function? That is not a recipe for good government and, equally importantly, it is not a good recipe for improving the economy and prosperity of London.
I am open to pressure from the noble Lord to go further on particular amendments. However, I do not believe that it would shed any greater light on the group of amendments. This is a fundamental constitutional matter to which the noble Lord indicated he wished to return on Report. This kind of amendment is probably best dealt with in that context, not this. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply which was neither more nor less than I expected. As I said when I moved the amendment, we have had this debate on a number of occasions. The Government have been firm in their view, but the root cause of the difficulty is that there is a difference in terminology between the place from which this idea
882
came and the practice in this country. We need to recognise that, but that recognition cannot be achieved through the amendments.
I do not propose to press the individual amendments. However, in response to one comment made by the Minister, it seems to me that we should all be concerned if there was no agreement between the mayor and the assembly. The Minister posed the rhetorical question: How would we then obtain action? Democratic practice in this country has been that we proceed by agreement. In the new authority, if there is no agreement but there can still be action, we may find that at some point we are stepping into dangerous territory. With that slight hesitation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 326D to 327A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 328 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 328A not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 328B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 329 or 330.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 328B:
Page 129, line 33, leave out from ("effect,") to end of line 38 and insert ("the membership of the London Development Agency shall include—

(a) at least two elected members of the Assembly, and

(b) at least two elected members of a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London.

() In this section a reference to elected members shall refer to their being elected members at the time of their appointment.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 329, 330, 331, 332 and 352 in the names of other Members of the Committee. I should be happy if Amendment No. 328B were accepted without discussion, but that is probably an unrealistic ambition. I am sure that the Lord Chairman's warning about pre-emption will not preclude discussion of the matter.
Clause 237(9) provides for the mayor to make certain appointments. They include four members of the agency who are, for the purpose of my amendment members of the London assembly, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London. Whether they are or were such at the time of their appointment is an irrelevant distinction. For most purposes in the Bill, the latter is grouped with the London borough councils.
My amendment proposes that rather than being able to appoint four members from any one or a group of those categories, the mayor should appoint at least two members of the assembly and at least two members of a London borough or of the Common Council of the City of London. The London boroughs have an interest in the issue of regeneration. It is obviously accepted in the clause that it would be a good thing if members of a London borough council were able to be appointed to the new agency. However, the mayor could take the view that no London borough councillors should be appointed because the appointees could all come from

883
the assembly or, conversely, that no assembly members should be appointed. This takes us a little into the area of the respective roles, which we have been discussing. I confess that I am a little puzzled that members of the assembly are eligible for appointment to the London Development Agency, after the description given by the Minister of the assembly's role in all this.
However, I accept that the people concerned should be members of the assembly and members of London boroughs, and my amendment would ensure that that happened. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Grouped with Amendment No. 328B are my Amendments Nos. 329, 330, 331, 332 and 352. They have somewhat similar but not quite identical purposes to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment No. 329 seeks to ensure that the members of the London Development Agency who come from the London assembly, the Common Council of the City of London or a London borough council are there as of right. Thus it would not be possible in the first instance to appoint four members from that category in the Bill from one particular authority. So the amendment ensures that the representation comes from a wider area than would be possible under the drafting of the Bill, as I understand it.
Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 seek to delete from Clause 237, page 130, lines 1 and 6, the words, "appear to the Mayor to be persons". The mayor has to appoint people who are businessmen and not, as the wording of the Bill loosely puts it, "people who appear to be businessmen". I find that wording passing strange. That is the reason for the amendments.
Amendment No. 352 takes us to the relevant sub-paragraph of Schedule 20 towards the end of the Bill. Its purpose is to ensure that membership of those outside bodies is the prime qualification for serving on the London Development Agency. If the persons concerned cease to be members of the body from which they are appointed, they cease to be members of the London Development Agency and a successor must be appointed. Again, the purpose is deliberate, it is to ensure that the members appointed from the bodies—whether from one of the London borough councils or from the assembly—are active members of the body from which they come rather than someone who was, at the time of his appointment, a member of such a body.
As I understand the current drafting, someone from the Greater London Assembly could be appointed to serve on the London Development Agency and continue to serve on that body until the mayor chose to appoint his successor. That could take a long time and might go beyond the next election. That individual might have been away from the assembly for 10 years but would still be eligible if his appointment was continuous and it was not revised in that time. The Minister may say that that is an unlikely scenario, as it may well be. However, the fact is that under the present drafting that is a possibility. We should try to improve the drafting. It may be that the wording of my amendment is not as precise as the Minister or—perhaps more importantly—the parliamentary draftsman requires. Nevertheless,
884
I ask the noble Lord to give serious consideration to these particular issues. I would be very happy if he was prepared to look at them and see whether some tightening of the drafting was desirable.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: There is a certain element of déjà vu in relation to these amendments for reasons that are entirely different from the previous group. We went into many of these issues when we debated the Regional Development Agencies Bill, which is now an Act. Although we wish to have a minimum spread of experience on the agency board, we want people who can contribute to the aims of the board, in particular its economic ones, and who can act together with the various private and public institutions within the region. The same applies to London. People on the board are not representative in that sense; they are there because of their talents and experience.
Amendments Nos. 352 and 352A would allow the mayor to make it a condition of appointment that a member must resign, or cease to be chair or deputy chair, if he ceases to be an elected member of a local authority. We debated this matter at length in considering the RDA Bill. That kind of rigidity would not be conducive to the good working of the agency, and somebody of great experience could be removed directly if that happened. Clearly, the mayor must exercise a degree of judgment, but that rigidity is not appropriate. Nor is it desirable that local authority members should lose office automatically on ceasing to hold elected office. Presumably, former members of a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the assembly, will still be able to bring valuable experience to the board's deliberations.
The Government have thought carefully about this in relation to this Bill and the wider context of RDAs. Clause 237 ensures that if there were only three such members on the board of the LDA the next appointment would have to be an additional member of such a council. This achieves much the same end, in that the representation of local authorities will be maintained but in a manner that is flexible and not too prescriptive.
Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 replace the requirement that half the board members including the chair must be persons who appear to the mayor to have experience of running a business to an absolute requirement that they have such experience. We have implemented the general policy on RDAs so that in London the LDA should be business-led, using a practical test which follows the model adopted for the Welsh Development Agency with some success over the years. At least half the board, including the chair, must be people who seem to the mayor to have experience of running a business. We do not wish to see anyone on the board who is there to represent a particular interest group, as would happen if Amendment No. 331 was accepted. Board members are there to use their skills and experience for the common good.
It is true that there may be many views as to what constitutes experience of running a business and the appearance of so doing. Nevertheless, this is a fairly

885
common phraseology which indicates that the mayor is left with a degree of discretion in this area. I believe that it would be inappropriate, certainly on the face of the Bill, to remove that discretion. We are looking for people with experience and a balance of backgrounds, but the requirements in this set of amendments would be inappropriate from both points of view. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister appeared to deal with the group by starting at the end and finishing at the beginning. I am not sure that he has answered my point. My concentration may well have lapsed. My point was not related to subsection (10), to which I turn in my next amendment, but the division between members of the assembly and members of local authorities. Perhaps I should read the Minister's reply in Hansard and see whether the point has been covered.
Lord Whitty: In my opening sentence I indicated my belief that Amendment No. 328B and some of the other amendments fixed the requirement too rigidly in relation to local authority representation. I also indicated that we had been over these arguments once or twice before. I recall that the noble Baroness was herself involved in some of those exchanges. Perhaps I took a shortcut, for which I apologise.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not believe that I have been involved in this debate before because, by definition, it could not have arisen in the development agencies in the other regions. Hoy/ever, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 329 and 330 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I must point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 330ZA is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 330A to 331A inclusive.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 330ZA:
Page 129, line 39, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Baroness said: Grouped with Amendment No. 330ZA is Amendment No. 331A, to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will speak. Amendment No. 330ZA is again about the business experience of members of the new agency. I have heard the observations of the Minister about the need for business experience and I do not ask him to repeat that part of his explanation. I take this opportunity to ask how and if that provision fits with Section 2(3) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. As the Minister said, we spent a great deal of time on that Act and Section 2(3) was amended during the passage of that legislation following some very energetic work on the part of Members of your Lordships' House.
In making appointments under that section, the Secretary of State shall consult—I do not suggest that he appoints on the basis of representative capacity—those who represent local authorities, employers and employees within the area and individuals who may
886
represent the interests of those who live, work or carry on business in rural parts of an agency's area. I accept that London is not comparable with, say, the south west, although my noble friend Lord Beaumont and I both made the point during the passage of the RDA Act that London should certainly have regard to the relationship with its own hinterland. In view of the way in which both the authority and the London Development Agency will operate, they need to be very much aware of the effect of what happens in London on surrounding areas. London of course has a few areas that are slightly less urban than others, but that is a different issue.
What happens to the consultation, given that, for instance, those who represent employees working in the area may well have particular views about business which are different from those of employers? I should like to be reassured that those interests will be taken into account in the appointments. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 331A. Earlier, with reference to Amendment No. 328B, the noble Lord the Minister said, with what I think was a slightly wry smile, that we might all have different opinions about what running a business means. This amendment goes to the heart of that matter.
The mayor, for instance, may have no experience at all of business. He or she may have no reference point by which to judge the candidates wishing to be on the LDA. Indeed, he or she may well have rather a different opinion about running a business from that of the existing members of the LDA. I have been involved in business for 25 years, and I probably have some strange ideas about what running a business does and does not mean. So it is not necessarily the case that even those involved in business have all the answers, but they will probably have a better idea than the mayor, who may well have been immersed in politics for a number of years. That is no slur on any candidates for that office who are present today.
However, we suggest a rather different model. It seems to us sensible to have a shortlist of three drawn up by the London Business Board, which is effectively a triumvirate comprising the London Chamber of Commerce, London First and the CBI. We on these Benches suggest that that would be an effective way of making sure that the best candidates were sourced and then identified, so that from that shortlist of three the mayor could pick the appropriate candidates.
Lord Whitty: To answer the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the mayor is under a duty to consult in all of his functions, including this one, and with regard to the range of people and representatives to whom the noble Baroness refers.
Read literally, Amendment No. 330ZA would in effect remove the requirement that the board be business-led, and would therefore have almost the opposite effect to that which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks. We have indicated that we want the RDAs to be business-led, and have implemented that policy in the RDAs generally. At least half the board, including the chairperson, must comprise people who have had experience of running a business.

887
Once we stipulate the organisations that will nominate and put up a shortlist of three to the mayor—rather as, I assume, the Church of England puts up nominations for Bishops to the Prime Minister—they become representative of those who put them forward.
I recognise the importance of the three organisations that make up the London Business Board. Nevertheless, neither they nor anybody else should be regarded as having somebody who is representative of them on the board; representative of the kind of experience that their members have, certainly, but not nominated through a formal process as stipulated in Amendment No. 331A. Although I note the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I do not believe that the way in which he is seeking to achieve them is appropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness will seek leave to withdraw her amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may say that I am somewhat disappointed by what the noble Lord the Minster has said. I had hoped that he could, without accepting a need for the amendment to be on the face of the Bill, give a rather better nod in the direction of the way in which the organisations in question might be involved. I can think of few better people to be involved in rigorously examining the potential members of the London Development Agency than, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, before whom a number of candidates have quailed in the past when seeking chief executive jobs. There is expertise there and it should be recognised. Simply relying on the mayor's judgment in those circumstances is not adequate.
Baroness Hamwee: Applicants may have quailed before the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, but my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was not here the other night when the noble Lord reassured the Committee, in a debate on chairs and chairmen, that he had always insisted on being called Allen, so they should not have quailed.
I accept that if we removed the requirement for business appointments, that would sink my noble friend's amendment, but we are exploring the whole area in general terms, so, although there may seem to be an inconsistency, there is no inconsistency in our inquiries. The point linking my noble friend's amendment and mine goes back to the Regional Development Agencies Act. The mayor is to be required to consult those who represent, employers in the agency's area. I hope that we shall at any rate receive an acknowledgement from the Minister that the organisations to which my noble friend referred will be among those consulted.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: If the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to ask whether this is a parallel form of consultation to that which is in the general RDA Act,
888
the answer is "Yes", because subsection (10) effectively transposes that provision, with the exception to which the noble Baroness has referred.
Baroness Hamwee: We have exhausted this subject—for the moment, at any rate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 330A to 332 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 333:
Page 130, line 7, at end insert—
("() Proposed members shall complete a declaration detailing their business interests, whether they have been made bankrupt, been a party to voluntary arrangements, whether there are any judgements against them, whether they have been convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty or an offence under legislation (whether or not of the United Kingdom) relating to companies (including insider dealing), building societies, banking or other financial services, or if they have been disqualified as a director or of any other material information, and this declaration should be publicly available for inspection one month before appointment"").
The noble Lord said: I hope that with this amendment we move on to what might be considered to be slightly more fertile territory.
The amendment proposes that members appointed to the London Development Agency shall complete a declaration similar to that made by company directors of listed plcs. This would provide a considerable safeguard against the possibility of misappointment.
It may be a matter of regret, but things have occasionally gone wrong in local government, so I believe that we are entirely right to insist on the highest possible code of ethical practice in this area, especially as the LDA will be dealing with the disbursement of public money.
The amendment is certainly worthy of consideration. The noble Lord the Minister may feel that it is a sufficient defence to say, "The Regional Development Agencies Bill did not have such a clause". That is, of course, a plausible defence, but if something could have been done to improve that Bill, which we did not see at the time, it would be entirely appropriate on this Bill, when we are dealing with a parallel arrangement, to insert the improvement. That is the purpose of the amendment. I hope that the Government will consider it very seriously. It is unexceptionable and should be welcomed. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment requires proposed members of the LDA board to complete a declaration covering certain issues which might render them unsuitable to serve on the board. But it does not provide for what should happen at the end of the month during which the declaration is made publicly available. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is apparently seeking to have publicity without seeking to use the classifications in his amendment as a means of debarring people from appointment.
We believe that the appointment process consists of the mayor seeking the views of interested parties on who might be appointed, then appointing the candidates of his or her choice. The suggestions made will inform but not constrain. The mayor will no doubt wish to vet

889
potential appointees, but we believe that it would be inappropriate to specify in the detail proposed in the amendment as to how that should be clone.
It is fundamental that the mayor is given the responsibility for making key decisions and we do not wish to be unduly prescriptive. We believe that the amendment would be so. The mayor is answerable to the electorate for the quality of his or her decisions, and any mayor must be very well aware that public confidence in the LDA board is one of the preconditions for its success.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggested, there is the constraint that if a member of the LDA becomes bankrupt" that is a valid ground for removal from office. That is one of the conditions that we accepted during the recent passage of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. We believe that that is sufficient, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: Having listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and to the Minister, I do not know whether I am alone in finding the Minister's response disappointing. There is considerable merit in the noble Lord's proposals, because board membership is an important job and half the board will be composed of business people. It is important that they are seen not to have conflicts of interest and that they have the confidence of Londoners in the running of the LDA.
The Minister did not suggest any alternatives and she did riot mention any drafting objections to the amendment. She said that the amendment was not appropriate, but she gave no real assurance that there would be a robust system for declarations of interest in any form. Perhaps she could explain the process as she envisages it. The situation can be tricky if people have wide business interests with some geographical overlap. It is important that those who belong to the LDA and become board members understand the considerable public transparency that is required of them. The amendment would go a long way to serve that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is referring to two different issues. The amendment deals solely with prescribing on the face of the Bill the mechanism for identifying a particular set of past actions that we may all expect the mayor to take into account; it does not deal with the declaration of current interests. The issue to which the noble Lord spoke is dealt with elsewhere.
Lord Clement-Jones: I hope that the Minister will excuse me for intervening again, but the amendment states:
"Proposed members shall complete a declaration detailing their business interests".
Then it continues by describing the other aspects.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, but the issue to which the noble Lord spoke—and the important issue at this stage of the Bill—is whether publicity is
890
given to the declaration of interests. The noble Lord will find that other parts of the Bill deal with declarations of interest.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I regret to say that I found the Minister's response disappointing, although I would accept that perhaps the amendment we have proposed is deficient because it does not propose a specific line of action as a consequence of an aspect of the declaration revealing, shall we say, a flaw in a person's curriculum vitae that should disbar him or her from sitting on the board of the LDA. I wondered for a few optimistic moments whether, if we could come to an agreement on the additional words that would be necessary to bring that about, the Government might be willing to accept the amendment. Subsequently, the Minister left me with the view that I was being wildly optimistic.
Whether we put the point on the face of the Bill or not, the mayor would be wise to require such a declaration of anybody he was proposing to put on the board of the LDA. It could be argued that that is a different matter that should be left to the mayor's discretion, but our job is to secure a situation in which only the highest ethical and business standards apply in the management and direction of the LDA. Without a mandatory provision, such as contained in the amendment, the process will not pass muster when we consider whether we have done our best to safeguard the future of London.
Lord Clement-Jones: I suspect that Schedule 2, paragraph 8, of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 was the subject of the Minister's comments when she said that declarations of interest were dealt with later in the Bill. That paragraph simply requires declarations of members' interests case by case, after the event, but that is not as full a requirement as that envisaged by the amendment.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: No businessman who should be considered for such a nomination would find it strange to agree to such a declaration, because we sign such things all the time for the Stock Exchange and for other purposes. We would not put off anyone who should not be put off by the process.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Sheppard on this important issue. I invite the Minister to consider what has been said. I shall also consider what has been said, but we will need to return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 333A not moved.]
Clause 237 agreed to.
Clause 238 [Delegation of functions by Ministers to the Mayor]:
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 334 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 334A to 334C inclusive.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 334:
Page 130, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The amendment is in essence a probing amendment, and I expect that the Government will be relieved to hear that. It is our view that in general the Bill will give too much power, in respect of the mayor and the new London institutions, to the Secretary of State.
Clause 238(2) would undermine to a certain extent the possible activities of the LDA and should therefore be deleted. The LDA should have absolute certainty about its likely role and responsibilities, and should be accountable to, but independent of, the mayor in the conduct of its operations. The business community, too, should have a clear idea of the role of the London Development Agency. We believe that the subsection which we propose to delete confuses that clarity and could result in functions that ought properly to be exercised by the regional development agencies, and which would indeed be exercised by the regional development agencies anywhere else in England, being exercised by the mayor, who, as was said in response to earlier amendments, might for very good reasons have no business experience at all. We do not think that that would be appropriate. We believe that deleting the subsection would help to clarify matters. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendments Nos. 334A and 334B seek to exercise some constraint on the considerable powers given to the mayor. Our amendments provide for the assembly to have a role in that its approval would be required.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In replying to the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will allow me to put on the record that we always read and consider very carefully the points that are raised during debate on any of the amendments.
Section 6 of the Regional Development Agencies Act provides for the delegation of certain functions, described as "eligible" functions, by Ministers to RDAs and lays down the conditions under which such delegations can be made, varied and revoked. Clause 238 amends Section 6 so that a Minister may delegate any eligible function to the mayor or, with the mayor's consent, to the LDA. Such delegations are to be under the same terms as delegations to RDAs outside London, which includes making the delegation subject to such conditions as the Minister sees fit.
Any such delegated function can be further delegated by the mayor to the LDA under Clause 31 of the Bill. However, if it is delegated to the LDA in this way, the mayor is obliged to attach conditions to this delegation to ensure that the conditions attached by the Minister to the original delegation are satisfied. Amendment No. 334 would ensure that Ministers could only delegate economic development functions, under the Regional Development Agencies Act, to the LDA and not to the mayor and that the mayor's consent would not be
892
required for that. Therefore, the amendment would undermine our proposals.
Amendments Nos. 334A and 334B would require the assembly's consent for ministerial functions to be delegated to the LDA or to the mayor. It is fundamental to the model of government that we are proposing that the mayor should play an executive decision-taking role and the assembly provide scrutiny of the mayor's actions. The role of the assembly is to hold the mayor to account for the way in which his functions are exercised. That is a model for good, accountable administration and is the principle that runs through the Bill.
Amendment No. 334C seeks to delegate to the LDA a miscellany of functions and funding regimes. The first of these is, in fact, already provided for in Section 36 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. This allows the Secretary of State to direct the Urban Regeneration Agency to transfer to RDAs appropriate properties, rights and liabilities as a consequence of the RDAs carrying out the functions of the URA in their regions. I can assure the noble Lord that we intend to make such a transfer, when the LDA is established, on 3rd July next year.
The second would go beyond the functions delegated to other RDAs and, indeed, was debated during the passage of the RDA Bill. Assisted areas define where government can give specified financial support to industries, and we have decided that this should be reserved for Ministers as at present. The RDAs will, however, have an important role in advising on applications for assistance.
The third would allow for Ministers to delegate to the LDA the administrative functions of the structural funds, currently carried out by the Government Office for London. Like the RDAs elsewhere, the LDA is likely to be a recipient of structural funds and it would therefore be inappropriate for the LDA to allocate as well.
The fourth would specify that administration of the SRB in London should be delegated to the LDA.
Baroness Hamwee: We have not reached Amendment No. 334C. I certainly do not want my noble friend to feel that he cannot make his point, although he is listening intently to the answer.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise to the Committee. Two things have happened. First, my noble friend the Minister is at present appearing before a Select Committee and, secondly, the amendments have been ungrouped. Therefore, I was not as fully prepared as noble Lords could reasonably expect for this group of amendments. I apologise to the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones.
Baroness Hamwee: I was responsible for the degrouping. I did so so that my noble friend could make his point with great eloquence and with his customary brevity.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: As I understand what the Minister said and what has been said elsewhere, the

893
property role of English Partnerships will be picked up within the LDA. If I am right about that, it is really a question of the detail of how that is to happen. Some key sites in London are sensibly handled nationally with English Partnerships. The Dome, the whole of the Greenwich peninsula and the Royal docks are examples. When those property functions are delegated, those will presumably come back within the orbit of the mayor and LDA.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps it would help the Minister if I made my speech on Amendment No. 334C at this juncture as it is a probing amendment. That will give the Minister an opportunity to consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard.
It is extremely important that certain powers are delegated to the mayor and to the authority. It is important that we get regional government right. This will be the first of what we on these Benches hope will be a model to be followed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the delegated powers that are passed down to the mayor will be of great importance.
There is no doubt that the current powers of the DETR are of considerable importance. The Government Office for London exercises considerable powers. I was a director of Brixton Challenge for a number of years and I know that the financial power that was exercised by GOL was considerable and was often extremely beneficial. But it is important that we ensure fairly and squarely that the mayor and the assembly have the resources that they need to tackle the problems of London.
I said that this is a probing amendment. We have tried to pick the four most important elements that would be needed by the mayor in order to have a proper regeneration strategy for London. For instance, the strategic sites owned by English Partnerships—the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, mentioned this point—are extremely important. Unless the mayor has the right to control those, he will have one hand tied behind his back when he is trying to devise a regeneration strategy for London.
Secondly, if one does not have the right to consider the assistance given in assisted areas which are relevant to London, one will not have the ability to regenerate in some of those key deprived areas of London. Thirdly, the allocation of European Union structural funds have been for many years an important resource. Fourthly, the fact that boroughs fight greatly over the resources represented by the single regeneration budget—until recently called the challenge budget; it is now a much broader animal—indicates the importance of those resources to London. Assurances by the Government that those are the kinds of powers that they plan to delegate to the mayor would be useful and important. Indeed, it would be interesting to hear about other powers the Government plan to delegate.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall attempt seamlessly to move from the start of my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, before he spoke without repeating the answer.
894
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, asked whether the LDA will have responsibility for the English Partnerships' areas in London. Yes, but not for the Dome and the peninsula in particular. The other examples he gave were different. The LDA has a broad range of functions. The delegated functions are intended to allow a delegation of funding regimes such as SRB or other particular functions that fit within the general framework of RDA powers. It is fundamental to the style of government being created that the mayor is given responsibility for making key decisions. The LDA is an executive body working to and supporting the mayor. In the end the mayor is answerable to the electorate for the quality of his or her decisions. To give the LDA board the power to take on extra functions, possibly against the mayor's wishes, would be a recipe for conflict and would undermine the close working relationship between the two.
I hope that in reading Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will feel that in total the points he raised have been replied to. If not, I shall be only too pleased to write to him in detail so that we can ensure that his questions are answered properly; and I shall of course send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply in two parts. I recall to some degree the former replies. I hope that at Report stage the Minister can give somewhat more concrete assurances. The noble Baroness gave assurances over SRB. She gave some welcome assurances in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. I suspect that the replies over EU funding and assisted areas funding were not so satisfactory. We shall read Hansard, mark the reply out of 10 and return to the issue at another time.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Having moved the original amendment, I shall study with interest the subsequent debate. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 334A to 334C not moved.]
Clause 238 agreed to.
Clause 239 [The London Development Agency strategy]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): If Amendment No. 335 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 335A through pre-emption.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 335:
Page 131, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 4 and insert ("submit to the Mayor, the Assembly, the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 337, 338, 340, 341, 344 and 346.
Amendment No. 335 is designed to diminish somewhat the power of the mayor to direct the London Development Agency. That power is at the expense of many other elected and legitimate business interests

895
across London. If the LDA is to take forward a development strategy for London, it has to be done in partnership not only with the assembly of the GLA but also with the boroughs, borough councillors and members of the Common Council of the City. All those people have their place and part to play in the total administration of London. If they are not part of that process, the Bill will not work to the best interests of Londoners.
London is sometimes described as a collection of villages or communities. "Villages" has a geographic connotation which is not particularly appropriate. There are communities of interest between industries and aspects of commerce as well as the geographic location. All those people have to be involved. That is the background to Amendment No. 335.
Amendment No. 337 seeks to place a little more responsible activity into the hands of the assembly. I imagine that I am butting my head against a wall; but we shall continue to do so and to find a solution.
Amendment No. 338 is an interesting amendment. It puts the modification of the LDA's plan into the mayor's hand, placing the mayor in a scrutiny role, which is the role of the assembly.
Amendment No. 341 is somewhat novel. It states that if a third of the boroughs are not content with the LDA strategy, it should go back to the mayor and the agency to be reconsidered. That may seem drastic action, but for the reason I have explained, we seek to make London work as a community. If a large section of the important local administration of London is not content with the strategy, then perhaps it should be reconsidered.
Amendment No. 344 removes the mayor's power to direct the LDA in arriving at its strategy. He could give it guidance. If the mayor has power to direct, he might as well be the London Development Agency. I cannot think why we need to bother 15 or 18 good men and true with the problem of running the London Development Agency if they can be told exactly what they have to do and how they have to do it. That may be held to be an unreasonable view, but I do not think that it is. If we can confine the mayor to providing guidance, we shall give him a genuine job. If we leave him with the power to direct, we may not. That is the reason for Amendment No. 344.
Amendment No. 346 returns us to the same old theme of knocking our heads against the wall. My father used to say that the only good thing about knocking one's head against the wall was that it was pleasant when one stopped. I think that we shall be able to stop and do something else when we reach Report stage. In the mean time, this is quite a considerable grouping of amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We may stop banging our heads against the wall, but the pain will not go away if we have not convinced the Government to tweak their model and leave London with the form of authority that we think would be best. Of course, there are varying views across the Chamber.
896
I shall speak briefly to my amendments in this group. The first amendment, Amendment No. 335, takes me back—it may not do so for others—to the debates that we had about consultation on the mayor's strategies, of which the London Development Agency strategy is one. During those debates, I was worried about the distinction between creating a strategy and exercising the functions so far as consultation is concerned. In most business organisations, a strategy is determined before one does something that one has identified as being necessary in the strategy. The noble Lord's speech in support of the amendment provides a good example. It is important that the strategies obtain as wide a consensus and support as possible through a consultation process in order to reduce the areas of dispute when the functions come to be exercised. In that sense, I agree with the noble Lord's approach to the matter.
Our Amendment No. 335A in this group makes a similar point by saying that the LDA should have regard to the views of the assembly when it presents its strategy to the mayor; in other words, there should be some co-operation. Amendment No. 336A requires the submission of the strategy—the previous amendment referred to the draft strategy—to the assembly. Amendment No. 347YA seeks to remove the requirement that the mayor should have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance when it is referred to in this context in relation to the exercise of the LDA's functions.
I wonder whether that is necessary as we have been told on other occasions—possibly in the context of consultation rather than guidance, but it begins to blur slightly—that those who will carry out these offices must act reasonably and follow guidance, consult or whatever. Having done that, they must then have regard to any comments in response or, in this case, have regard to the guidance. I am a little unclear as to whether some inconsistency runs through the Bill. However, the noble Lord's central point is important—and perhaps not just with regard to the LDA's strategy.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: If the Minister is not certain about which of the amendments I am commenting on, that probably makes two of us! I refer to the general area of delegation and input into the strategies.
The Government may have to consider one area of strategy against the background of the recent White Paper on the subject of skills. We shall clearly not achieve economic regeneration in London or an inclusive society unless we do dramatically better than we have done in the past 50 years in the area of skills development. The Government's RDA guidelines call for a regional skills strategy. That is not laid down in the strategies, but it is implicit in them.
While they are reviewing other authorities and inputs, will the Government examine the recent White Paper, Learning to Succeed, which attempted to carry forward the debate a long way and to achieve inputs on that subject? Will the Government consider whether that has any implications for the GLA Bill? How will we ensure that the mayor and the LDA are involved fully in that skills improvement?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 335 would require the draft strategy to be sent to

897
the assembly, the boroughs and the City of London. That is unnecessary because such consultation is required already by virtue of Clause 34 to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. The noble Baroness recalled from our debate in Committee on Clause 34 that persons whom the mayor is obliged to consult about any proposed strategy include the boroughs and the Common Council. We recognise their special role in taking decisions on an economic development strategy for London, and they will be consulted by the mayor.
In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised the wider theme of partnership. If people have a legitimate interest in the strategy—as the local London authorities will certainly have—it is inconceivable that they will not be involved fully in the development of that strategy. Unless there is a dialogue with the interested parties, the LDA's strategy will not secure support and will not be successful. That does not mean that these bodies should have the right to veto or to vet the strategy. In some cases, the LDA, will have to take hard decisions. However, at the same time, it will aim to carry the bodies with it if the strategy is to be meaningful.
The noble Baroness referred also to the removal of the mayor's power of direction over the LDA as proposed in Amendment No. 344, which would possibly increase the likelihood that the draft strategy would fail to meet the mayor's requirements. If this amendment were agreed to, it would be unhelpful to the agency and would put great stress on the power of the mayor to modify the strategy. The mayor's power of direction—covering contents, preparation, submission and review of the strategy; this point is relevant to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—parallels the power of the Secretary of State to direct RDAs outside London on their strategies. It will provide a framework within which the LDA, which is essentially an executive arm of the mayor, can produce its draft. There would be little point in the LDA producing a draft strategy that did not reflect the mayor's views as the mayor is ultimately responsible for the strategy and has the power to modify the draft.
However, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have raised an interesting point and we shall consider whether the mayor's power to direct is too heavy-handed. In saying that and in agreeing to consider this point, I must stress that the mayor must be happy with the strategy for which he or she is responsible.
We believe that Amendments Nos. 3.35A, 336A, 337, 338, 339A, 340 and 346—I read those out most carefully to ensure that we are considering the same grouping—would undermine the separation of powers on which the GLA's structure is based and would require the mayor and assembly jointly to agree what modifications should be made to the LDA's draft strategy. If the assembly took part in the joint exercise of these executive functions, it would be unable to perform its scrutiny role with respect to the LDA strategy.
Amendment No. 341 would require the assembly and the mayor to modify the strategy, if it were rejected by a third of the boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London. However, it does not provide any mechanism by which the assembly and the mayor could jointly agree
898
on the revisions to be made. In any case, we believe that the provision would be unworkable. It seems a little undemocratic if the wishes of two-thirds, who would presumably be supporting the strategy, were overridden by the views of a minority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of directions from the Secretary of State. We have proposed that the Secretary of State should be able to give guidance on matters to be covered or issues to be taken into account in the strategy. That would be possible only if this ran counter to national policy or could cause detriment to areas outside London. That point was raised in earlier debates by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We believe that these are the minimum central controls necessary to ensure, first, that the mayor has power to act and, secondly, that the mayor is not able to compromise issues of national importance or of importance to other regions.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, mentioned the skills strategy. It is a key function of all the RDAs, including the LDA. Amendment No. 347YA would remove part of that minimum framework which guarantees the structure in which the various powers come together. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I understand the noble Baroness's comment about tweaking. However, I am sure that she recognises a coherence to the proposals before the Committee.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I am ready to accept the fact that there is a coherence, but I hope that the Minister will accept our need to record that it is a coherence we do not support and that we are doing so increasingly briefly.
In dealing with the mayor's regard to guidance, the Minister referred to complying with national policy and the directions that are given if the Secretary of State believes that there will be a detriment to an area outside Greater London. Will the Minister confirm that those points would limit in Clause 240 the new Section 7B(1)? It states:
"The Secretary of State may give guidance … with respect to … the matters to be covered by that strategy or … the issues to be taken into account in preparing or revising that strategy".
On the face of it, that seems very wide.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is my understanding that that is the case. Should I be mistaken, I shall inform the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had an interesting debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the slight hint of give in her approach to directions by the mayor. I shall study them with care and I shall need to study everything that has been said in the debate before deciding what to do at the next stage of the Bill In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 335A not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 336:
Page 131, line 5, at end insert ("which shall respect and take full account of the differing economic interests of the London boroughs and the City of London").
The noble Lord said: The Bill as drafted is primarily concerned with the relationship between the Secretary of State, the mayor and, in this part, the London Development Agency, which the mayor controls, influences and is responsible to and for. However, in our view, the Bill does not pay sufficient attention to the other elected authorities in London which represent communities and interests within London at large. The strategy ought to take into account the views of those authorities in so far as it is possible to do so.
We are back in the business of consultation, what is and is not on the face of the Bill, and what is and what is not conceivable. In an ideal world, we could probably manage without the Bill and leave London to run itself. That is not the way we operate in this country; we operate by law and, because the law is finite, we must get it right. It is our view that in this part of the Bill not sufficient regard is taken of the wider interests in London. That is the sentiment behind Amendment No. 336.
Amendment No. 339 returns to a theme which we have pressed in a number of other areas. It is that the strategy of the London Development Agency and its previous draft should be available on the Greater London Authority Internet website. That is a common theme and I am not the only Member of the Committee to press it. Whether or not we obtain agreement to providing for such a website on the face of the Bill, I am certain that there will be one. I do not apologise for pressing the matter today.
Amendment No. 342 is a "chicken and egg" amendment. The LDA strategy will require wider notice to be taken of it if it is to succeed, and the amendment gives effect to that. In doing so, it is more likely to make the strategy succeed.
Amendment No. 343 deals with a separate issue. The other executive parts of the Greater London Authority—police and fire services and so forth—must comply with the strategy. The amendment requires not only that they comply with the strategy but that they report that they are doing so and how. There is no point in having the strategy and obliging the constituent bodies of the GLA to comply with it without them having to report back. Therefore, the amendment requires them to report what they have done to the mayor and assembly.
Amendment No. 345 opens up the criteria under which the LDA might be granting financial support to other institutions or individuals. It requires that that shall become public in the interests of open government and everybody having confidence in the system.
Amendment No. 347 is aimed at changing a situation in which the mayor can alter the strategy of the London Development Agency without there being any requirement for him to explain why he is doing so. That is not an acceptable way forward. If the mayor wants to change the strategy of the London Development Agency—he has the power to do so—he should be required to explain exactly why and to reveal his
900
reasons. The mayor can act with regard to a number of aspects of this Bill without his actions being open to public scrutiny. We do not believe that that is appropriate. This amendment deals with one aspect of that general problem. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We have tabled three amendments in this group: Amendments Nos. 341A, 341B and 347XA. The latter amendment is consequential on the first two.
Under new Section 7A(5), when the London Development Agency and three of the functional bodies named exercise a function they should have regard to the London Development Agency's strategy. I can see the obvious connection between the regeneration activities, the LDA strategy and what Transport for London may be doing.
The relevance to the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is less obvious. In any event, I wonder how appropriate it is to require that the emergency services, in exercising a function, are to have regard to an economic and regeneration strategy. I have some trouble in seeing a connection. If there is one, I might question it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, now understands that he is not alone in occasionally being slightly unsure as to which point we have reached. Amendment No. 336 would require that the LDA strategy should take account of the different economic interests of the boroughs and the City. It is not necessary, and it would look rather odd, to put the LDA under a statutory obligation to take account of the differing economic interests of various areas of London. Given its diversity, it is not credible that any such agency, led by experienced businessmen and women, would do otherwise or would be blind to their needs.
Amendment No. 336, together with Amendment No. 347, would require that the strategy, as revised from time to time, and all drafts of the strategy, shall be published together with an explanation of any revisions. The mayor will have to publish the revised strategies—there would be little point to them otherwise—and they will therefore be in the public domain. It would be undesirable and unnecessary to introduce special provisions for publishing previous drafts of the strategy. That could lead to great confusion. In time, when the strategy is revised, the new strategy could hardly gain the confidence of those whose co-operation is required for its realisation if reasons were not given for important changes. We are sure that the mayor would want to do that.
Amendment No. 336 requires that the LDA strategy takes account of the differing economic interests of the boroughs and the City. It is not really necessary to specify that and it would look rather odd.
As regards the amendment obliging the MPA and the LFEPA to have regard to the LDA strategy, that would remove a cornerstone of our design for the GLA; namely, that the strategies should all come together within a coherent framework within which the work is

901
conducted. It is just as essential for the LDA strategy to reflect consultations with the other functional bodies, as we have provided
I appreciate the point that the noble Baroness has raised. There may be issues on which that policy is not relevant concerning, for example, many operational matters. The police are frequently involved in regeneration projects such as crime prevention and state security. So there could be over-arching strategies where that is relevant. I hope that I have covered the points raised.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: As regards the connection between the LDA, the police and others, I wonder whether that is to reflect the role of the police in crime prevention and the comments that they might make in advising on whether large-scale regeneration was appropriate and that there might be inherent problems. I very much support the moves to be made at a far more local level than is anticipated to "design out" crime. I believe that is the current terminology. That work is very important. Because it is important, I remain a little anxious that the relationship puts the London Development Agency in a dominant position. In other words, the police and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority may have good advice to offer, but they have to have regard to the strategy of the LDA.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe the position may become clearer when we reach Amendment No. 347WA. We believe that the proposals being put forward by the noble Baroness are too detailed to be effective. We understand the points that she has raised, but they are covered.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply which I shall study with care. I believe that matters would be a little clearer if we heard how the executive agencies were complying with the LDA strategy in the requirement that we have put on them to report to the mayor and the assembly on how they are complying. That might relieve some anxieties. I am not certain that the noble Baroness has responded adequately to that point. None the less, I am grateful to her for her reply which I shall study with care. I beg leave to withdraw the: amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 336A to 347 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 347WA:
Page 131, line 32, after ("publishing") insert ("or revising").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 347WA requires that the mayor shall consult before revising the LDA strategy. Amendment No. 347ZA, the second amendment in the group, removes the provision which says that the mayor does not have to consult if he revises the strategy. Those matters are linked.
We believe that the revision of a strategy is potentially as important as its creation. The Minister said that she would be able to satisfy me on various points. When she said that I felt that I should say,
902
"Oh, I've forgotten Amendment No. 347WA." I look forward to hearing what she has to say on the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am afraid that we are unable to agree to these amendments. Amendment No. 347WA would require consultation before the mayor revises the strategy. Subsection (7) of the proposed new Section 7A to the RDA Act, introduced by Clause 239, requires that revised strategies are published which ensure that consultation takes place by virtue of subsection (8). The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary, as the effect is already achieved.
The noble Baroness did not mention Amendment No. 347XA. Perhaps she did so earlier.
Baroness Hamwee: I spoke to it in one sentence earlier.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 347XA adds Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to the list of consultees in subsection (8) of the new Section 7A of the RDA Act. That subsection adds only to the list of consultees in Clause 34 of the Bill and the functional bodies are included in Clause 34. So we have already made the provision which the noble Baroness seeks.
Amendment No. 347ZA would require the mayor to consult on a strategy which had been revised following a direction from the Secretary of State. A direction can only be issued after a strategy has been published. It is very much a reserve power. Before publication, the strategy must have been the subject of consultation. The amendment would therefore require a second consultation in the rare circumstances of the direction being issued. We cannot see that that would be appropriate or constructive. I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 347XA takes us back not just to earlier provisions of the Bill but to the provisions of the Regional Development Agencies Act in which the clause in question, in effect, means that before publishing the LDA strategy, the mayor has to consult the people under the RDA Act whom she or he has to consult in making appointments, which is not the same as formulating the strategy. Those two groups of people are representatives of employers and employees.
At the end of the Committee stage I shall read all that has been said about the various connections. I wonder whether I shall be able to understand the connections without drawing charts, given the cross-references to different pieces of legislation originally drafted, as I have just illustrated, for other purposes. I anticipate that I may not succeed—perhaps I am arrogant to suggest that I would apply a reasonable degree of intelligence to such a task—in drawing up such a chart. I believe that it will be extremely difficult for the authority, comprising the mayor, the assembly and the various functional bodies, together with the responsibilities in this case of the London Development

903
Agency, to operate. It will be extremely difficult to keep track of whom, under the legislation, they are required to consult, whose views they are required to have regard to and whether they are required to consult about appointments or little bits of their activities.
We have already said how concerned we are about the prescription in the Bill. We accept that this is the Government's way of dealing with matters. We believe that there should be broad obligations for consultation and broad obligations for having regard to people's views. If we get to the end of this stage—I do not believe I speak only for myself as I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith is nodding—and we are still confused, there will have to be some effort made to make life simpler for those who will operate the system.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 347XA adds further to the list of consultees. I understand the concern raised by the noble Baroness. I see the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, nodding. If it would help, I shall write to the noble Baroness on this matter, with a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, so that we can seek to clarify the situation. I agree to consider carefully any points that they raise.
Baroness Hamwee: That would be extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 347XA not moved.]
Clause 239 agreed to.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Libya
4.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on relations with Libya, which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement on relations with Libya. I am grateful to the Opposition for agreeing to this important Statement being made on a supply day.
"For over a decade two separate issues have prevented us from maintaining normal diplomatic relations with Libya.
"One of these was the refusal by Libya to hand over the two men charged with responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. As the House will be aware, the diplomatic stalemate over this issue was broken by our initiative in offering a
904
trial under Scottish law in the Netherlands. Intensive and patient diplomacy produced an agreement by Libya in April to hand over both suspects. The two accused are currently held in the court complex at Camp Zeist where we expect their trial to commence early next year. This will give the relatives of those who died and the public their first opportunity to hear all the evidence we hold.
"UN sanctions were imposed on Libya in 1992 as a result of its refusal to comply with the investigations into the Lockerbie bombing and the parallel UTA case. Following the surrender of the two accused, sanctions on Libya have been suspended.
"However, diplomatic relations between Libya and the United Kingdom had already been broken off before the Lockerbie bombing. They ceased in 1984 when we broke off diplomatic relations over the refusal by Libya to co-operate with the investigation into the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot while carrying out her duties in front of the Libyan People's Bureau in St James's Square.
"In the weeks since the handover of the two Lockerbie suspects, we have been engaged in repeated exchanges with the Libyan Government in an attempt to secure their co-operation with the police investigation. Throughout these negotiations, over some weeks, we have consulted fully with the Metropolitan Police and through them with the Fletcher family. Earlier this afternoon, I met with Mr Obeidi of the Libyan Government and we have finalised a joint statement.
"In that statement, Libya accepts general responsibility for the actions of those in the Libyan People's Bureau at the time of the shooting. They express deep regret to the family of WPC Fletcher for what occurred and offer to pay compensation now to the family. Libya agrees 'to participate in and co-operate with the continuing police investigation and to accept its outcome.'
"I have placed a full text of the joint statement in the Library of the House. It fully meets the objectives pursued by successive British Governments since 1984 and it is supported by the Metropolitan Police and the Fletcher family. No amount of payment can ever compensate the Fletcher parents for the loss of their daughter, but the agreement to make compensation now is a welcome recognition by Libya of its responsibility.
"The way is now open for the police to pursue their investigation into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher. That investigation will be pursued as far as it can and we expect Libya to co-operate at all stages.
"The two agreements we have secured also open the way for us to resume diplomatic relations with Libya. I am upgrading immediately the British Interests Section in Tripoli to embassy status. We will, as quickly as practical, appoint an ambassador and bring the embassy up to full strength. As a result, the 4,000 or so British citizens resident in Libya will have restored to them full consular protection and we will be able to provide appropriate support to British commercial interests. Full diplomatic representation

905
will also enable us better to monitor Libyan co-operation with the Lockerbie trial and the police investigation into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher.
"Today's announcement brings to an end 15 years throughout which relations between our two countries were suspended. I should like to record our thanks to the Government of Italy for their assistance throughout those years as the protecting power of British interests in Libya.
"Before concluding, I would ask the House once again to pay tribute to Yvonne Fletcher, a young woman who gave her life to the service of law and order. Her family have suffered not only her loss but the added pain of 15 years in which its investigation has been blocked. They have borne it with dignity and fortitude. I would express on behalf of the whole House our deep sympathy to them. I hope that the agreement we have secured today will open the way for them to learn more about what happened on that fateful day."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place, giving details of the Government's joint statement with the Libyan Government. Front these Benches, I should like to welcome the progress in Anglo-Libyan relations contained in the document. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assist me on one point. I was not completely clear whether one of the two agreements to which she referred when repeating the Statement included the full text of the joint statement. If it does not, can the Minister clarify what the two agreements mentioned in the third paragraph before the end of Statement refer to? If they are separate from the agreements that she has already agreed to make public, will the noble Baroness ensure that both of them will also be placed in the Library of the House? It will be very important for your Lordships to read them.
From these Benches, we have always been of the opinion that Libya must accept responsibility and express regret for the appalling murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, as well as providing compensation agreeable to her family. It has always been our view that Libya must co-operate fully with the investigation into her murder. The Minister has said that the Government now expect Libya to co-operate at all stages with this investigation. Therefore, can she tell us whether she expects this will entail efforts by the Libyan authorities to identify and specifically bring to justice the murderer of WPC Fletcher? If so, would the same procedures as those currently in place for the trial of the Lockerbie suspects also be used to try any person accused of her murder?
The relatives of those killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 will be following these developments closely. Can the Minister tell the House what discussions the 'Government have held with them concerning today 's announcement and what their reaction has been to the agreed compensation to the family of WPC Fletcher, which is symbolic of the guilt of the Libyan regime?
906
The Minister also referred to the UN sanctions against Libya. As she is aware, those sanctions are currently suspended, not lifted. Does the Minister envisage that the UK will now press for those sanctions to be lifted? It would be helpful if the Minister could inform the House what discussions have been held on this matter with our partners in the Security Council, in particular with the United States Government.
There has been undisputed evidence in the past of Libyan support for terrorists, particularly the IRA. Can the Minister assure the House that all training of terrorists and material support for their activities has now stopped, including support of rebel groups in West Africa?
In view of the highly successful business mission led by my noble friend Lord Prior in his capacity as chairman of the Arab-British Chamber of Commerce some three weeks ago, on which I understand my noble friend Lord Trefgarne accompanied him, and given the newly restored bilateral links and the opportunity that this presents for the development of both cultural and commercial contacts between our two countries, can the Minister clarify the status of the business delegation proposed by the British-Libyan Business Group'? Following the confusion earlier this week between the Foreign Office and the Department for Trade and Industry, does this delegation now have the support of the Foreign Office? From these Benches, we hope that the restoration of full diplomatic ties will prove to be a turning point in our relations with Libya and, critically, in Libya's relations with the rest of the world.
Finally, I should like to associate these Benches with the tribute paid by the Minister to the dignity and fortitude of the Fletcher family. We are very pleased that this outcome has their full support. Although today's Statement marks what we hope is a new chapter in Anglo-Libyan relations, no one in this House will ever forget the bravery of the young WPC who in doing her duty paid with her life.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I should like to say how delighted we are that diplomatic relations have been resumed with Libya; indeed, that will open very real opportunities for business people and others in the United Kingdom. I should also like to express a few words of thanks to the Government of Italy for the conscientious way in which they carried out the representation of British interests in Libya over a long period of time, which they could not have envisaged when they first agreed to do so.
I have three questions for the Minister. The first goes further into the subject of the killing of WPC Fletcher. I fully share and endorse every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and by the Minister about the extraordinary courage and conscientiousness of this young woman who lost her life in serving law and order in this country. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government know the names of those who were present in the so-called "People's Bureau" at the time

907
and whether their names have been made available to the Metropolitan Police? Compensation is one thing, but trying to find out who perpetrated this terrible crime so that nothing of the kind can ever happen again is, if anything, even more important.
Given the willingness of Libya to co-operate over the Lockerbie air crash after a long period of negotiation, I wonder whether consideration could be given to whether Libya would be willing to extradite anyone who might be soundly suspected of involvement in the murder of WPC Fletcher. Perhaps I may also pay tribute to the endurance and the great patience shown by her family.
My second question concerns the debts still owing to British firms from the period before the breach in diplomatic relations. My understanding is that some hundreds of millions of dollar-equivalents are owed to British firms from the period prior to the breaking off of relations after WPC Fletcher's murder. Can the Minister give any enlightenment at all on the issue of whether those outstanding debts are likely to be settled at any foreseeable time?
My third and final question concerns the issue of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Government of Libya. The Minister will be aware that Helms-Burton still applies, although it is somewhat more honoured in the breach than in the observance by many American business interests. Can the noble Baroness say whether any representations are being made by Her Majesty's Government in Washington for the reconsideration of Helms-Burton, which I believe has caused quite a lot of strain on diplomatic relations not only with Libya but also with many other countries with which we in the United Kingdom would wish to see much happier and closer relations in future?
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their warm welcome of my right honourable friend's Statement today. I thank them not only for what they said but also for the way in which they said it. I join with them in paying tribute to the family of WPC Fletcher. I echo in this House the sentiments expressed by my right honourable friend in the Statement and by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the dignity and bearing of the Fletcher family during what must have been an anguished time for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the agreements. The relevant agreements relating to the initiative for the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands have been placed in the Library, as has the text of the joint statement agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Libyan Government. There are two separate agreements—two separate pieces of paper, if I can put it that way—and both texts are available for inspection in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked me about the way in which the Libyans will be expected to give some practical impact to their undertaking to co-operate with
908
the investigation. The investigation will be carried out by the Metropolitan Police. It is envisaged initially that the investigation will take the form of a commission rogatoire; that is, an investigation in writing. The Metropolitan Police will send questions to the Libyan judicial authorities who will bring individual witnesses before them to answer those questions. The agreement does not rule out further investigations being carried out under other procedures. That is what I am able to tell the noble Lord at this stage about the way it is envisaged that the investigation will begin. Its development will be a matter for the Metropolitan Police. We are extremely pleased to have the commitment of the Libyan Government and the Libyan authorities to continue with their co-operation throughout that investigation. However, as I say, that is the way that it will begin.
The noble Baroness asked whether we had the names of those who were in the People's Bureau at the time. We do because they were accredited diplomats. I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether that is a full list of who was there on the day. However, we would certainly know the names of the accredited diplomats at that time. That information will be available to the investigating authority. It is a matter for that authority as to how it pursues individuals. We have the basic statement from the Libyans that they accept what the coroner's court said about where the shot came from. However, that is not the same as establishing who was responsible for the shot that was fired.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the procedures that might be used to prosecute anyone who might eventually be accused of this appalling crime. He suggested that they might be the same as were established for the prosecution in relation to the atrocity committed on Pan Am Flight 103. The regime in the Netherlands at the moment was set up under a UNSCR. I believe that it is a unique measure. However, I point out to your Lordships that the proceedings in the Netherlands are subject to Scottish law whereas the matter we are discussing would be prosecuted under English law. I rather doubt whether the same mechanisms will be available to us simply because the case in the Netherlands was established under a UNSCR and because we shall be dealing with the case of WPC Fletcher under English law and not Scottish law. However, the way in which any prosecution would be carried out is a matter that we shall have to consider as the investigation proceeds.
The noble Lord also asked about discussions with the Lockerbie families. Officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have discussed the statement on WPC Fletcher, but, more importantly, the re-establishing of diplomatic relations, with all the families of the British people involved in that atrocity. I am sure that individual families are either more or less enthusiastic about that but none has expressed any fundamental misgivings about the re-establishing of diplomatic relations, given what we have been able to establish in both the documents detailed in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord also asked about the lifting of sanctions. The noble Baroness asked about the relationship of the Americans vis-à-vis Libya and the

909
fate of the Helms-Burton legislation. I shall try to draw those two threads together. Her Majesty's Government believe that it is for the Americans to decide how they take forward their bilateral relationship with Libya. We met the Americans and the Libyans on 11th June, together with the UN Secretary General, to discuss how to move forward on the remaining requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions so that sanctions can be finally lifted. The UN Secretary General reported on 2nd July that there had been what he described as significant progress, but not yet full compliance with the Security Council resolutions. We shall continue to meet to discuss the matter. There will not be any hidden agenda. When Libya has fully complied Her Majesty's Government will not oppose the lifting of sanctions. However, as the noble Baroness knows, on the rather different question of the Helms-Burton legislation, Her Majesty's Government have always opposed the extra-territorial nature of the Helms-Burton legislation, not only in relation to Libya but also in relation to other countries where the Americans have introduced such legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about Libyan support for terrorism. I believe that when he has had the opportunity to study the agreed statement in the Library of your Lordships' House, he will see that the Libyans have said unequivocally that they are opposed to the use of terrorism. They have condemned terrorism and have pledged to co-operate in the international fight against it. As regards the worries which have been expressed in certain quarters about their previous relationship with the IRA, the previous administration stated on 25th November 1995 that they were satisfied that the Libyan Government had met expectations with regard to ceasing to have that kind of relationship with the IRA.
The noble Lord also referred to the trade group. I do not believe that there has been what the noble Lord described as confusion over this. The British-Libyan Business Group first approached us in May when our discussions were at a sensitive stage. At that time I believe that it would have been premature of the Government to endorse participation of MPs in that venture. Advice was given through the Whips' Office which reflected that view. In recent days we are aware that there has been more positive progress in our negotiations and we have clarified that there is no objection to participation by MPs in this matter. As the noble Lord would expect, throughout all this we have kept in close contact with our colleagues in the DTI to ensure that we are indulging in joined-up government.
The noble Baroness referred to debts. Now that we have restored diplomatic relations we can open up discussions on a full range of outstanding issues. I know that the question of debt is a worrying one. It will, of course, be included in those discussions. I join with the noble Baroness in expressing thanks to the Italian Government for the way they have looked after our interests over the past 15 years. My right honourable friend made that clear in his Statement but I am sure that my own Benches in your Lordships' House would wish me to add my voice to those thanks.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the full Statement. I hope that she can clarify a point on compensation. I may have misheard the relevant part of the Statement in that regard. First, is there an agreement at present in principle to pay compensation, or has a definite amount been agreed already? If it is a question of principle, who is to adjudicate on the issue of the quantum amount in relation to that payment? Will the Fletcher family be fully consulted about that and given access to legal assistance paid for by the state? Whether or not legal aid is available to them, will they receive very full advice about that matter?
Secondly, would it not be appropriate for this very brave young woman's memory to be perpetuated? There is already, of course, an indication in the square where she fell, but perhaps my noble friend will think it appropriate to consider the possibility—I do not ask her to be definite at this stage—of a more lasting memorial than that which exists at the present time. It would be much appreciated by the country as a whole.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as to the question of compensation, I should point out that we are now in a different position from the one before when an ex gratia payment to a charity was offered. The Libyans have now offered compensation to the family. That is a very important distinction. The noble Lord asked about the way in which the compensation was to be fixed and about the advice available to the family. The family of WPC Fletcher have asked that the arrangements surrounding the compensation—and in particular the amount—remain confidential. I believe that the amount is irrelevant; it is the principle involved that is important. It is the fact that the Libyans have acknowledged that this is not an ex gratia payment but compensation that is important. I would ask your Lordships to respect the wishes and confidentiality of the family. It has been a desperately painful time for them and if we can help to alleviate that by not being too intrusive, that will be to the good.
My noble friend is right to say that there is a memorial to WPC Fletcher. Quite rightly, and rather movingly, it is often adorned with flowers. Whether it is appropriate that some other memorial should be considered is a matter I am sure everyone will wish to consider. Again I would point out to your Lordships that it is not just a matter for the country, as my noble friend put it, but one where we should take into account the wishes of WPC Fletcher's family, her friends and the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as someone who has been involved on the extreme fringes of this matter for a number of years, I share the welcome expressed by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for the Statement. Perhaps I may ask one question. The Minister has said that it is intended

911
we should shortly appoint an ambassador to Libya. Is it intended that the Libyans should appoint an ambassador in London? If so, when might that happen?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is intended that we resume full diplomatic relations. Resuming full diplomatic relations implies that not only do we deploy ambassadors in each other's country but that we bring our diplomatic strength up to full volume. The timing is a matter we will have to synchronise. It is important to choose the right people to do these jobs. They will be very skilled jobs, on both sides, involving the full range of the diplomatic repertoires open to the Libyans and to ourselves.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that I have visited Libya twice in recent years. I therefore give a particular welcome to the Statement. The Minister will also be aware that one visit was in the company of Dr Jim Swire of the Lockerbie families' group. On one occasion we met with Colonel Gaddafi. The object of each visit was to try to move forward good relations between our two countries. The creation of the third country trial at The Hague provided the first step of that way forward. The announcement about compensation and the investigation into the case of WPC Fletcher is the second part of restoring good relations.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to emphasise one point that she mentioned. It is perhaps not widely understood in this country that there are between 4,000 and 5,000 British people working in Libya—mainly in business, some in education—who are greatly relieved that diplomatic relations and transport links are to be restored. I wish the trade delegation all success. As I was to be a member of it before I took up my present responsibilities in Scotland, I hope that it will be successful, both politically and commercially.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that we all hope that it will be a success, even without the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to see it on its way.
I am aware of the visits to which the noble Lord referred and of the dedicated way in which Dr Jim Swire and others of the Lockerbie families' group have conducted themselves over recent years. I, too, have met them. I was deeply impressed by the tenacity and wisdom with which they pursued what was a painful and difficult issue for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, is quite right. He reminded us of the 4,000 or so British nationals who live in Libya. I hope that they will welcome the resumption of full diplomatic relations: I hope that their lives will be greatly eased, not only by the improving trade relations but also eventually—we hope it will be sooner rather than later—by the lifting of the UN sanctions. They will be able to enjoy also the full protection of the consular activity which will be afforded to them by the restored embassy.
Lord Imbert: My Lords, I welcome the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya. In particular
912
I welcome the opportunity it gives to continue the investigation into the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. I know that that will be welcomed by all police officers throughout the country, as much as it will by Queenie Fletcher and her husband, the mother and father of Yvonne Fletcher.
Can the Minister give an assurance that the investigation will be as thorough as it needs to be? She has mentioned that it will take the form of a commission rogatoire. The offence took place in 1984, some 15 years ago. It is absolutely essential after that amount of time that forensic examination of the suspects and the weapons takes place. Can the Minister assure the House that the weapons which may well have been in the embassy at that particular time have been preserved? Or will we find that the investigation will not be deep enough to provide the absolute proof of who killed Yvonne Fletcher?
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the IRA and the support of the previous regime prior to 1985 for IRA terrorism. Many of the weapons which we believe, with good reason, came from Libya are still in the hands of the IRA today. Can the Minister assure the House that if those weapons come to light in terrorist incidents we will have the co-operation of the Libyan authorities to forensically examine them and establish their origin?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, for his welcome for the announcement. I can assure the noble Lord, as my right honourable friend's Statement indicated, that we have maintained a very close relationship with the Metropolitan Police throughout the negotiations with the Libyan authorities.
The investigation will be as thorough as it can be. I remind the noble Lord of the quotation by my right honourable friend from the joint statement, which is in the Library, that Libya agrees,
"to participate in and co-operate with the continuing police investigation and to accept its outcome".
That last phrase, "and to accept its outcome", is a very important part of the undertaking.
I described to the House how the investigation would begin as a commission rogatoire. I hope that I also made it clear that that was not the end of the investigation. If the Metropolitan Police believe that their investigations need to proceed in different ways, I am sure they will make that clear.
We cannot anticipate the outcome of the investigation. I am sure that the police will be as thorough as they believe it necessary to be. The noble Lord, Lord Imbert, knows far more about these matters than I do. I am sure that the Metropolitan Police, who have a very close interest—a right and proper interest—in investigating this appalling murder, will want to pursue the matter as rigorously as possible. They will enjoy the support of Her Majesty's Government in doing so.
The noble Lord raises a rather different question about IRA weaponry that might or might not have come from Libya. I am afraid that I shall have to write to him

913
on that rather specific question. I know that it is related to the matter under discussion, but I should like to give the noble Lord a specific answer to the point he raised.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as one who has fairly often criticised successive governments, including the present one, for their conduct of our relations with Arab countries, I most warmly congratulate them on the achievement of these two agreements, these two ends to the quarrels. Perhaps I may ask one question which it may or may not be possible to answer. How much did the intervention of Mr Mandela help towards this fortunate solution?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend describes himself as one who has often criticised the Government. I am delighted at the refreshing change on this occasion. I shall have to write to the noble Lord about Mr Mandela's interest in what has happened. We all know that Mr Mandela has had a close interest and has been extremely helpful in oiling the wheels of the relationships.
The two agreements that we have, over Lockerbie on the one hand, and over the murder of WPC Fletcher on the other, have, been negotiated directly between the British Government and the Libyan Government. There has not been any third party involved in those negotiations. If my noble friend's question is, "What facilitated the start of those negotiations?", I am bound to say to him that there has been some desire to move this matter forward for a very long time. I certainly do not discount the effect of the kind of visit that was detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and the way in which the families have conducted themselves. They have been extraordinarily patient and sensible. United Nations sanctions have also played their part in what has now been facilitated. A great number of people have lent a great deal of weight in trying to get us to where we are today. We thank them all warmly for the help they have given us. But I do not think it is help from any one source in one country that has enabled us to get to this point.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, the Minister has expressed the Government's thanks to the Italian Government for having effectively protected our interests in Libya over many years. Am I right in thinking that the Saudi Arabian Government also deserve some credit for having very effectively, and in quite difficult conditions, represented Libya over the many years during which we have had no diplomatic relations with Libya?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord knows a great deal more about the history of this matter, given his former incarnation as Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. He is entirely right in suggesting that our thanks are due to a number of different governments, including the Government of Saudi Arabia.

Greater London Authority Bill
5.34 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 240 [Secretary of State's functions in relation to the strategy]:
[Amendments Nos. 347YA and 347ZA not moved.]
Clause 240 agreed to.
Clause 241 [Audit]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 347A:
Page 132, line 40, at end insert ("and the Chair of the London Assembly"").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 241 makes provision for the audit of the LDA and provides for the agency to send a copy of its audited accounts to the mayor. Government Amendment No. 347A would require the LDA to send a copy of its audited accounts also to the chair of the assembly. The amendment meets a commitment given by my honourable friend Nick Raynsford in Committee in another place.
Amendment No. 347B, tabled by noble Lords opposite, would also require the LDA to send a copy of its audited accounts to the assembly. I am pleased that we are both thinking along the same lines. I hope that Amendment No. 347A will achieve what noble Lords intend. I beg to move this amendment and invite the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am happy with the amendment proposed by the Government in the other place. It was argued that our amendment was unnecessary because the accounts would be published and made available to the assembly on request. The step that the Government are taking is a very helpful one. I shall not move Amendment No. 347B.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 347B not moved.]
Clause 241, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 242 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 348:
After Clause 242, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL DEBATEON LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT AND ACCOUNTS
(" . The London Assembly shall debate annually the report and accounts of the London Development Agency.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment requires the London assembly to debate annually the report and accounts of the London Development Agency. The Bill as drafted does not provide a forum in which the performance of the LDA can either be challenged by elected representatives or, indeed, be discussed. The assembly should fulfil that essential role in order to ensure proper scrutiny and proper accountability.
The assembly provides the best London-wide forum in which to scrutinise the performance of the London Development Agency. The impact of the LDA on the life and economy of London, if it works as the

915
Government expect, will be significant. It is therefore right that the elected representatives of London should be able, indeed required, to examine that performance at least annually. They, in turn, are then accountable to the electors of London for the work of the London Development Agency, as is the mayor in his other capacity in relation to the agency.
The amendment stands in its own right. I should have thought that it ought to be entirely acceptable to the Government. Of course, the Government may say, "The assembly will do this. You don't need to tell its members to do it". The members may do it, but there again, they may not. It is to prevent the latter situation that I propose this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The new clause obliges the assembly to debate the LDA's report and accounts each year. The assembly has a duty, under Clause 49, to keep under review the exercise by the mayor of the statutory functions exercisable by him or her. Given the powers of appointment and direction which the mayor has over the LDA, its activities will fall within the compass of the assembly's duty under Clause 49. Accordingly, the assembly will be able to hold regular debates concerning the LDA, whether on its general performance or on particular matters and will no doubt do so. Adding particular obligations to the assembly's general duties could serve only to cloud its responsibilities. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness said. Keeping under review is keeping under review and it may well be that the assembly will debate the deeds and, rarely we hope, the misdeeds of the London Development Agency from time to time.
However, the amendment specifically relates to the annual report. That report is more significant than just keeping a subject under review. It is for that reason that we proposed the amendment. Nevertheless, I have heard what the noble Baroness said and will study it. I do not believe it will satisfy me, but I will decide what to do in the light of what she said and what I think. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 20 [Further amendments of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998]:
[Amendment No. 348A not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 349:
Page 274, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
(""(4) This section does not apply in relation to London where the London Development Agency shall have regard to the views of and regularly consult with small, medium and large businesses in London and with their representative bodies."").
The noble Lord said: As drafted, the legislation ignores the important relationship which the London Development Agency will need to develop, and succeed in, with the business community. The agency should be
916
required to consult businesses of all sizes and their representatives. It is for that reason that the amendment is advanced.
There seems to be some hesitation in official circles as to the exact number of businesses that exist within London. I suppose that it is because, among other things, there is a shifting population, which may include barrow boys. Some might debate whether they run businesses but I am certain they do. I have heard figures of half-a-million separate businesses in London and have seen figures as high as 700,000. Whatever the figure, it is large. Not only is it a large number, but by far and away the greater proportion of the businesses are small. If we take small and medium-sized businesses, it is likely to be 99 per cent of the total.
Large business has no difficulty in getting its views and interests well understood by official bodies such as the London Development Agency. It is a much greater problem for smaller businesses. They do not have either the administrative back-up, the time, or, all too often one has to admit, the inclination to become involved with officialdom in the way that would be required to get their views across to the London Development Agency. Nevertheless, we believe it is important that they are properly taken into account because they are a significant aspect of the total community of London and of the total economy of London, small businesses though they may be. It is in that sense that we have put the amendment forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: This amendment continues the debate we were having before the Statement about the rather complex network of consultations. As I read the provision in the schedule—the two lines which the noble Lord seeks to omit—it proposes that Section 8 of the Regional Development Agencies Act is not to apply to the London Development Agency. The section deals with consultation and subsection (3) deals with the position where there is no regional chamber. It provides for guidance for carrying out appropriate consultation in relation to the exercise of its functions. That is omitted and, for once, it seems to me to be quite a safeguard. People who might not be at the right place in the cobweb would be caught—
Lord Dixon-Smith: If the noble Baroness would allow me to intervene, I accept that the amendment takes out lines, but it also inserts them. Perhaps she is looking at the lines taken out, but not those inserted.
Baroness Hamwee: No, I was using the noble Lord's amendment as a hook to hang the argument on. If I had reached the end of the sentence, the noble Lord would know that I supported him.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 empowers the Secretary of State to designate a suitable body in a region to be a regional chamber. He can then require the relevant RDA to have regard to its views on the formulation and review of strategy and to consult it on the exercise of other specified functions. Schedule 20 removes this provision for London. Business representation on the LDA board

917
and requirements for wider consultation on the LDA strategy have an equivalent effect with respect to the functions of the LDA.
Businesses, large and small, will benefit from the targeted approach of the LDA. Given the importance of small businesses to London's economy, I fully expect the LDA to consult them on the strategy and also expect the mayor to insist on it. They must be consulted if their interests are to be affected and that is provided for.
In addition, the scrutiny powers of the assembly provide a key channel for local views to be fed to the LDA and Clause 25 requires the GLA to consult businesses and others on, the exercise of its functions which have an impact on the interests of those businesses. The results of the consultations will no doubt, where relevant, be fed to the LDA board. The Committee has already considered and approved those measures.
The amendment would place small, medium and large businesses, together with their representative bodies, in the role of a regional chamber. This is not necessary to ensure that business views are taken into account by the LDA; it has already been provided for. It would also be undesirable to give businesses in London a role which is given elsewhere to a body representative of all those who have an interest in the agency's work. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am becoming accustomed to being urged by the noble Baroness to withdraw my amendment. She does it with such superb eloquence that it is an irresistible temptation. I am grateful to her for her reply which I will study with care. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 349A:
Page 274, line 22, leave out ("In").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment and, with it, speak to Amendments Nos. 349B and 349C. The amendments correct a lacuna in the grant-making provisions of Parts III and V of the Bill. Part V currently deletes from the Regional Development Agencies Act the power for the Secretary of State to make grants direct to the LDA, in line, with the general policy that all government grants should be made to the mayor.
Part III contains a general power for the Secretary of State to make grants to the GLA for its purposes and those of the functional bodies. But it does not allow sums to be earmarked for particular purposes.
It has always been our intention that the functions of the LDA could be financed by specific grants if Ministers thought that that kind of funding was appropriate. The alternative would be to provide the necessary funding as part of the GLA grant. These amendments achieve that by inserting into the RDA Act the power to make grants to the GLA for the purposes of the London Development Agency. The amendments are framed so that Clause 88 of the GLA Bill will oblige the mayor to hand over these grants to the LDA.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 349B and 349C:
Page 274, line 22, at end insert ("shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning there shall be inserted "(1)".
(3) In the subsection (1) so formed,").
Page 274, line 24, at end insert—
("(4) After the subsection (1) so formed there shall be inserted—
"(2) The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, make to the Greater London Authority grants of such amounts, and on such terms, as he thinks fit.
(3) Any grant made under subsection (2) shall be made for the purposes of the London Development Agency."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 349D:
Page 274, line 25, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to the borrowing limits of regional development agencies and is intended to ensure that I understand the regime as it relates to the London Development Agency. Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 20 to the Bill provides that Section 11 of the Regional Development Agencies Act is not to apply in relation to the London Development Agency. In paragraph 6(2) above a lower collective borrowing limit is applied to the agencies on the face of the Regional Development Agencies Act. Am I right in thinking that this provision is included because the regime provided elsewhere by the Bill deals with the borrowing that is required for the purposes of the LDA? Can the Minister say something about the collective borrowing limit, and in particular the amount which it is anticipated will be available for London?
The implication of paragraph 6(2) is that £200 million, less £177.77 million (possibly recurring), is the amount that the Secretary of State has in mind for the work of the LDA, given that provision is made for a lower limit for all the other agencies. The Minister looks puzzled, in which case I was right to raise the question. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness may have been right to ask the question, but I am not sure that I follow her arithmetic sufficiently to provide an answer. We do not wish to see this clause modified. We decided to remove the LDA from the controls related to the other agencies in the RDA Act because of the special circumstances of the LDA, which effectively operates within a local government structure. If the noble Baroness asks whether the reason for it is that we are providing the borrowing structure for the GLA as a whole, the answer in general terms is yes. The borrowing controls relate to the GLA and the functional bodies within the local government financial regime, not the system of borrowing controls designed for non-departmental public bodies.
I shall read the remarks of the noble Baroness related to the arithmetic and see whether I can provide clarification. I did not recognise her final figure. Perhaps

919
she will allow me to reply to that part of her observations in writing and, on that basis, withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: To avoid any confusion, I referred to paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 20, which in the Regional Development Agencies Act substitutes a collective borrowing limit of £177.77 million in place of £200 million for all the development agencies. I asked whether £200 million, minus £177.77 million, was the amount that we could be assured the Secretary of State has in mind for the LDA, perhaps not as the borrowing limit given its particular structure, but for the work of that agency. I hope that that makes the point clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 349E:
Page 275, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
(""(4) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to the London Development Agency as if the reference to the Secretary of State was a reference to the Mayor of London and the London Assembly.
(4A) Subsection (2) has effect in relation to the London Development Agency as if the reference to the Secretary of State was a reference to the Mayor of London.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 349E in my name and that of my noble friends is grouped with Amendment No. 350 in the name of the Conservative Front Bench. Amendment No. 349E is a simple amendment which requires that the LDA sends a copy of its annual report to the assembly. I hope we shall be told that not only is it inconceivable that it would not be provided, but that somewhere the point is covered in the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendment No. 350 is coupled with Amendment No. 349E. The specific aim of our amendment is to achieve openness so that everybody can understand the way in which the London Development Agency works. The amendment provides that,
"The report shall include the criteria used by the London Development Agency for granting financial support to other institutions".
The LDA will have considerable financial power and influence, and it is important that the public at large understand and have confidence in the management systems which the agency uses, particularly when it handles sums of public money and makes them available to institutions or individuals. The amendment requires that the criteria used are open. I believe that if that was stated on the face of the Bill, it would represent a considerable improvement.
Lord Whitty: The first of these amendments is unnecessary and the second is inappropriate. Amendment No. 349E is unnecessary because it is already provided for in the new subsection (6) which has been added to Section 17 of the RDA Act by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 20 to the Bill. Obviously, the noble Baroness should have known that, but there we are.
920
As to Amendment No. 350, it would oblige the LDA and the mayor to include in the LDA's annual report notice of the criteria to be used for the grant of financial support. There are two issues here: clarity for the benefit of potential recipients and propriety. The LDA will, in the main, be dispensing money for the achievement of functions delegated by Ministers. There will normally be criteria in the public domain for each of these, at least in broad terms. The single regeneration budget is a good example. Here we have national criteria that are widely known. At present, the Government Office for London, subsequently the authority, publishes its more specific guidelines which tailor the national guidelines to the specific circumstances of London. No doubt the LDA will wish to do likewise.
The LDA will have a chief finance officer and monitoring officer following local authority practice in this instance. Its accounts will be audited annually, which is a check on the use of defensible criteria for dispensing funds. But the amendment will not help either objective. The annual report is not the appropriate vehicle either for detailed bidding advice as to criteria against which bids can be set or audit information. In any case, bidding guidance needs to be issued when bids are being sought and should not wait for the annual report. Therefore, in the terms it was put I do not believe that this amendment is appropriate, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I welcome the noble Lord the Minister back on to his perch. I assure him that he has been adequately substituted for in his absence. I shall not say that he has not been missed; it is nice to see him back again.
I heard what the noble Lord had to say, and I shall study it with care.
Baroness Hamwee: I am glad to be assured that my amendment is unnecessary. I realise that the Official Report will not record that when the Minister told me that I should of course have realised that paragraph 11 applied, he did so as a humorous comment. I say that now to protect my good name. I thank the noble Lord for pointing that out, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 350 to 350B not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 351:
Page 276, line 1, leave out paragraph 14.
The noble Lord said: the amendment raises an interesting point: What is the economic region that comprises "London" and should it be for ever as it is described in the Bill? It seems to me that if paragraph 14 stands, the opportunity to change the boundaries of the region will no longer exist. If I am wrong in my interpretation, no doubt the Minister will tell me. I well remember that under a previous Labour government the south-east region was judged to include Hampshire and

921
everything eastwards through Kent, northwards towards Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, and coming round to include Hertfordshire and Essex. In many senses there, is a reason for saying that that is a more valid economic development region—if one wants to consider economic development in the context of a city and its environs—than having the boundaries of the London Development Agency cast in stone as the boundaries of the Greater London Authority.
The question of economic influence is always important. I accept that what the Government are doing now is in a sense but a first building block in a process that they hope will create some rationality out of a putative regional structure. However, this country's economy does not work like that. Any regional structure that is arrived at is unlikely to have genuine validity in the economic context. It may make sense from other points of view, but it is not likely to make sense from the economic point of view.
We do not think that it is right that the boundaries of the London economic region, which is what the London Development Agency should be dealing with, should be set in stone. There may well be a time when opinion is different; and if that is so, there may well be a valid case for amendment. However, as the Bill is drafted, such amendment is not possible. We do not think that that is sensible, and that is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord says, the amendment raises an interesting issue. Nevertheless, on balance the argument is against the noble Lord. It is true that the RDA Act allows the Secretary of State to alter the boundaries of Me RDA areas in the rest of England, but it would not make much sense in relation to London, where the LDA is responsible to the mayor. Indeed, if the amendment were accepted, it is at least notionally possible that the mayor of London would extend his power, at least in the economic area, over the whole of Essex. I am not sure that that would be desired by the noble Lord's former constituents in the county of Essex.
Although it is true that some flexibility is necessary, that can best be achieved by co-operation between the RDAs, as we spelt out in some detail during the passage of the RDA Act. Clearly, the mayor and the LDA will have responsibility for acting, for example, on the Thames gateway with the east and south-eastern RDAs, and it is very important that they do so. If one were to extend the power of a body controlled by the mayor to territories outside his own territory, I believe there would be serious political repercussions. I hope, therefore, that on balance the noble Lord will see the wisdom of not pressing his amendment, and I ask him to seek leave to withdraw it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. I accept that I was somewhat extreme in the way in which I expressed the case for the amendment. None the less, I am reassured by what the noble Lord said about the need for co-operation between regional development agencies across their boundaries, particularly in the south-east of England. That is essential.
922
I shall study what the noble Lord said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 351A to 353 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 353A, I have to inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 354:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 353A:
Page 277, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
("(6) In paragraph 4 (staff) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Appointments to the position of Chief Executive of the London Development Agency shall be made as follows—

(a) the first appointment shall be made by the Mayor of London after consultation with the chair (or chair designate) of the agency and with the approval of the London Assembly decided by simple majority vote,

(b) subsequent appointments shall be made by the Agency with the consent of the Mayor of London and the approval of the London Assembly decided by simple majority vote."").

The noble Lord said: I think we all agree that the role of the chief executive will be extremely important, particularly in the early years of the London Development Agency. If some of the responses that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, gave about the types of powers to be delegated to the LDA and the mayor are fulfilled, clearly the LDA will have considerable powers and significant resources at its disposal. In that case, the chief executive will have a very responsible job for the regeneration strategy for the whole of the Greater London area.
We believe that it is therefore very important to have the right mechanisms for the appointment of that chief executive. Those mechanisms should include the assembly; it should not simply be the mayor who has an involvement in the appointment of the chief executive. The assembly should be explicitly included to ensure that the chief executive has the full confidence of the authority as a whole.
As does paragraph 19 of the schedule, the amendment would amend Schedule 2 of the Regional Development Agencies Act, which deals with the question of staffing. We believe that by including the assembly in this we are being wholly consistent. We realise that the Government have in a sense adopted their own consistency in the other direction, but in many respects this is even more important than the way in which board members are appointed. The chief executive will be the agency's day-to-day head. He or she will be responsible to the board as well as being responsible for a very large undertaking.
We very much hope that in this case the Government will consider making an exception to one of their tenets which runs through the Bill, which appears to be that it

923
is for the mayor to decide, not for the assembly and the mayor to decide. We believe that there would be considerable merit in this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has indicated that the amendment relates to previous discussions of the division of powers, and, although it is correct that the assembly will have a role in relation to its staff and the authority's staff, the LDA is the executive arm of the mayor in the economic and regeneration field. We believe that it should be the mayor who makes the appointments and takes the decisions in relation to the LDA, as we have discussed more generally. It is the role of the assembly to hold the mayor to account for his exercise of his executive functions.
The principle that functional bodies are the arm of the mayor is one that we have consistently pursued. I know that the Liberal Democrats, by and large, disagree, but for logic's sake I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that not unexpected reply. I certainly could not accuse him of inconsistency. We obviously have a difference of view about the role of the assembly in such circumstances and I suspect that it will be irreconcilable during the passage of the Bill. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 354 not moved.]
Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 243 [Establishment, membership and duty to maintain police force]:
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354ZA:
Page 133, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 134.
The noble Lord said: The amendment moves us on to Clause 243 and Part VI of the Bill, which deals with the Metropolitan Police. I admit that this is a probing amendment, which has been crudely drafted. It is by no means the sort of finely honed legal text that I prefer to put before the Committee, but I hope that it has the value of permitting us to discuss—at least briefly—the fundamental step that is being taken in the replacement of the Home Secretary as the police authority for the Metropolitan Police area by a joint authority on more conventional lines with elected representatives, magistrates and independent members.
The change is one of the most important in the whole history of the Metropolitan Police. That is evidenced in the Bill by the repeal of the statutory basis for the Metropolitan Police—Section I of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829. That is of course the famous Act of Sir Robert Peel, Home Secretary, which set up the world's second modern constabulary, or police force as we know it. The first was the Irish Constabulary, which was also set up by Sir Robert Peel in 1822. As the noble
924
Lord, Lord Molyneaux, is in his place, I remind the Committee that that force was the predecessor of the Irish Constabulary, later the Royal Irish Constabulary, and of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—a force that has been and remains vital to democracy.
Before 1829, the duties that we think of as police duties were carried out, in London and elsewhere, by watchmen and constables, who worked directly under city and town councils and the local justices of the peace. In a general conceptual way, the Bill will reverse the 1829 Act by putting elected representatives and magistrates back in charge of the policing of London, as they have been elsewhere throughout. Modernisation is not always what it seems: sometimes it harks back to earlier times.
Since 1829, the Met has been different. In part, that is simply a reflection of the size of London, but it also reflects the force's national responsibilities. The Metropolitan Police have taken a lead in many sensitive and important areas. That consideration is still, as the Bill stands, reflected in the provision that the Home Secretary can appoint a member of the new Metropolitan Police Authority and can also appoint, directly and indirectly, some of the members of the selection panel who will appoint others. The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment on the question of the Home Secretary's representation and we will reach that later.
In general, the Home Secretary will withdraw from his role as the Metropolitan Police Authority. I support that move, but it is a significant change that needs some explanation from the Minister of the reasons for it. The move has had the support of others over the years, including the Commissioner and his predecessor. It will bring the Metropolitan Police Authority nearer to, although it will not make it identical to, other police authorities.
The reasons for the change are not so much argued as asserted. It is said that greater democracy must be a good thing, although the Bill's provisions are a long way from total democracy for the Metropolitan Police Authority. The fact that the Home Secretary, who is answerable to Parliament, has been the police authority all this time is in itself democratic. The frequent debates on the Metropolitan Police, especially in the other place, emphasise the democratic control that has been exercised.
Therefore, the Bill will not mean a step to democracy from no democracy at all. It is a much more subtle move than that—from one partial form of democracy to another partial form of democracy. However, it is difficult to avoid the idea, more usually implied than expressed, that in recent decades it has somehow become less acceptable to have a single politician acting as the Metropolitan Police Authority. I do not mean that as any criticism of the present Home Secretary or his predecessors. Politicians as a group, and I speak as one, have become less trusted to act in a quasi-judicial role one day and a political one the next. The prestige of politicians as a group has diminished. We are nearly as lowly rated as journalists. We are right down the bottom with lawyers and persons of that class.
Of course, a majority of the new police authority will also be politicians and some of the rest will be chosen by politicians. Any blame going—and there is bound to be some at times—will be more widely spread. It will also prove true to say that the chairman, never mind the members, of the Metropolitan Police Authority will be largely unknown to the public, certainly in comparison with any Home Secretary. That may be another clue as to why the change is being made. It will help to lower the visibility and hence sometimes the political temperature of the authority, and I believe that to be desirable.
I hope that the change will also lower the perception of political interference in policing matters. I emphasise the word "perception", because I am riot trying to make the case that either the present Home Secretary or his predecessors improperly interfered politically. In any case, even if they had, successive commissioners would have resisted them.
We are in difficult waters. Ministers and elected councillors are expected to use their powers on behalf of the public, because that is our system of democratic control.
All in all, I think it is desirable to transfer responsibility from the Home Secretary to the police authority somewhat on the lines suggested in the Bill, although we shall have some modifications to suggest shortly. However, I think that the Committee should ask the Minister to explain the Government's reasons for bringing about this historic change. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the noble Lord, whose name so resembles mine that I occasionally receive his post, for explaining why he has moved separately from the other grouped amendments an amendment which he described rightly, if I may say so, as a rather crude amendment. In fact, if the amendment were passed it would leave us with a Metropolitan Police district and some form of unspecified Metropolitan Police Authority. We shall debate those details later on and so I shall leave any comments I have on those details until the proper time when we deal with those amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that it was for the Minister to give the Government's reasons for why there is to be this historic change and why we are to revert to the situation that applied more than 170 years ago. I suspect that London has changed a little in 170 years. I happy to let the Minister do that. However, I want to place on record the strong support of the Liberal Democrats for the setting up of a Metropolitan Police Authority and for the authority no longer to be the Home Secretary. We shall come to the details in a few moments.
Why should it not be the Home Secretary? Why do this? It should be done not only because we have supported it for years and the Labour Party—now the Government—have supported it for years, but the most important reason of all in many ways is that for many years and publicly the Metropolitan Police, and particularly its commissioner, have been advocating such a change. With such powerful forces in support of it, it must be a good Idea.
926
Why is it a good idea? First, the Home Secretary has a huge range of duties and powers. The amount of attention that that one Minister, however able, can give to the affairs of the largest police force in the country must be very limited. Whatever good advice he or she may receive, it is still very limited. The degree of accountability, therefore, for the Metropolitan Police service is perhaps limited to the annual debate in the other place, annual or twice yearly meetings with the representatives of the London boroughs and, more recently, the meetings of the Metropolitan Police Committee. All of us are agreed that that is inadequate. For that reason alone, it is important that we are to have a body of people—a police authority—that is able to give more time, detailed knowledge and attention to the strategic work of the Metropolitan Police.
However, I think it goes beyond that in that it also brings about certainly the possibility—and I very much hope the reality—of a greater degree of community accountability within London for the Metropolitan Police, its strategic priorities and so on. That in itself must be desirable. How the members of the authority will work and how they will relate to London's communities is perhaps a debate for later today.
The other aspect of the matter that is less often mentioned is the whole financial regime of the Metropolitan Police with which I have occasionally had some dealings in my role as a London borough council leader. The Met has made strenuous efforts in recent years to try to bring its financial regime a little more up to date than it was. However, had it been similar to a London borough council in financial accounting and accountability terms, these moves would have happened a long time ago. The Met has a huge budget. Were it to be receiving rather greater public scrutiny than is now the case, I am sure that greater and less damaging savings would have been found than has had to be the case in order to meet the other restrictions that have been placed upon it.
We on these Benches very much welcome the historic change that is taking place. I acknowledge that it is a historic change. It is long overdue. It is time that the metropolis, like everywhere else in the country, had its own police authority which is not the Home Secretary but is more directly related to and accountable to Londoners.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This amendment would remove the police authority's status as a body corporate; it would remove any enabling provision for it to have any members; and it would remove any provision for it to have any name. But apart from that, the short reasons are these: first, it is inappropriate for a single political Minister, however distinguished, to be in charge of such a large authority; secondly, it will improve accountability; thirdly, it will improve openness; and, fourthly—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope—it will enable local involvement in a way which is exactly parallel, for instance, with the thinking behind the Crime and Disorder Act and is long overdue.

927
Furthermore, it is Liberal Democrat policy; it is also Conservative policy; and—the clincher—it is government policy.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful for that legal advice on the drafting of the amendment. It is much appreciated. The debate has enabled us to hear at least some of the reasons that lie behind this historic change. In view of the legal consequences of the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 243 agreed to.
Schedule 21 [The Metropolitan Police Authority: Schedule 2A to the Police Act 1996]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354A:
Page 277, line 31, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: I sometimes find the numbering system for the amendments slightly confusing, but that is a question for another day.
We are now dealing with the composition of the new authority. The first suggestion—it was made in A Mayor and Assembly for London—is that the Metropolitan Police Authority should reflect the model of other non-metropolitan police authorities throughout the country. That is what we were expecting, not necessarily in every detail but in principle. In normal circumstances, each non-metropolitan police authority has 17 members. Nine are appointed by the county council or, in areas of the country such as where I live where there are unitary authorities, the district council; five independent members are appointed by the authority from a shortlist drawn up by the Secretary of State; and there are three magistrates.
This amendment addresses the question of the council representatives. In the case of other authorities, they are the councils principally responsible for the major services to the citizen. However, the Bill proposes 23 members for the Metropolitan Police Authority: 12 members of the new assembly, to be appointed by the mayor; seven are to be independent members in the same way as the other authorities; and four magistrates. Therefore, the proportions are roughly the same but the amendment concerns the 12. Our contention is that those 12 should not be wholly drawn from the new assembly but that six of them should come from the assembly and six from the London boroughs.
The important point is the representation of the boroughs. We shall come later to the question of whether the members picked from the assembly should be chosen by the mayor or whether they should be appointed or elected by the assembly. In some of the amendments proposed by myself and by the Liberal Democrats there is a distinction over whether to use the word "appointed" or "elected". I do not think that it makes any difference. The only way an assembly can appoint anyone is by a vote. It is a verbal difference without a distinction. The real distinction is whether the mayor or the assembly picks the assembly members. On this amendment, the issue is whether the boroughs
928
should be represented as well as the assembly. At present the boroughs are not to be represented; all representatives are to come from the assembly.
The Minister referred to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the importance of local links with the police and local consultation. Section 5 of that Act imposes a duty on London borough councils, as well as others elsewhere in the country, together with the commissioner, to formulate strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder in their areas. The underlying philosophy of the Crime and Disorder Act is to develop and enhance partnerships between, in this case, the Metropolitan Police and other agencies involved in the criminal justice system, but, above all, with local government. In London, those agencies are, and I believe will remain, the boroughs. The boroughs will still have most of the powers to do the things which the citizens want from local government. They will still have the responsibility under the Crime and Disorder Act for formulating strategies and liaising with the police; but they will not be represented on the authority.
That does not seem to be a sensible arrangement through which to implement the Crime and Disorder Act. With a large number of boroughs, it is difficult not to get into a situation where one makes the new police authority too large and unwieldy. With 23 members, it is a little larger than similar bodies in the rest of the country. I do not think that it would matter if the size were increased a little. The proportion should remain the same, but it would not matter if the number of members were larger. That would permit a few more representatives from the assembly than the six we propose, and a few more from the boroughs. I am not hung up on specific numbers. The important principle is that the boroughs should be represented.
The arrangements we have suggested for electing those borough representatives mirror those in the schedule to the Police Act 1996 for local councils or, in some cases where necessary, joint committees of local councils to appoint members to other police authorities. We envisage that similar joint committees would operate within London so as to arrive at the representatives of the boroughs. However, we are concerned about the principle that boroughs should be represented on the authority. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying for the benefit of anyone in the Chamber who may not be aware of the fact that I am, and have been for the past 13 years, a London borough council leader and may therefore be thought to have some natural sympathy for this group of amendments. I do not. I understand that the amendments arise from the Conservative approach, which is that the assembly should comprise entirely London borough council representatives. That is a view we have debated previously. It is one that I do not share. For that reason, I cannot share this view.
The Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority are supposed to be strategic in their roles. Therefore, it is right and appropriate that the

929
democratic representatives should come from the strategic authority and the assembly rather than the London boroughs. I fear that were six, or some such small number, to come from the London boroughs, inevitably that would detract from the strategic role and transfer some of the emphasis to a more local role. That is the wrong emphasis.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, makes an important point in relation to the crime and disorder strategies. It is important that those are fed clearly through to the deliberations of the Metropolitan Police Authority. But the implementation and development: of each London borough's strategies are primarily matters for that borough, and the partnerships and consultation within that borough. Where and how that should feed into the police authority is another matter. It will be for the authority to develop effective consultation arrangements with the boroughs collectively—dare I say perhaps through the Association of London Government?—to consider matters of wider concern and interest on the implementation of the crime and disorder strategies.
These proposals will not stop that happening. It is for those involved to ensure that it takes place. To have only six London borough representatives on the authority may be useful for the six London boroughs or the City of London (if there happens to be a representative). But, speaking for the London borough of Sutton, although we have good relationships with the next-door borough of Croydon, having a councillor from Croydon on the Metropolitan Police Authority would be of little greater use to us than having our constituency Member on the authority. It is of limited value. As a London borough council leader, I have some sympathy with the amendment, but essentially it is misguided. Subject to the amendments we shall propose later, the authority is about the right structure. It is for the authority to ensure that it establishes good and effective liaison arrangements with the boroughs, in particular in relation to their crime and disorder strategies.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I share with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, a feeling that there is a superficial attraction to the amendment. However, I agree that it does not bear much examination.
Members of the London assembly are being elected for strategic purposes. The role of the authority will be focused on strategic issues in relation to policing London. It will not be concerned on a day-to-day basis with operational matters or with issues around the crime and disorder strategy which will be developed at a local level. Indeed, it would be wrong if that were the case. Therefore, the argument that borough representation is required is fallacious.
It is also fallacious in practical terms, for the reasons to which the noble Lord alluded. To have six representatives of the boroughs purportedly representing 32 London boroughs makes difficulties for each representative who will be a locally elected borough councillor but will have to represent the interests of, presumably, five or six borough councils. In practice, that will not work. It will do nothing as regards the accountability structures of the police authority. If one wants good accountability and good links with the
930
boroughs, no doubt an amendment can be tabled suggesting 32 representatives. I do not believe that that would then be a practical police authority. It would not necessarily serve the purposes set out in the amendment. Those purposes will be achieved by much closer collaboration between the police authority, the London boroughs and the local crime and disorder partnerships.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The consequences have already been accurately set out by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I do not retraverse that ground. Essentially, we have sought to draw a clear line between strategic issues for which the GLA should be responsible and other issues which are rightly kept by the boroughs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the policing of London clearly requires a strategic overview. Therefore, the elected membership should be drawn from the assembly and not from individual boroughs. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has raised an important point and I am happy to reiterate, as firmly as I can, that the needs of local communities in London will not be overlooked. Consultation with the community is a requirement of the Police Act 1996 and of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
I am sure that the MPA will work closely with the boroughs, just as the Metropolitan Police Committee does now. It will take account of the views of the boroughs when drawing up its annual policing plan. I stress that the MPA and the boroughs will be involved in the new statutory partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act. Therefore, although I recognise the concerns that have driven these amendments, I believe that they are best addressed through the mechanisms that I have described.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am slightly disappointed, but only mildly, to discover that the two senior representatives of local government—particularly of local London boroughs—present in the Chamber this evening have not leapt to their feet to support the amendment. Nevertheless, I am not entirely put off by that.
The Crime and Disorder Act provides for the involvement of London boroughs, among others, and the Police Act provides for the involvement of what are called "relevant councils". So there is a case to be made for such involvement. The local strategies of which we talk will need to add up to the total, overall strategy—the same word is used in both cases—of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Metropolitan Police force. It would be no good if that did not happen.
I realise that the London Borough of Sutton or any other individual borough would not have its Own councillors on the authority, even if the figure of six that I have suggested were enlarged somewhat—I certainly do not think that it should be enlarged to 32 or anything like that because it would make the authority much less workable. It is proposed that 12 representatives of the assembly should serve on the police authority, so it is likely that some boroughs will not be represented on

931
that body. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, may find that, if the amendment were carried, the position would be the same.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I make it clear that I do not wish my borough, or any other, to be represented specifically on the Metropolitan Police Authority. My point is that the MPA should be a strategic authority that deals with strategic issues. Of necessity, the assembly members who serve on that body will live somewhere. However, I would not wish them to be viewed as borough representatives in any sense. Some of them may be constituency members of the assembly—I hope that is the correct term—and others may be London members from the top-up list. The important point is that they should be strategic representatives, not borough representatives.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I accept that. I understood entirely the thrust of the noble Lord's earlier intervention. At the same time, the point of having elected representatives—whether they are from the assembly or from the boroughs—is that they should represent, to a degree, the people who elected them; otherwise there is no democracy at all.
Judging from what the Minister has said, I am not likely to make much progress with the amendment this evening. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 354ZB:
Page 277, line 32, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("elected").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 354ZD, 354ZF, 354YJ and 354ZJ. I agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, made when considering the previous group of amendments: I think that probably all Members find the numbering and lettering system quite difficult to follow at times.
The numbering may be difficult, but the purpose of this amendment is very simple and clear. It relates to the 12 members who are to come from the assembly to serve on the police authority. Our batch of amendments proposes that the assembly members should be chosen by the assembly, not appointed by the mayor.
We have returned time and again to this issue during the debate because our view differs from that of the Government. Our view, which has been stated many times, is that the mayor should have less power and the assembly should have more power. The Government do not agree. This amendment is not strictly part of that argument—although perhaps it has its genesis there. We agree with the Government's proposal that 12 members of the assembly should serve on the Metropolitan Police Authority. Our point of difference with the Government is: who chooses those assembly members?
It seems to us to be right—and a fairly fundamental democratic principle—that those assembly members must be seen to represent the assembly. They will
932
certainly be held to account by the assembly for what they do and say. Therefore, they should be chosen by the assembly and not appointed by the mayor who may at least be tempted to choose people to serve on the police authority whom she or he feels might be most comfortable for the mayor. If the assembly is to be represented on the authority, we believe that the assembly should choose its representatives. The purpose of these amendments is to give the assembly the power to elect its 12 representatives—because perforce that is what they will be—to that body and to do so in accordance with the existing political balance on the assembly.
That is a fairly clear point and I hope that it will not get lost in our previous arguments about the distinction between the executive role of the mayor and the scrutiny role of the assembly—which I understand very well. We are talking about a simple democratic principle: assembly members who represent the assembly should be chosen by the assembly and not appointed by the mayor, without taking account of the assembly's wishes.
I would like to think—although I am not too hopeful—that the Government will recognise this fairly important point. I am quite sure that, if the assembly is able to choose its 12 members, those members will enjoy the assembly's greater confidence than if they are chosen simply by the mayor and appointed to the Metropolitan Police Authority. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall speak primarily to Amendments Nos. 354F, 354H and 354J, the effect of which is broadly the same as that of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The noble Lord's amendments use the word "elected" rather than "appointed", but that is not an effective difference.
I believe it is sensible that assembly members who sit on the authority—whether it is six or 12—should be elected by the assembly rather than appointed by the mayor. I cannot say that I followed with proper attention all of the previous debates about the mayor and the assembly—although I have done my best to read the relevant parts of Hansard. As far as the police authority is concerned, I believe that it is important that assembly members who serve on it should represent the assembly not only in the sense that the party balance is reflected—that is provided for in the Bill, and we wish to continue it as far as possible—but in the sense that they feel that they are answerable to the assembly.
The basic purpose of the assembly is to be a democratic check on the mayor. If he is to be given such patronage, that check is weakened. If he is able to say to a member of the assembly who is put on to the police authority that he is not doing what he wants and that he will remove him from the assembly, the mayor will directly control and heavily influence the authority.
We must remember that the 12 members are a majority. The independent members will be appointed by the 12, so whatever they and the magistrates say, they can be overruled. That will influence the way in which the authority works. It is therefore important that

933
the assembly members have the protection of being elected by their fellows rather than being the beneficiaries of the mayor's patronage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If it is convenient to the Committee, I shall speak to all the amendments in the group.
The effect of Amendment No. 354F, the Conservative amendment, is to have the assembly members of the MPA appointed by the assembly rather than the mayor. The Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 354ZF is similar, except for the difference in terminology. The other amendments are consequential.
It comes down to a difference of approach, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. We return to the old argument about the extension of the powers of the assembly at the expense of the mayor. I am not sure how helpful it would be if I wearied the Committee with a rerun of arguments which have been well ventilated, albeit in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and myself.
We believed that the amendments downplay the purpose of the mayor's strong strategic role. We regard the power of appointment as critical to the mayor's ability to take a high level and strategic interest in the authority's efforts to tackle crime and maintain an efficient and effective policing service in London. We do not want to see any diminution of the mayor's power in that respect.
Fundamentally, the difference of approach is as simple as that, but it is important not to overlook the fact that the mayor' s power of appointment is subject to the requirement that he or she shall ensure so far as practicable that the appointments reflect the balance of parties on the assembly. We believe that those two aspects taken together arrive at the right, properly balanced conclusion.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may begin with a point of agreement as regards election or appointment. I entirely accept that the assembly would be appointing the 12 members. It might well be that the 12 appointees would be chosen by elections within the assembly. In that way, we can agree on both election and appointment.
I turn to the more important and substantial matter. I was disappointed with the Minister's reply not because I expected him to agree with me, but because he had not understood and perhaps I had not made my point clearly. The argument is not about the powers of the strategic role of the mayor. If the Government were proposing that the mayor could appoint any 12 members from anywhere, some of whom might happen to be assembly members, I might well be having the argument that we have had throughout; that the assembly and not the mayor should appoint those 12 people.
We are not discussing that. We are specifically discussing 12 members of the assembly, as the Bill provides. Therefore, we are discussing whether the assembly can chose its own members who are bound to be seen as its representatives. Indeed, I assume that they are to be there as representatives of the assembly and
934
through it of the London communities. We are discussing whether the assembly has the right to chose its 12 representatives or whether the assembly has imposed upon it whoever the mayor chooses—the mayor's 12 most favoured members of the assembly—subject to the political balance.
That is a different point from the one we repeated about the role of the mayor and the assembly. I am talking specifically about who appoints the 12 people from the assembly. We say that it ought to be the assembly, from which they come and to which they will inevitably be held accountable, rather than the mayor, who will impose them. Many of those 12 unfortunate people who may well have been chosen by the assembly, given that we are talking about almost half the membership, will be held to account by their fellow assembly members who will have had no choice in their appointment. That seems rather unfair to those 12 people, to say the least.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that that is a different point from the one to which he has replied. I am happy to pause in order to give him an opportunity to reply to it. I see that he does not wish to do so. I suspect that I may have won my argument and that we may well return to the matter later when he 'will have had chance to think of a counter argument or have been persuaded by ours. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 354B to 354F not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354G:
Page 278, leave out lines 1 to 3.
The noble Lord said: We now turn to the deputy mayor. The Bill provides that the deputy mayor should automatically be a member of the MPA. The deputy mayor is to be appointed by the mayor under Clause 41. It also provides that the deputy mayor can be dismissed by the mayor at any time. If after a year or two, or a week or two, the mayor decides that he does not like the deputy mayor, he or she can be dismissed from the post.
However, the Bill also provides that the deputy mayor, by reason of his office, is automatically appointed to the MPA. Interestingly enough, there is no provision for the dismissal of the deputy may or from that authority. I am not sure whether the deputy mayor, having been dismissed from his post, automatically ceases to be a member of the MPA. If not, presumably the mayor will have to juggle about with the other 11 places.
That is all in the detail of the Bill. We ask whether the deputy mayor should automatically be a member of the MPA. There may well be someone who is regarded as well qualified and the ideal person to be deputy mayor, but who does not want, or is not considered suitable, to be on the MPA. In any event, the mayor may want to delegate to his deputy a great deal of authority in other areas of activity and not want him to be distracted by MPA business.
It does not seem to me that there should be anything automatic about it. There is more of a case for the deputy mayor to be appointed automatically to the authority if the other 11 were to be elected. If the mayor is to appoint all 12, he can appoint the deputy to the police authority if he feels like it. That would give the mayor greater flexibility. If the others were to be elected, something might be said for making sure that there was a senior figure on the assembly chosen by the mayor. If the Minister does not agree to the previous amendments, there is a strong case for this amendment. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Tope: I too shall listen with considerable interest to the Minister's response to the very good points that have been made. I am not quite clear why the Government believe that in giving the mayor the power to appoint 12 assembly persons they must insist that one of them has to be the deputy mayor. I do not entirely understand why that is so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Should the Minister be so moved by my persuasive arguments that the assembly member should be appointed by that body, it might well be a reasonable compromise that the deputy mayor shall be a member and the other 11 shall be chosen by the assembly. That would appear to be a reasonable way forward. But given that the mayor is appointing all 12, why is it required, whether he likes it or not, that one of them has to be the deputy mayor?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 354G would remove the requirement that the deputy mayor be one of the assembly members on the MPA. The answer to the question raised by both noble Lords who have contributed to the debate is that the deputy mayor is intended to be a figure of considerable importance. He is a key player in the assembly and an important participant in the mayor's cabinet. We believe that if the deputy was not on the MPA, that would significantly weaken the relationship between the mayor and the MPA and would diminish the mayor's influence. We do not want that to happen. That is the simple answer to the question which was very courteously put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thought the Minister was going to reply in that way, but his argument can be turned upside down. If the mayor already has "his man" or "his person" on the police authority, why does he need to have 11 other people whom he has also appointed? He has his representative in place already and that would be enough.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I agree with that. The Minister said that the deputy mayor is to be a key player in the assembly and I understand that. He may be a key member in different ways. It may be that his skills and experience show that he is the appropriate person to put on the police authority. But he may be a key member in other respects. There may be another key member in the assembly who is more appropriate to be the mayor's
936
principal link with the police authority, the strategy and the planning. It does not seem to me that a case has been made out for having the deputy mayor automatically elected.
I understand that the mayor will want to have a good relationship with the police authority. If the mayor is able to appoint 12 people, he will have a good relationship with the authority. If not, it will be the mayor's fault if he does not have a good relationship. I do not believe that it would be weakened if for some of the time the deputy mayor was put on the police authority. Does the Minister want to intervene?
Lord Bach: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he really envisage circumstances in which someone as significant as the deputy mayor, a member of the assembly, would not be properly on the police authority? Inevitably, that person would be the link, if nothing else, between the assembly and the police body. Can the noble Lord envisage circumstances in which such an important person would not be on the body? If he can, perhaps he can tell the Committee what those circumstances might be.
Lord Tope: I shall give the noble Lord a little more time to think of those circumstances. It may very well be that, given that nearly half the members of the assembly will be on the police authority, one of them will be the deputy mayor. I do not understand why it must be the deputy mayor. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has already said, there may be other very important responsibilities which the deputy mayor undertakes as regards the various other functional bodies. Why does it have to be the police authority'? Why cannot it be another important member of the assembly who fulfils the role? That is the point that we are trying to make. It is not that the deputy mayor is not important or that appointment to the police authority is not important; but why does it have to be prescribed that one of the 12 has to be the deputy mayor? If he is much better informed, suited and experienced in another important aspect of the GLA's work, why should not the deputy mayor play an equally important role in the area for which he or she is better qualified? That is the point that we are trying to make. I hope that by now the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has thought of many possibilities that may arise.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has expressed the matter more eloquently than I; I seem to have failed to put over my point. The situation where the deputy mayor may not be on the police authority may arise in two different ways. First, the mayor may consider that it would be more appropriate for the deputy mayor to spend most of his time working on some of the other responsibilities. In that case, it may be better for the deputy mayor not to be on the police authority so that he can devote his time to the other responsibilities that the mayor wishes him to have.
Secondly, it may well be that another member of the assembly should be the principal man or woman on the police authority because of his or her past experience, training or qualities. Therefore, it may be unnecessary

937
to appoint the deputy mayor because someone else can fill the role of being the important principal link between the mayor and the police authority. I do not know whether the Minister wants to contribute further to the debate. I gather not. In that case, no doubt the debate will continue on another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 354H to 354ZL not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354L:
Page 278, line 16, at end insert—
("3A. The members of the Metropolitan Police Authority shall exercise their powers to appoint members under paragraph 3(3)(a) so as to ensure that, so far as is practicable, where members for whose appointments they are responsible are members of political parties their numbers reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among members of the London Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: I signalled earlier that I understood that the Liberal Democrats were going to suggest that the Secretary of State should not have the power to appoint, but evidently they have changed their minds. They are extremely wise to do so otherwise should have been obliged to support the Government, not that I mind doing so occasionally.
Amendments Nos. 354L and 354M both seek to ensure that as far as possible the party balance is still maintained. There will also be seven members who will be voted on to the authority by the main members of the authority and four from among the magistrates. I do not seek to suggest—and the amendment is careful in this respect—that everyone who finds a place on the authority in that way should belong to a political party or should have to identify or express their preferences in terms of the parties that they support. However, where those individuals who serve on the authority belong to a political party, an effort should be made among them to ensure that the party balance is maintained.
I hope that many, if not all, of the independent members may be what in your Lordships' House are called Cross-Benchers, independent members belonging to no party at all. Ir.: so far as some of them may not be Cross-Benchers, I believe that the party balance should be reflected. These two amendments provide for that in respect of the two categories of members other than the members drawn from the assembly.
It would be wrong to exclude from appointment those who belong to parties. Similarly it would be wrong to exclude from appointment those who choose not to belong to any political party. If political party members are appointed to the authority, that should not upset the party balance. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister replies, I am bound to say that I find these two amendments quite disturbing. I have a small acquaintance with the police authority in the county where I was a county councillor. To return to our old argument, when that police authority was set up it was universally agreed that one of the county councillors representing us should be the former chairman of the
938
police authority, who was immensely knowledgeable. When the county council took the decision to appoint him as a member, his party affiliation was totally unimportant. Subsequently, he chaired that police authority with great distinction.
Turning to the independent members and the members chosen by the magistrates, I am quite astounded to hear the noble Lord say that their political affiliation should have any consideration. The Secretary of State will nominate a panel from which, if I understand the Bill aright, the other members will appoint the independent members. The Secretary of State, in creating that panel, will conduct a great deal of careful research. Quite a complicated form has to be filled in for that purpose. The Secretary of State, or someone on his behalf, will have satisfied himself that the person appointed, whether or not he or she has a political affiliation, is capable of acting with independence on the police authority.
I know a lot of magistrates and sometimes I can guess what their political affiliations may be. One or two of them occasionally confess into my ear what that affiliation is, but I have never heard them behave as though they belonged to a political party on, for example, the probation committee, of which I am a member. I am sure that the tradition of magistracy—I hope that it is as strong in London as elsewhere—would not favour a party political approach on behalf of magistrates. I would rather leave such matters to good sense and the general assumption that there are some people on bodies who can behave in a non-party political manner so that they make sure that we have the right people serving on the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No magistrate has ever confessed to me the shame of being a Liberal Democrat!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I do not know why the Minister suggests that it is only those in sympathy with my particular orientation whose affiliation I have occasionally been able to adduce!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The points made by the noble Baroness are overwhelming. The function of the independent members and the magistrate members, as she says, is precisely to be independent, bringing qualities and skills which are not dependent upon and are not generated by membership of a political party. It will be difficult enough to obtain the correct balance of skills, age, ethnic background and gender without introducing politics into the equation.
Outside London, independent member appointments are not dependent upon political allegiance or political parties. If one went the way that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicates, the result may be a membership, as indicated by the noble Baroness, consisting mainly of politically minded people. We do not want that for a body of this sensitivity.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have expressed my view on this subject, but it has not found favour. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 354M not moved.]
Schedule 21 agreed to.
Clauses 244 to 247 agreed to.
Clause 248 [Appointment of Commissioner]:
7.15 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 354MVA:
Page 135, leave out lines 3 to 19 and insert—
("(2) Any appointment of a Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall be made by the Metropolitan Police Authority.
(3) A person appointed as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall hold office until such time as the Assembly shall decide otherwise by two thirds majority on receiving a request from the Metropolitan Police Authority.
(4) Any appointment of a Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall be subject to regulations under section 50.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 354MVA standing in my name and those of my noble friends. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 354MWA and 354MXA.
These amendments concern the appointments of a commissioner and a deputy commissioner. They propose that those appointments should be made by the Metropolitan Police Authority rather than, as proposed in the Bill, by the Queen acting on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. It also provides for the removal by a two-thirds majority of a commissioner so appointed. Amendment No. 354MWA prescribes that if we do not succeed in that, the London assembly should also have the opportunity, indeed the right, to make representations to the Secretary of State on the appointment of the commissioner.
These amendments are in line with the recommendations of the Macpherson report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, which recommended that all chief officer appointments in the Metropolitan Police service should be made by the authority. The Government have accepted those recommendations, except in relation to the commissioner and deputy commissioner. I believe it is the view of the Government—as we shall hear shortly—that, because of the particular nature of the Metropolitan Police service, its national and international functions, and status—if that is the right word—of the commissioner and deputy commissioner being higher than that of the Chief Constable, the Secretary of State should continue to play a more active role.
We feel that is the wrong way round. We are appointing a Metropolitan Police Authority responsible for the Metropolitan Police service, and the Macpherson report was right to recommend that the commissioner and deputy commissioner should be appointed by the authority. I am sure that in making such an appointment they would wish to pay due regard to the views of the Secretary of State. If we are to have an authority, it seems right and proper to us—we agree with Macpherson—that that authority should have the responsibility of appointing the two senior posts that will report to them.
The Government, in their response to the Macpherson report, have simply commented that those appointments will remain royal appointments. They have not said why. My question is not intended, in any sense, to be anti-royalist or anti-monarchist. I do not understand, and I hope that the Minister will explain, why the appointment has to be a royal appointment, even if the Home Secretary is to retain, in effect, the power to appoint, or certainly the power to nominate the appointment. Perhaps there is a simple explanation that has escaped me. I shall be pleased to hear the Minister's reply.
However, I return to our principal point; namely, that now we are to have a fully-fledged Metropolitan Police Authority it should have the power, after consulting appropriately, to appoint—and, for that matter, dismiss—the two senior officers of the Metropolitan Police Service. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not find myself in agreement with this set of amendments. Notwithstanding the Macpherson Report, I think that the Bill is to be preferred in this respect. The noble Lord seemed to be making a distinction between whether Her Majesty the Queen would be involved or whether it would be the Secretary of State. The question of whether or not the Queen would be involved seems to me to be the smaller of the two considerations. I do not believe that it is disrespectful to refer to that as a bit of the ornamental part of the constitution, as Bagehot suggested, rather than the practical part. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that Her Majesty the Queen should be involved.
The real question is whether the Secretary of State or the assembly should, essentially, make the appointment. After all, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall "have regard to" the recommendations made to him by the authority and any representations made to him by the mayor of London. Those recommendations and representations may point to the same person being appointed as commissioner or, for that matter, they may point to different people being appointed. If the majority of the authority is appointed by the mayor, it may be unlikely that the mayor's judgment would be different from the majority of the people whom he appointed; but it is still entirely possible. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the Secretary of State has a most important role to play. But even in circumstances where the recommendations of the authority and the representations of the mayor point in the same direction, it still seems to me to be a good thing that the Secretary of State should actually be the one to recommend the appointment.
For a while I was security Minister in Northern Ireland. Therefore, when in Great Britain I benefited from the protection of the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police. I came to know quite a bit about the way in which they are able to operate in different parts of the country in that rather particular regard. It gave me a certain feeling for the national role which the Metropolitan Police have in addition to their more conventional role of policing the metropolis. But, of course, it is more than just the Special Branch protection

941
people; indeed, this applies across a wide range of responsibilities. That is the reason for the Secretary of State's involvement.
The noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches did not move earlier the proposal that the Secretary of State should lose the power, suggested under the Bill, to appoint a member of the authority. In not moving that amendment, the noble Lord recognised the national role of the Metropolitan Police. This is another recognition of it. I am not sure whether the difference between the two methods of appointment is actually quite as great as it might seem in prospect. If a person is recommended by the authority and supported by the mayor, it seems to me unlikely that the Secretary of State will appoint anyone else at that stage. So the distinction may not be quite as great a chasm as it may seem. However, in so far as there is a difference—indeed, there is—I support the Bill as it stands.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The present arrangements in the Bill are to be found in Clause 248. Amendments Nos. 354MVA and 354MXA give completely new arrangements. The appointment of the commissioner—this is quite important—becomes the sole gift of the Metropolitan Police Authority, as does the appointment of the deputy. I cannot accept these amendments. They give no role to the Secretary of State in the appointment of either the commissioner or the deputy; indeed, no role at all. That is very strange because the Police Act 1996 requires the Secretary of State to approve the appointment of chief constables and assistant chief constables outside London. The Macpherson recommendations said that the MPA's role in appointing chief officers of the Metropolitan Police should be brought into line with the role of other police authorities in appointing their chief officers. So this amendment is not consistent with that recommendation.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, were well made. This is a police force absorbing over a fifth of all resources devoted to policing in England and Wales. It has national and international functions in respect of counter-terrorism and Royal security. These are functions for which the Home Secretary will continue to have a particular responsibility. That means that his relationship with the commissioner and deputy is a special one.
We believe that these are different appointments because of the reasons outlined by rhe noble Lord, Lord Cope, and which I mentioned a moment ago. That is why the Bill provides for the Home Secretary to make a recommendation to Her Majesty. We believe that the different status justifies that different basis of appointment.
I turn now to the question of removal. Clause 251 already provides arrangements for the removal of the commissioner and the deputy commissioner. The proposals set out in Amendment No. 354MVA suggest a different removal procedure. It says that the commissioner is to hold office until the assembly decides otherwise by a,
"two thirds majority on receiving a request from the Metropolitan Police Authority".
942
Amendment No. 354MXA suggests a similar provision in respect of the deputy commissioner but with two differences: it refers to the authority, not just to the assembly; and only a "simple majority" is required to remove the deputy commissioner from office. We cannot see any reason why the assembly should have such a role in removing the commissioner or his deputy. The influence that the assembly has in this matter, as in the appointment process, should be through the presence of 12 members on the MPA. As I indicated, they will have a significant role in appointment and removal. I believe these amendments to be misconceived and possible causes of danger.
Lord Tope: I should like to begin by saying that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that whether or not these appointments are Royal is a secondary issue; indeed, I accept that fact. However, I still have not received an answer to my question as to why these should be Royal appointments rather than, as the Minister would argue, appointments of the Secretary of State. I shall no doubt wait in vain for an answer to that, albeit secondary, issue.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it is to be hoped that no chasm will open here. Perhaps, through some miraculous process, the authority and the Secretary of State will come to a like view, after consultation, that there is one person uniquely qualified to be the commissioner. In that case, everyone will be happy, not least, I imagine, the person so appointed. But it is not stretching credulity too far to envisage a circumstance where the mayor and the police authority may reach a different view from that of the Home Secretary of the day as to who is the appropriate person. Then a rather serious chasm would open and we would have two authoritative bodies with a different view—on the one hand, we would have the police authority with, presumably, the support of the mayor and, on the other hand, the Home Secretary. That would put the person appointed, and perhaps the person not appointed, into a very difficult position.
While I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will always be right and there will not be a chasm, I do not think it is fanciful to envisage that such circumstances could arise. The Bill is all about envisaging circumstances which most of us hope will never arise, but, nevertheless, we are providing for them just in case they do. This is another such situation. It is quite an important issue.
I accept the gentle censure of the Minister as regards the imperfect drafting here. Perhaps I may explain that the reference to "the Assembly" in Amendment No. 354MVA is probably a misunderstanding on our part. I do not doubt that that was what was written in the amendment when it was originally tabled, but it should certainly have referred to the authority. I entirely accept and agree with that view. Indeed, the Minister was night to point out the differences, which were unintentional.
A similarly unintentional but more serious error concerns the Minister's point about the provision not being in line with practice in the rest of the country. We

943
certainly intend that the Home Secretary should have a role in this matter. I shall certainly withdraw the amendments and shall endeavour—
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the noble Lord does so, perhaps I may point something out. If in Amendment No. 354MVA the word "assembly" is supposed to be "authority", that seems to make the provision if not meaningless at least diminished in meaning. Amendment No. 354MVA—with the substitution of the word "authority" for "assembly"—would state that the person,
"shall hold office until such time as the authority shall decide otherwise by two thirds majority"
on the request of the authority. It will have to consult itself and then confirm its decision with a two-thirds majority. That seems to me to be peculiar wording.
Lord Tope: The noble Lord is absolutely right; the wording is extremely peculiar. It is wording to which we shall have to pay greater attention if and when we bring this measure back at Report stage. The principle that we are trying to put forward here is clear. I accept the shortcomings in the drafting but the principle is clear. We believe that the commissioner and deputy commissioner should be appointed and removed by the authority, not by the Home Secretary. I accept the imperfections in the drafting for which I take responsibility and apologise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 354MWA not moved.]
Clause 248 agreed to.
Clause 249 agreed to.
Clause 250 [Appointment of Deputy Commissioner]:
[Amendment No. 354MXA not moved.]
Clause 250 agreed to.
Clauses 251 to 253 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 354MYA:
Insert the following new Clause—
CONTINUATION IN POST OF CURRENT COMMISSIONERS AND COMMANDERS
(" .—(1) Any appointment of a person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 1 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 248 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9B of the Police Act 1996.
(2) If, immediately before the coming into force of section 250 above, there is in force in respect of a person who is one of the Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis an authorisation under section 8 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1856 (authorisation of one of the Assistant Commissioners to act as Commissioner in case of vacancy, illness or absence) that person shall be taken, as from the coming into force of section 250 above, to have been appointed as the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9D of the Police Act 1996.
(3) Any appointment of a person (other than a person in relation to whom subsection (2) above has effect) as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 2 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1856 which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 252 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9F of the Police Act 1996.
(4) Any appointment of a person as a Commander in the metropolitan police force which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 253 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as a Commander under and in accordance with section 9G of the Police Act 1996.").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments contains Government Amendments Nos. 354MYA and 354MZA and Opposition Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB. Government Amendment No. 354MYA inserts a new clause which makes transitional provision in respect of those individuals in one of the four senior ranks of the Metropolitan Police—commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner or commander—on the date when the new provisions applying to the appointment of those ranks come into force. This will be 3rd July 2000. The clause provides that these individuals will be deemed to have been appointed under the new arrangements inserted into the Police Act 1996 by the Bill.
This amendment will confirm that those individuals will remain in post and ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements. It will also have the effect that those concerned are subject to other provisions made in the Bill in respect of those ranks.
These various provisions will be applied to senior Met officers appointed on or after 3rd July 2000, and we think it is right that individuals who are in post on that date should similarly be subject to them. This will not mean any worsening of conditions for these individuals. But it will mean there is no delay in conferring the full range of powers and duties on the Metropolitan Police Authority. Special transitional provisions are not needed for officers below the rank of commander—the Bill does not give the MPA a role in their appointments, which will continue to be made by the commissioner in accordance with regulations made under Section 50 of the 1996 Act.
The other government amendment—Amendment No. 354MZA—clarifies the wording in new Section 9H of the 1996 Act. This section sets out the ranks that may be held in the Metropolitan Police. These are the four senior ranks to which I have just referred—namely, commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner and commander—together with the ranks of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable. The current wording might be regarded as being ambiguous and that is why we want to put the matter beyond doubt.
I now come to Opposition Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB. These amendments are also concerned with Clause 254. At present, the clause provides that, in addition to the four senior ranks, the ranks that may be held,
"shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations".

945
It goes on to provide that these ranks shall include those of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable. This wording means that the Met (like other forces) must have these ranks. It would be possible to add to them using the regulations, but it would not be possible to delete any of them. This is consistent with the position outside London. The amendments would change this wording to say that the ranks,
"shall be superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable or such as may be prescribed by regulations".
The effect of this change is that it would be possible for the regulations to provide not only for additional ranks to those listed, but to dispense with one or more of the listed ranks. This would be inconsistent with the position outside London. We believe that the same set of ranks from superintendent level down ought to obtain generally. Therefore for the reasons I have indicated briefly, I cannot support those two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Minister has pointed out, the two amendments standing in my name in this group are Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB. The Minister has just described their effect. The first point that attracted my attention was the transitional one with regard to what the ranks would be in the first place. As I read the Bill, a new regulation would have to be introduced in order to create these ranks. I seek to provide that they should continue, at least until there is a further regulation. But I believe that the Minister has covered the point about the transitional provisions and therefore my amendments are no longer required in that regard.
However, I sought to provide not only that the traditional ranks could be created but also that other ranks might be removed. In recent years the rank of chief superintendent has been removed. In all kinds of organisations there is a tendency to shorten chains of command and the number of ranks that exist. At some point in the future there may be further movement in that direction. I do not propose that that should happen, but if it should occur I seek to remove the need for primary legislation to be introduced to secure that end. However, in view of the fact that these ranks have relatively recently been reduced in number and there is no immediate expectation of any further reduction, I think perhaps it is unnecessary for me to move these two amendments when we reach them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have already moved Amendment No. 354MYA which is the first amendment in the group that we are discussing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 254 [Other members of the metropolitan police force]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 354MZA:
Page 137, leave out lines 32 to 43 and insert—
(""Other members of the metropolitan police force.
9H.—(1) The ranks that may be held in the metropolitan police force shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations under section 50.
(2) The ranks so prescribed in the case of the metropolitan police force shall include, in addition to the ranks of—

(a) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,

(b) Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,

(c) Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and

(d) Commander, those of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB not moved.]
Clause 254, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 255 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 354MZC:
Insert the following new Clause—
SECONDMENTS TO MEET DEMANDS CAUSED BY THE BOUNDARY CHANGE
(" .—(1) The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis may, on the application of the chief officer of police of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 for the police area of Essex, Hertfordshire or Surrey, provide for that force constables from the metropolitan police force.
(2) An application under subsection (1) above may only be made for the purpose of, or otherwise in connection with, meeting the demands placed, or reasonably expected to be placed, on the resources of the police force in question in consequence of the change effected as a result of section 255 above in the police area for which that force is maintained.
(3) While a constable is provided under this section for a police force, he shall be under the direction and control of the chief officer of police of that force, notwithstanding section 9A(1) of the Police Act 1996 (metropolitan police force to be under the direction and control of the Commissioner) or any other enactment relating to the direction or control of the metropolitan police force.
(4) The police authority maintaining a police force for which constables are provided under this section shall pay to the police authority maintaining the metropolitan police force such contribution as may be agreed upon between those authorities or, in the absence of any such agreement, as may be provided by any agreement subsisting at the time between all police authorities generally, or, in the absence of such general agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) This section is without prejudice to any other power of a chief officer of police to provide constables or other assistance to another police force.
(6) Expressions used in this section and in the Police Act 1996 have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 354MZC, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 354MD.
The new clause proposed in our amendment gives power to the commissioner to provide police officers to the county police forces of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. These three forces will have the area they police enlarged on 1st April 2000. Changes to the boundaries are provided for in Clause 255 of the Bill.
To police their enlarged areas, Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey will need additional officers. We need a seamless transfer of responsibilities between the Met and the county forces on 1st April 2000 so that there is no loss of service to the public.
The four forces concerned have, since last summer, been holding discussions between themselves and with Home Office officials about issues which derive from

947
the boundary changes. A key part of these discussions has been how to decide the best way to provide increased police officer numbers. In the longer term the majority will be obtained by direct recruitment. Some officers will transfer on a voluntary basis from their current forces. However, not all the newly recruited officers will be in place and fully trained by next April. The new clause provides a way of bridging the gap. It enables Met officers to be loaned for a period of time, which we would expect to be between six months and two years. They will retain the pay and allowances of a Metropolitan Police officer but will be under the direction and control of the chief constable of the force to which they have been seconded. At the conclusion of the secondment, the officers would return to the Met.
The wording of the new clause is based closely upon an existing provision; namely, Section 24 of the Police Act 1996, which provides for aid from one police force to another.
Opposition Amendment No. 354MD seeks to insert a new clause which would require the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to certify that the Metropolitan Police had a sufficient number of police officers before the commissioner was able to second police officers to another force. It is not a necessary amendment. There is no requirement that the commissioner should second officers to Essex, Hertfordshire or Surrey; our new clause simply gives him the power to do so. He plainly would not do so if he was left with insufficient officers to police his own district to the required standard. As I have said, we believe it will be possible for sufficient police officers to be seconded without jeopardising the standard of service.
In addition to being unnecessary, we believe the amendment to be inappropriate. It is a matter for the commissioner to decide how many officers he needs to police the MPD within his available resources, just as it is a matter for other chief officers to determine the number of police officers required in their forces. Bearing in mind the explanation I have given, I invite the noble Lord, in due course, not to move his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have no objection in principle to the new clause in Amendment No. 354MZC; secondments may be necessary. Although I would not want necessarily to press on the Committee the details of how the proposed new clause in my Amendment No. 354MD would work, it seeks to draw attention to the fact the Metropolitan Police are already under considerable strain, both financially and in terms of numbers. The latest information I have is that since March 1997 the size of the Metropolitan Police has fallen by a further 680; that the police settlement for 1999–2000 has been criticised by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation; and that it has been suggested that that settlement could result in 1,000 more posts being cut in the Metropolitan police area. That is a part of the background to officers being seconded from the Metropolitan Police to the Essex, Surrey and Hertfordshire police forces.
948
However, in another sense, it is clearly necessary that, at least in the early stages, some police officers should be seconded. The Minister said that the secondments were expected to last for between six months and two years. We doubt that it will necessarily be the case that over such a period the three county forces affected will be able to recruit enough officers of their own to ensure that no more secondments are required.
I understand that the original intention was to ask for volunteers to transfer from the affected divisions of the Metropolitan Police into the Essex, Surrey or Hertfordshire forces respectively but that it might be necessary to second volunteers from further afield or, indeed, to compulsorily transfer some officers. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether compulsory transfers are expected at this stage.
As the Minister said, officers who are transferred will continue to receive the additional weighting of the Metropolitan Police. That in itself will put a strain on the budgets of the Essex, Surrey and Hertfordshire police and give the chief constables concerned an incentive to try and recruit as much as possible locally.
The monetary considerations which will follow from such transfers are, to me at least, extremely obscure. Is the Minister in a position to say, as regards the number of individuals concerned, how many will be compulsorily transferred and what the financial effects will be? It would be not only interesting for us to know but important. We need to understand the implications before deciding whether or not to endorse the decisions taken by the Bill. The consequences are not small—they are very large—and will have implications for the police budgets of the counties and of the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord has asked particular questions to which I should respond. We expect that there will be sufficient numbers of officers who will be happy to volunteer for secondment, for obvious reasons. The noble Lord is quite right. There is a power in the new clause to second officers on a compulsory basis. However, I stress that we expect a sufficient number of volunteers.
The noble Lord raised a question about funding. The enlarged size of the county forces and any traditional costs, including the higher pay and allowances of seconded Met officers compared with officers in the county forces, will be considered by the Government as part of the police force settlement for 2000–2001.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We welcome both the establishment of a satisfactory boundary for the Met area and the very subtle method that has been chosen to reassure Met officers that they will continue to have the same pay and conditions of employment as when they were working in what was previously a Met area. We urge all Members of the Committee not to disturb this satisfactory arrangement with which, so far as I am aware, all parties are in agreement.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354MC:
After Clause 255, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER OF ASSETS FROM METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY
(" .—(1) In the absence of agreement between the Police Authorities for Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey and the Metropolitan Police Authority about the transfer of land, buildings, capital and other assets from the Metropolitan Police to the other authorities, the Secretary of State shall make an order to determine what transfers shall take place.
(2) No order under this section shall be made unless a statutory instrument containing 3 draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings the Committee on to the question of the transfer of other assets from the Metropolitan Police to the police forces of the three counties of Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire. Clearly, assets such as land, buildings, police stations and so on will need to be transferred during the change from one authority to another. Other assets such as cars, radios and all the other equipment which the police use these days so effectively on our behalf will also need to be transferred.
Strenuous efforts are being made at the moment by the four police forces involved to reach an agreement as to what should be transferred and what should be the financial arrangements for covering the transfers. It seems to me and to others that there may not be ultimate agreement about the very elaborate transfers that will be needed. If that were to happen, the Secretary of State should, as it were, referee the matter. He will of course be a party to the negotiations in the sense that some of them will take place while he still has responsibility for the Metropolitan Police Authority. In addition to that, no doubt arguments about money will revolve to a considerable degree around what grants will be available in the future for the four police authorities involved.
As the Secretary of State is, in any case, involved in the matter, it would seem better to make it clear that, if agreement is not reached—and we all hope that it will be—the Secretary of State should be the one to decide. However, given that the Secretary of State has an interest, both from a financial point of view and also as the existing policy authority for London, it also seems right that he should report the result of his labours in that respect to each House of Parliament and obtain their agreement.
On that basis, if agreement was not reached, at least there would be some public discussion as to whether this complicated transfer of assets was being done in a way that was fair. The representatives of all four areas would have an opportunity to express their opinions. The fact that matters would come out in public might assist the process of agreement in the first place. Even it did not, a mechanism for doing so would be provided. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We do not believe that this amendment is required. The Bill already gives the Secretary of State power to make an order or to require
950
the forces concerned to make a scheme to transfer property rights and liabilities involved in any of the transfers of responsibility under the Bill, including the police boundary change. We have not decided whether transfers following boundary changes will be carried out by scheme or order. However, the clause proposed would simply give effect to what is already agreed government policy.
There have been fruitful discussions between officials in the Home Office and representatives of the four forces. They have been urged to agree between themselves the detail of the transfers. If there is a failure to agree, the Home Office will decide. The four forces are content with that approach. They are working together constructively to ensure that the transfer runs smoothly. All parties hope it will be possible to avoid the use of the Home Office as the arbiter in areas of disagreement, but we already have that power.
Subsection (2) would require the approval of both Houses for any order. We do not believe that it is necessary to have that kind of parliamentary procedure for what are essentially matters of detail in a transfer between police forces. Any other transfer orders effected under Clause 319 of the Bill would be subject to negative resolution only. That seems the appropriate procedure for such matters. I remind the Committee that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not raise any objections to that procedure. I cannot see why the police force area boundary change should be singled out in this way.
There is a point of detail—there always is. The MPA comes into existence only on 3rd July. The boundary change takes place on 1st April. Therefore, this amendment could not work anyway. That is not really the point of my remarks. I merely felt obliged to mention it as the last refuge of the useless Minister!
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am always delighted to receive free legal advice, even on the drafting of a deficient amendment. I am also glad that government policy and activity are following the line suggested in my new clause, and that I therefore need not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Finance Bill
7.53 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Space Policy
7.54 p.m.
Lord Renwick Lord Renwick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what decisions were taken at the Council of Ministers on the European Space Agency on 11th and 12th May; and what were the implications of these decisions for United Kingdom space policy.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to congratulate the Minister on his successful chairmanship at ministerial level of the recent council meeting of the European Space Agency, and to thank him in anticipation for his reply this evening.
Let me say first that I am happy to welcome the outcome of that Brussels summit as being largely beneficial for the UK. Of particular importance to this country are the decisions of the council in the areas of earth observation for environmental monitoring, of global satellite navigation, of satellite systems for multimedia telecommunications services, as well as for furthering the scientific exploration of the earth and our place in the universe.
However, we must also consider some of those areas which are still of concern, and where the Minister may be able to help us to clarify the policy and intentions of Her Majesty's Government. I turn first to the question of the management of the environment in accordance with the many international agreements and protocols, which will depend, among other things, on observations which can only be made by satellite. The UK has world-class capabilities in this area, particularly in space-borne radar systems, and data processing and services. Thus, the strong commitment at the council to the Living Planet programme is important both in national as well as European terms. In putting earth observation science on a steady course, however, Living Planet represents only the first step.
What is now vitally important is for the Government to think innovatively about how to assist the transition to the commercial and operational phase which alone will lead to a robust and self-sustaining earth observation industry in this country. It would be helpful to hear the Minister's views on how that transition is to be managed; and on how he intends to stimulate his government colleagues and the EU in co-ordinating requirements for earth observation data in a more effective manner than heretofore, since this, inevitably, is an operational area where government users predominate.
Those questions apart, the ministerial outcome on earth observation is widely seen as a positive step in the right direction. The same cannot be said, I regret, for what was decided—or rather, not decided—in regard to the Future Launchers Technology Programme. It is with some alarm and disappointment that I note that both the UK and Germany reserved their position on that important project. From a strictly national point of view. I must express grave reservations over any decision which would effectively abandon the chance of a UK role in the next generation of launch vehicles.
This is a time to move forward and to remember the mistakes of the past. Will the Minister therefore give the House an assurance that, in the review that he is undertaking following the council, he will commit to this programme nationally, and use the considerable influence he has gained from a successful chairmanship to consolidate support from other member states?
It is always rewarding to acknowledge progress, and the role that the UK scientific community has played, and continues to play, is a vital part of an undoubted European success story. In general, the recent ministerial deliberations seem to have underwritten those missions which are central to the objectives of the ESA space science programme. I particularly welcome the assurance that the Mars Express mission will proceed. What though of the British-led Beagle 2 Mars lander? Perhaps the Minister will clarify his intentions on that key component of the Mars Express mission.
On the wider issues of the way in which ESA delivers its space science, the ministerial meeting posed some hard questions for ESA management. That is a good thing, and indeed reflects the success of UK advocacy of efficiency measures during both the present and previous administrations. Nationally, it will mean that the allocation of funding between the European Space Agency and national space programmes will have to be reconsidered. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he intends to proceed so as to ensure that Her Majesty's Government's funding is used most effectively to produce the best scientific results.
Perhaps the most far-reaching decision to be reached at this ministerial meeting, however, was to confirm our commitment to the definition phase of the Galileo programme which will ensure the strategic independence of Europe in the field of satellite navigation. This House will particularly wish to note that the UK is the second largest contributor to this programme. It is essential for the future prosperity and independence of the UK and Europe that this programme proceeds to a successful conclusion. The next generation of navigation services will affect the way we live in the next century and beyond. Galileo, however, is a joint programme between ESA and the EU, and the decision to proceed was very much contingent upon the additional support of the European transport ministers at their meeting last month. My understanding is that such support was forthcoming, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that the significance of the Galileo programme has firmly registered across government.
I mentioned earlier the increasing convergence of the EU and ESA in the future development of an overall policy for European space; perhaps the gradual drawing together to which I referred is beginning to require clearer political oversight. The Minister would assist us greatly, therefore, if he could offer an insight into how he sees European space developing in the next few years, for, to say the very least, it is hard to believe that the European Space Agency will be the same animal in five to 10 years' time as it is now.
In doing so, does the Minister recognise that Britain's role in the European Space Agency is part of a European industrial and political success story which we would do

953
well to balance against some of the more negative aspects of the current European debate? It is significant that our own Parliamentary Space Committee, to which I shall turn in a moment, has now joined in the formation of a European Inter-Parliamentary Space Group. I had the privilege of attending the group's inaugural meeting in Paris at the end of April this year when parliamentarians from France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom committed themselves to co-operating with their national governments and each other in the promotion of European space interests.
Nevertheless, we must also identify where it is necessary to protect national interests. We can all understand, therefore, why the Minister has postponed publication of his Space Forward Plan in order to take due account of decisions taken in Brussels. However, I wish to express my particular disappointment that the publication of the UK Space Plan 1999 is, I understand, in the perverse way in which governments treat this House and another place, precisely timed to appear after both Houses of Parliament will almost certainly have risen for the Summer Recess. I urge the Minister to share with us, to the maximum extent possible, the likely detail and thinking in this space plan, of which, I understand, the first proof will be considered in the next couple of days.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity of advancing the parliamentary and government dialogue a stage further in my personal capacity. The Minister will be aware of the work of the Parliamentary Space Committee on which I have the honour to serve as honorary secretary. It is typical of the good will and common ground which applies on an all-party basis that that committee, with the strong support of the United Kingdom Industrial Space Committee, has enabled parliamentarians to engage in a dialogue with the Minister and his predecessors and the British National Space Centre.
I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister and the BNSC have responded positively to suggestions put forward during the consultation and dialogue, both in the run-up to the ESA ministerial meeting and in the preparation of the UK Space Plan.
In what may be one of the last opportunities I have in this House to argue for the continuation of a space partnership between government, parliament and industry, may I urge the Minister—particularly when the timing of the publication of the space plan comes so unfortunately in relation to the parliamentary timetable—that he confirms his previous offer to meet the Parliamentary Space Committee and the United Kingdom Industrial Space Committee's representatives as soon as possible after the publication of the plan? Meanwhile, I know that your Lordships' House will await the Minister's response with the keenest interest.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate so ably initialed by the noble Lord, Lord Renwick. His interest and expertise in the subject are well known and of long standing. I wish to concentrate in the time available on just one of the important issues which the noble Lord raised. I share
954
the view that one of the really long-term questions or decisions for the Government is what is to be our approach to the next generation of launch vehicles, generally seen to be of the re-usable kind or RLVs for short.
As the world leader in the launcher field, it is not surprising that the United States is very active in RLV endeavours. We have benefited greatly from their efforts in the past. Where should we stand today? What are the important factors we must take into account? Let me try to outline a few. I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to take us further into his and the Government's thinking about RLVs and the approach which Her Majesty's Government are minded to adopt when they publish their long awaited space plan.
It is sobering to recall that in the early post World War II years we were a leading country in research into and development of ballistic missiles. Those of your Lordships with long memories will recall our experiences with Blue Streak and the defence-related efforts devoted to trying to make it work. As so often befalls early pioneers, success does not usually come easily or quickly. More often than not, the test failures along the way are judged by many not only by their lack of success but also by their costs—costs which are soon represented as unacceptable and irresponsibly exceeding the original ballpark estimates. In short, they amount to financial millstones which must be dealt with.
With competing demands for resources, not only in the defence field but throughout the economy, inevitably alternative approaches have to be studied. In due course and with plenty of rationalisation, usually concentrated on relative costs of the ways forward, one of the alternatives will become the favoured policy, even at the expense of broad political and security judgments of longer lasting benefit.
We abandoned Blue Streak. We chose to look to the United States to provide us with a whole series of ballistic missiles. Noble Lords will recall the Thors, the Skybolts, the Polaris and the Tridents, all of which we obtained or were offered on account of our special relationship with the United States. We soon took responsibility for the payloads and upgrading of the on-board weapon and other systems which these missiles, and others for our communicating and intelligence needs, would or could have been taken into space for us.
With such help in the defence field, it is hardly surprising that we did not seem or need to have to contribute in any major way to the development of the actual launchers. Unlike us, the French have argued that without the nationally owned capability to launch their payloads into space, they would not have a viable or credible space policy. It is interesting to reflect that neither we nor the French could make a case that the particular routes that we have separately chosen have proved to be a financial and strategic mistake for the other. No such major divergence is discernible in the successes of our separate space policies.
We seem in the past 30 to 40 years to have adopted or even drifted into an alternative rationale to that of the French, a rationale which is, at its most basic, that it is

955
what is in space and not what you send it into space with that really matters and we must concentrate our resources and efforts upon them.
Certainly, the combination of commercially available launchers and the undoubted value of the special relationship that we have enjoyed with the United States, more so than any other European country, has given us much, if not virtually all, that we could hope to find, and fund, for our space needs. As a consequence, our enthusiasm for the European route has not always been particularly obvious or sincere. The question arises: are we set fair to continue on this path, or is now the moment to reconsider, even modernise, our approach? Should we become more active and a leader in the research and development of future launchers?
The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, concentrated on the global commercial market for RLVs to serve the space communities. I hope that the other aspects of the issue will be given their due weight. The political and defence rationales for the extent and depth of our involvement in future RLVs must be considered. As our links in the EU develop, will we find changes in the bilateral strength of the special UK/US relationship? Will the United States perceive Europe as its dominant interactive partner at the expense of the past special dealings with the United Kingdom?
We see the European Commission adopting a much more prominent stance in space-related activities as a regulator, policymaker, defender of European interests internationally, research funder, and potentially as a customer and advocate of applications and markets. The Commission recommends that Europe constructs a global navigational satellite system to compete with, or complement, the systems deployed by the United States and Russia. These and other such developments are in turn likely to impact directly on the development of a common foreign and security policy in Europe.
In the defence field, the potential threat from ballistic missile attack on this country seems for the moment to be on the back burner. We are told that the Ministry of Defence will keep the situation under review. But in the long run such a threat cannot be wished away, nor can we expect that it will never re-emerge as a pressing and dangerous problem. If we are to develop defence capability against that kind of threat it will require expertise, including launcher expertise and counter-ballistic capabilities.
I believe it is right that political and defence issues, as well as the purely commercial considerations, should be weighed in the assessment of the way forward. Inevitably, the scale of the defence, security and political issues will have a bearing on the amount of government support of R&D which should be forthcoming. Only if the way ahead is confined to civil and commercial considerations is there a real argument for leaving it to the industry alone to fund its own research and development and to seek, in due time, a return on its capital as it sells its products in the global market.
956
I have tried, with all due deference, to remind the Minister and his department that, important as the civil and commercial space issues are, their policies should not fail to address the national interests in the wider fields that I have outlined. I hope that the Minister is able to give a firm assurance that the forthcoming UK space plan will be a truly trans-departmental document and that full weight will be accorded to broad issues of key importance to the way ahead for the United Kingdom in space and, in particular, to the area of reusable launch vehicles.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to intervene at this late stage. I wanted to speak in this debate but I had to be in Newcastle today and was not sure whether I could rely on the trains to get me back in time.
I declare an interest that may surprise your Lordships' House. I had a lot of dealings with Eastern Europe and became involved in Ukraine and the idea of joint ventures in ship-building. While in Ukraine on missions with many former defence people I was asked if I would like to see how they launched objects into space. I spent a few days in Dnieper Petrovsk and visited Yushmash, the Ukraine space centre, which was also responsible for building the SS20s, the SS18s and SS17s, for ever and a day. That industrial enterprise, of which President Kutchma had been chief executive for a while, won three Orders of Lenin. One does not get an Order of Lenin unless one launches at the precise micro-second. Therefore, reliability in those days was absolute.
It was one of the most impressive places that I had visited in my life. I shall not bore your Lordships with hours of discussion in case someone believes that I have been got at. I sat down to dinner with a number of people. We could not understand each other. I discovered after a while that I was talking to someone who had been into space. He told me that I knew nothing about Trident and about this and that. I did not. I did not even know that liquid oxygen was used in the launches or that the workers had to be chained so that static could not cause explosions. They reminded me that it was they who had first taken over the German technology. All of this conversation was conducted in a mixture of half-German and a language that I could not understand. It was an impressive place.
When I returned I asked myself a question. I had had some past dealings with our own space involvement. Since we were not part of Ariane, should we not consider developing a joint launch capability? I visited the British National Space Centre, which I did not know existed, near Victoria Station, and found it to be a pretty impressive organisation. Although the people involved had no tools and hardly any resources they had considerable know-how. They explained to me that it was possible to attach devices to the outside of the launch systems developed in the Ukraine and Russia to give them greater thrust, and that they did not pollute the atmosphere since the vapour trail was composed of water. I suggested that we might co-operate and launch a range of joint satellites. We could produce the

957
satellites and develop communication systems of our own. We could shoot down those dreaded people we confront from time to time who seem to control not only the airways but also space.
My thought was a very simple one: since Ukraine is part of Europe, could we involve Ukraine in some form of joint venture? I should like to ask the Minister whether Ukraine is regarded as a potential partner in this field. I should like to say more, but I am very grateful to noble Lords for listening to me at this stage.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join others in this House in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, for initiating this important debate on the European Space Agency. It is in effect a sequel to the debate held on 4th May, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the promotion of satellite technology. On that occasion, we anticipated the ministerial meeting that was to take place on 12th and 13th May in Brussels. We now come together after that meeting to congratulate the Minister on his successful chairmanship and to learn from him, I hope, a little more detail of the outcome of that meeting than can be derived from the general press releases.
In the debate on 4th May, I made clear the general support of these Benches for the more positive role that the Government are playing towards space science and technology in general and the European Space Agency programmes in particular. This is an area where par excellence Britain cannot go it alone and it makes sense to pool resources with others. The European Space Agency has had its ups and downs, and Britain has tended to maintain a somewhat arm's-length relationship with it, participating in the mandatory science and technology research programmes but distancing itself from some of the optional programmes which, as the Minister suggested in the previous debate, sometimes offered national prestige at perhaps disproportionate cost. But the tougher management stance at the European Space Agency over the past five years has brought rewards, and the budget in real terms today is lower than it was five years ago, in spite of the ambitious new projects endorsed at the ministerial meeting. It is a prime example of what can be achieved when Britain is prepared to play its full part in European programmes, to be an active player and therefore in a position to influence and help to shape developments.
From these Benches we were particularly pleased that the ministerial meeting in May approved proposals for the Galileo project to develop Europe's own second-generation satellite navigation system. As other noble Lords have noted, this is to be a joint programme with the European Union, ultimately costing 2.9 billion euros, although current approvals relate only to the definition phase. As well as the European Space Agency, the European Union itself is due to contribute some 750 million euros towards that 2.9 billion euros. I believe that I am right in saying that at the Heads of State meeting in June the go-ahead was given for EU involvement in this project.
958
The project is conceived so that approximately half of the 2.9 billion euros will come from private funding via a public/private finance partnership. This is an area where the ultimate gains in commercialisation—ship, aircraft, and in-car navigation systems, for example—are very substantial. Surely, it is argued, we can look to the private sector to put up some of the capital. However, as we have seen with the PFI schemes here in the United Kingdom, it is not always so simple. It means investing long term, and it is not always clear how the costs would be recouped.
I should like to ask the Minister whether there has been any further development of these proposals. Are there likely to be any problems in the public/private finance partnership? Is it really feasible to raise up to 50 per cent of the finance in that way?
The ministerial summit in May also gave the go-ahead to the Living Planet programme of earth observation satellites, which will underpin the programme of research on the earth viewed from outer space. It will provide detailed monitoring of such things as climate change and seismic activity, and will contribute substantially to our understanding of the environment we live in and the management of natural resources.
In addition, the increasing needs of the telecommunications industry were recognised. Some 250 million euros for the period 1999–2001 will go towards the development of informational and multimedia systems. One has only to see the expansion in this country of Internet connections to recognise how important is the provision of this infrastructure.
My second question to the Minister is whether we are moving ahead fast enough in these areas. These new technologies will be so important as a backbone to industry over the next decade that it is vital that we provide adequately for the infrastructure. To date, we have been disproportionately dependent on American technology. Now Europe is developing its own capabilities, but are there dangers that they will be too little and too late?
This brings me to my final question to the Minister. To date, Britain's contributions to the European Space Agency have been mainly to the science programme. Our total contribution to ESA amounts to about £130 million a year, considerably less than that of France, Germany or Italy. Our total spending on civilian space research, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, pointed out in his introduction to the debate on 4th May, puts us in 13th place on the global list, below Finland and Austria. If we include military applications, we are seventh. But, as the Minister himself made clear in that debate, this is an area in which civilian applications are now in the lead. Indeed, space science is beginning to come into its own. Commercial markets, largely associated with satellite communications, are burgeoning. In this regard, is the UK spending enough, not just on the underpinning scientific research, but on the development phase, which is vital to the successful commercialisation of technology?
The same point—the need to be supporting technology as well as science—was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, and the noble and gallant Lord,

959
Lord Craig of Radley, when they discussed the lack of decision at the ministerial meeting on the Future Launchers Technology Programme and the need for Europe to develop its own interests in reuseable launch vehicles. Britain has, as I said earlier, taken pride in limiting its involvement in such programmes as Ariane 5. Does there, however, come a point when this is no longer sensible; when the shift from science towards commercially viable technology demands more investment in downstream activities? Should Britain be less cautious; be prepared, now that the science is maturing into technology, to increase its investments? More generally, does this apply also to the European Space Agency itself? We have taken pride in the budget restrictions and in keeping its growth well below the level of inflation. But are we now at a point when we need to invest in order adequately to underpin the next generation of technology? Is this an area where Europe ought to be expanding its investments?
I raise those questions because on these Benches we are anxious to see Britain maximising its gains from our investments in science and technology. But there is an old maxim that one cannot reap where one does not sow. Britain has considerable capabilities in these areas, both in academic science and in its real-life application. We are now at the point of rapid commercialisation. Can we really rely on the private sector to fund this process, or should the Government, either singly in the UK or jointly with our European partners, be prepared to increase their investment?
8.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renwick for introducing his Unstarred Question tonight. We are lucky to have his expertise available, and I hope that he will be attending this House for many years to come.
Bearing in mind the fascination that space engenders in most of the population, it is a little surprising that so few noble Lords felt able to speak tonight. My noble friend and I are therefore grateful for the contributions made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, my noble friend Lord Selsdon and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
The ESA is primarily concerned with the peaceful or civil use of space and is one of Europe's least known industrial and scientific success stories. With comparatively modest expenditure by each participating nation, much has been achieved with an organisation which is still outside the EU.
Perhaps one reason for that is the concentration of effort on unmanned space missions, which can achieve much valuable research without needing extremely high factors of safety for the space vehicles. Manned space flight obviously captures the public's and even Ministers' imagination, and can open purse strings. But is it efficient? I am glad that the council of ministers of the ESA, chaired by the noble Lord the Minister, has not been tempted down that route to any great extent.
When we watch the weather forecast the presenter casually refers to the latest satellite images from space. How far we have come from a radio report received
960
from a weather ship out in the Atlantic ocean! The CRYOSAT mission, initiated by Professor Duncan Wingham of University College, London, was referred to by my noble friend Lord Renwick. As part of the Living Planet programme, it will enable the planet to be studied in a way that was not possible before.
The two markets which hold out the strongest prospects for growth are telecoms and satellite navigation systems. They are currently dominated by the US, but the decisions of the council have a strong commercial basis and will address this.
On the telecommunications side, I have always wondered where its development will end. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to the huge rise in Internet connections. That will obviously create a requirement for even greater telecommunications capacity. I wonder what is the ultimate limit of the amount of data that can be transmitted by satellite. I am sure that it is right to recognise that the European industry must capture a substantial share of the world telecommunications market. I am pleased that steps have been taken to develop multi-media and information systems.
The Galileo programme will develop a European GPS navigation system that reflects the latest developments in technology and accuracy. I am not sure that the zero option of doing nothing and relying on a US military system would have been a wise move. I have to confess that, despite reading several papers on the subject, I am not sure just how accurate the new system will be. The US system is built for defence and deliberately degraded for civilian use. I have seen the term "millimetric accuracy" used. Can the Minister enlighten me as to what positioning accuracy will be possible with the new system?
I have one slight anxiety about the Galileo system. Some noble Lords will recall the crucial scientific battles over navigation aids for aviation conducted during the last war. A maverick power could now use the GPS system to navigate a missile or weapon precisely to a target in Europe. In the event of the US military detecting certain types of missile attack, I presume that it could instantly extinguish or corrupt its GPS signals. Galileo will be a civil system, but it will be very accurate. Can the Minister reassure me that the necessary agreements will be put in place to meet the threat described but without the risk of premature action?
My noble friend Lord Renwick asked about the status of the Mars Express project and the associated Beagle 2 Mars Lander. It is an interesting concept that will make it possible to analyse samples from the surface of Mars. I fully accept that there is a window of opportunity in 2003 that will make the project more economical. However, I am a little worried that there might be an element of what I might call scientific competition between the ESA and the Americans. I understand that their mission might arrive two years later. I am sure that the Minister and his fellow Ministers on the council are well aware of the need to avoid wasteful duplication of facilities and projects around the world. Can the Minister state the differences between the two programmes' missions?

961
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, my noble friend Lord Renwick and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned the future launcher technology programme. In his interesting contribution, the noble and gallant Lord talked about the difficulties of financing and managing advanced high-risk programmes. He raised important points and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply as to future policy.
I confess that I have not had time fully to research the decisions made by the Minister and the Council, but as far as I can see they have been made on a sound scientific and commercial basis. There will never be sufficient money for purely scientific research and, by definition, the research opportunities in space are limitless. However, the emphasis is now on commercial and environmental programmes. With the caveat that I have given, we on these Benches welcome the Minister's sterling efforts as chairman of the council of ministers at the ESA and the decisions made.
8.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord. Lord Renwick has introduced this debate. After the excellent debate we had on 4th May, I am delighted to have the opportunity to report on what happened at the ministerial council. I believe that the council meeting was a great success and I am pleased that the UK was able to help give a lead in preparing and adapting ESA to meet the new challenges facing European space at the turn of the millennium. This was the first major opportunity to set new directions for the agency since the controversial manned space decisions of 1987.
I met a number of my European ministerial colleagues as part of the process of preparing for the meeting. It was clear from those discussions that there was a large measure of consensus on how ESA should adapt and what the priorities should be. It was equally clear that the consensus was building around themes which were central to UK space policy. Consequently, at Brussels we reached unanimous agreement on setting clear objectives for the agency for the first time. These were: to pursue the highest quality science in astronomy and Earth observation, prioritised through peer review; to partner industry in achieving agreed target shares in commercial space markets; to foster the progressive integration of European technical expertise; and to enhance cost effectiveness, setting performance indicators and reporting measured results against targets. We also successfully called for a joint European space strategy to be prepared by ESA and the European Commission by the end of 2000.
In space policy, the Government have two clear objectives—the pursuit of scientific excellence and the search for commercial success. It is against those objectives that we have tested all the proposals considered at the ministerial council. When we tested manned space against those clear objectives, I have to say that in most cases we felt that it neither provided scientific opportunities nor met commercial objectives.
962
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was right to say that manned space projects capture the imagination of the general public, but they are not a sensible way to pursue most scientific and commercial objectives 'The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised a point about the total investment in space, but our investment in space has to be set against other programmes to support innovation in industry. We have got the balance about right on the industrial side, although space provides huge opportunities for increased scientific work.
There were two main examples of the theme of commercial opportunities that we supported at the ministerial council—telecommunications and navigation. Two important telecommunications programmes were agreed, providing support for development of satellite systems and technologies for delivering multi-media services. Under these, ESA will work in the new style with industry to help it to pursue the major commercial opportunities and maximise its share of rapidly growing markets that promise to be worth £65 billion within the next decade. The UK subscribed £47 million to these programmes. That is especially important in view of the expanding nature of the market and the need to keep a significant presence in the face of market failure, which arises from the funding of American competitors by the US military.
Another good example of pursuing the most promising commercial opportunities was the decision taken to subscribe some £28 million as ESA's share of the definition phase of the joint EU-ESA Galileo satellite navigation proposal. Mr Neil Kinnock, the EU Transport Commissioner, attended the Council for this and gave an impressive speech in support of the initiative. Mr Rodotà, the ESA Director General subsequently joined EU Transport Ministers for discussion on 17th June when—I am glad to report—they decided to endorse the EU's part in the definition phase. Satellite navigation and positioning hold out significant prospects for the UK, with its established strengths in civil aviation and other spheres, which we are very keen to exploit. That is an area in which the UK should display a leadership role. The UK subscribed £8m to the definition phase and we expect our concerns about Galileo to be answered during this phase. For the project to be viable, it will need to depend largely on private finance and provide services that users want and are willing to pay for.
In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I must say that I believe that private finance is essential to the project. If it is to be a commercial success—and I see it as a major commercial opportunity—it is important that commercial money is in place from the start. The users must be in place and we must have a disciplined approach to exploiting the market from the beginning. If we set off thinking that we should invest money because it is a good project, but we do not have clear objectives, it could become vastly expensive but still be unrelated to the commercial needs of the future.
In responding more specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, I confirm that attention across Government is now firmly focused on the potential benefits and costs of the Galileo proposals and

963
alternative solutions. It is right to say that that is important, because if we to exploit the market successfully we need to make certain that the different government departments that relate to the opportunity work closely together.
The council also made a major new commitment to the new ESA "Living Planet" programme, to which the UK subscribed £67 million over five years. This puts the study of the Earth and its environment at the forefront of the agency's activity, emphasising quality science, close collaboration between scientists and engineers and flexible, low cost missions. It will help us understand and predict the Earth's environment and humankind's effect on it. For example, it will monitor the effect of global warming on the polar icecaps, through the first UK-led Opportunity Mission CRYOSAT, and measure soil moisture and other factors that are essential to the accurate modelling of climate systems.
In commercial Earth observation, about which the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, asked, it is important to realise that the market has not expanded as fast as we thought or hoped it would. We will make determined efforts to expand opportunities to develop it through focused application programmes. We are taking action to ensure that the right framework is in place which will encourage the market to develop with UK participation. I believe that what we need is market based solutions with a much stronger element of private investment. However, if we achieve a co-ordinated effort, there will be opportunities there.
The second main objective I mentioned earlier is the pursuit of scientific excellence. While the focus has in the past been on manned space, at present it is important to realise that we are in a period of very exciting planetary exploration, which is producing extremely interesting opportunities for UK scientists. Over the next five years there are a number of important programmes such as Rosetta which will tell us about the nature of comets; Cassini-Huygens, which will provide valuable information on Saturn and its moon Titan; and the Integral X-ray telescope, which will tell us about high energy objects in the universe. There is an exciting programme of basic science here. In time this will come to capture people's imaginations as much as manned space has done in the past.
At the ministerial council, the UK was able to help broker a unanimous agreement on the funding of the mandatory programme. The total provision will be some £950 million over four years. Ministerial colleagues strongly emphasised leading edge science, particularly Mars Express and the FIRST and Planck missions which will investigate the early universe and the birth of galaxies. Both of these missions have large UK scientific involvement. We were delighted that there was such strong support for these programmes.
Mars Express will feature the Beagle 2 explorer, designed by UK scientists led by Professor Colin Pillinger from the Open University and partly built by Matra Marconi Space. It will look for life on the surface of the planet. PPARC has allocated £2.7 million for Beagle's science instrumentation and the British National Space Centre is also reviewing the case for
964
support. Many people in the House and elsewhere find this an exciting programme. We all realise what a good programme it is.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, pointed out, the ESA astronomy and planetary science programme is now benefiting from an innovative approach and a new creativity sparked by pressure from member states in which the UK led the way. The agreements reached in Brussels were broadly in line with PPARC expectations. The outcome means that the research council can meet its existing commitments and perhaps increase its portfolio of projects.
Other decisions taken at the ministerial council related to continued funding of an updated Ariane 5 launcher, development of new launcher technology and ESA's part in the international space station. The UK is considering whether or not to participate in the international space station utilisation programme, to facilitate access for UK experimenters, and in work on future launchers. We shall look carefully to see whether participation in these programmes would give us the same value for money that we demand from our expenditure of ESA.
On the specific question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about new launchers, when we look at this market we see it primarily as a commercial matter, as it does not involve large scientific issues. In deciding whether we will put money into the future launchers technology programme, we will take into account the following issues. It is not commonly realised that the overall space market size is around 97 billion dollars. Of this, all revenue arising from space launch services is around 7 billion dollars. Market growth is small, there are a substantial number of market entrants, and a large part of the market is inaccessible as a result of American defence policy. The profitability of operations in this market is difficult to establish.
There is also now a commercial market into which one can go to get the launch facilities that one wants. Therefore, it is not essential to have launchers as part of a dynamic space policy. While defence concerns are extremely important—we shall always bear them in mind—I am not certain that the concept of national interest is helpful in this field. In my experience, when national interest or national prestige is invoked as a concept, it is almost always a way of saying that it neither meets commercial objectives nor is it good science but we would like to do it anyway. I do not think that that is necessarily a good concept.
By comparison, the markets in telecommunications services, navigation and ground infrastructure are growing strongly and offer many opportunities for innovative firms to gain market share. We are not ruling out investment in the future launchers technology programme, but these are some of the key aspects that we will look at before going ahead.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, we have had, through BNSC, contact with the Ukrainian space agency and have tried to pursue some possibilities for collaboration. The Ukrainian Zenit launcher is already widely used on a commercial basis. That illustrates the

965
point that there is now out there a commercial market; and, where sensible, one can use it. Indeed, Surrey Satellites, which I have always greatly admired as a company, has been extremely entrepreneurial and has launched several successful satellites using launch services from the former Soviet Union.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as always, asked some penetrating questions. He asked about the accuracy of Galileo. We are talking about metres and centimetres rather than millimetres. What is true is that this kind of precision opens up huge markets of applications which start with planes but go on to boats, cars and so on. Once one starts thinking of the possibilities, there is almost no end. When I was recently in America it was suggested that it could be used to find how far away someone's golf ball was. How accurate that is depends on one's standard of golf, but clearly it is an accurate system. We are talking about controlled access with regard to the precision system. So it will not be open to everyone to make use of this service.
I assure the noble Earl that the Mars Express project is complementary to the American project. A certain amount of competitive scientific rivalry is involved, but that is healthy. The American project will bring back samples to Earth far analysis while one of the interesting features of Beagle 2 is that it will analyse them on the spot. I was asked about the expansion of the telecommunications market. We do not know how far that will go, but it has a long way to go and it will certainly do so in the future.
I welcome this debate as an opportunity to update noble Lords on what was achieved at Brussels in directing ESA towards fostering commercial success and at building on its excellent track record in science.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, about what ESA will look like in five to 10 years' time, I hope I have shown that, whatever else, it will be very different from the ESA of today. As I mentioned earlier, at the recent council, Ministers asked for a fully developed European strategy to be prepared and put in the council by the end of the year 2000. I strongly support that request. It is vital for ESA to understand how it will look 10 years' ahead so that it can plan its structure accordingly.
It will be my purpose while I hold office as chairman to spread the consciousness that change is continuous and to help raise the profile of European space. The next full scale ESA Ministerial council is likely to be within two or three years. The United Kingdom will host it and have charge of preparing the meeting.
Our own Parliamentary Space Committee and parliamentary groups in other countries have contributed importantly to increasing awareness. I welcome the fact that the European parliamentary space committees are getting together. Perhaps I may pick up the point the noble Lord made. The work of ESA and its members states is a positive aspect of Europe and one which enables the United Kingdom, working with its European partners, to take advantage of exciting new opportunities which I hope I have outlined this evening.
966
The work on the UK space strategy has been continuing in parallel with the work of the ESA Ministerial. But inevitably it has had to take second place. We intend to publish the space strategy at the end of July and to outline in it the Government's plans for the next few years. The exercise has required widespread and unprecedently extensive consultation, including the settling of budgets. In choosing July, I was conscious of the time the exercise has already taken and the enthusiasm I have repeatedly encountered on all fronts to produce this document as soon as possible. I invite the Parliamentary Space Committee to join me for a discussion on the day and for the launch and I hope that a number of noble Lords will be able to take part. The UK space strategy will illustrate the exciting scientific and commercial opportunities that exist and the forward-looking role that the UK is playing. The frontiers of space are changing rapidly and we need to keep our eyes firmly on the future.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits clown, I asked one of my penetrating questions about the ability to switch off the Galileo GPS system.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thought that I had answered the question. The controlled access will stop people having access and therefore being able to tamper with the system in a way that would cause difficulties of a defence kind.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.53 to 8.55 p.m.]

Greater London Authority Bill
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 354MD not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 256 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Clause 256 is a short clause of just over one line. Nevertheless, it is of some importance because it abolishes the office of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District. This is another part of the Victorian structure of the Metropolitan Police which is not replicated anywhere else in other forces. There is no equivalent at present, and there will be no equivalent in the Metropolitan Police set-up. That is an inevitable consequence of the new outline arrangements. The functions of a receiver outside London at present fall to the police authority for the area, its clerk and treasurer; and in part to the chief constable. I assume that that will be the case in the metropolitan district so far as concerns the police.
However, that is not the end of the receiver's powers and duties at present. He also has statutory powers with regard to the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Service and the Inner London Probation Service. Neither of

967
those are compatible with the new arrangement which is being set up for the Metropolitan Police. New arrangements are required for an alternative set up for the Magistrates' Courts Service and the Probation Service. I suppose that the part relating to the magistrates' courts goes back to the old police court days. But it is statutory; it is not just a matter of convenience. I understand that the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 began the process of unravelling the statutory provisions in that respect.
The necessary legislation must be put into practice. There are some complications involving the capital expenditure, pensions and so on of the magistrates' courts service. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us when the receiver will eventually be able to relinquish responsibility for that service or whether he is in a position to do so now. The same question applies to the Probation Service.
There is also a statutory responsibility to meet the cost of school-crossing patrols, for example, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Outside London, this sort of expenditure is commonly provided by local authorities, and I expect that that is where it will finish up as far as Greater London is concerned. However, I am not sure that this legislation—or, for that matter, any other that we have seen so far—will achieve that aim. Westminster City Council sponsored a private Bill, but it apparently did not cover the whole of the Metropolitan Police District. Therefore, it will not wholly achieve the objective.
The principal reason for opposing the Question that Clause 256 stand part of the Bill is not to try to keep the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in the same statutory position that he has occupied for the past century—or nearly two centuries. We seek to draw out of the Government the way in which the different responsibilities of the receiver will fall in future and when the Government expect the receiver to complete all his duties and wind up all the loose ends in respect of the different aspects of his responsibilities. I have no doubt that the Minister will be shortly in a position to fill in all of those details and assist the Committee in that respect.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is correct about both the history and the current functions of the receiver. As has occurred in other parts of the country, the central role of the receiver will be moved to the Metropolitan Police Authority. I think that my noble friend Lord Williams wrote to the noble Lord and other Front-Benchers indicating that we were unable to bring forward amendments to clarify the position in Committee. However, we intend to table such amendments in good time for Report stage.
Apart from those duties that will pass to the Metropolitan Police Authority on a basis similar to outside London, the office of receiver has also taken on the various financial and other responsibilities in respect of magistrates' courts and probation services in Inner London, to which the noble Lord referred. It is the
968
Government's intention—our amendments at Report stage will state this—that the receiver's responsibilities in respect of magistrates' courts will be taken over by the Greater London magistrates' courts authority when, subject to the passage of the Access to Justice Bill, it comes into being on 1st April 2001. That deals with the court side, including the complications alluded to by the noble Lord.
As for the probation responsibilities, the long-term repository for these will depend on the arrangements put in place in London following our nation-wide review of the Probation Service. In the short term, we intend that a residuary receiver will continue to carry out the magistrates' courts and probation functions of the post. As I have said, amendments to give effect to this policy will be brought forward at Report. Subject to the short-term retention of certain functions that I have outlined and which are unrelated to police matters, the office of receiver will become unnecessary when the Metropolitan Police Authority comes into being.
The other area to which the noble Lord referred was school crossings. As is common elsewhere, that function will be transferred to the London boroughs and to the counties in those parts of the Metropolitan Police area that are outside the GLA area. Funding adjustments will be made accordingly. In light of those comments, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the clause should stand.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That was an interim reply, looking forward mainly to Report stage. However, it appears to be the best that the Minister can do at present. As he said, it reflects the contents of the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, wrote to me on 15th June. The noble Lord also wrote in similar terms to others who are concerned about these matters. Having opened up the question and received a promise that we shall return to it later, I withdraw my opposition to the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 256 agreed to.
Clause 257 agreed to.
Schedule 22 [Further amendments relating to Metropolitan Police etc]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354N:
Page 292, line 30, at end insert—
("Pensions liabilities
. After section 14 of the Police Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
("Pensions liabilities of Metropolitan Police Authority.
14A. The liabilities of the Metropolitan Police Authority in relation to pensions being paid subject to regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 to or in respect of persons who, having served as members of police forces, have ceased so to serve, shall be met out of moneys provided by Parliament.".").
The noble Lord said: This is another, admittedly slightly crude, device for raising an extremely important matter concerning the finances of the Metropolitan Police. The effect of the amendment as drafted would be to transfer entirely the responsibility for the payment of police pensions to the Home Office and to central government rather than, as occurs at present, leaving the moneys to be paid from police funds.
As Members of the Committee will be aware, the police pension arrangements—like many others in the public sector—are a pay-as-you-go scheme, and the pensions of retired police officers come out of the existing annual budget of each police force. They constitute a considerable proportion of police expenditure, particularly because police officers, given the nature of their job, tend to retire earlier than most of us do—even from conventional jobs, never mind from this House. That places an additional burden on police budgets. It is a growing burden and, inevitably, it is quite a heavy one. It is a difficult burden for police constables to manage.
That fact has been recognised because the Government propose to issue a consultative document on police pensions. It has been promised for some time, but so far as I am aware no one outside government has yet seen a copy. It would be helpful to know when it will be circulated.
It is no part of my purpose to mount a major debate on police funding in general, but in transferring responsibility for the Metropolitan Police from the Home Secretary to the new authority we need to understand the seriousness of the situation. The settlement for 1999–2000 allows for an increase of 2.7 per cent. I understand that, according to current plans, over the lifetime of a Parliament the real increase in spending on the police will be 0.7 per cent.
The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation have stated that a 6 per cent increase is necessary to allow the police to "stand still." The Metropolitan Police force has lost some 680 officers since the general election and press speculation is that another 1,000 officer posts will be lost as a result of the present settlement. That is a serious responsibility. It means that the new MPA will not start from a strong base either in tenns of manpower or funding. We are transferring to the MPA enormous responsibilities, but the resources and manpower which it will take over in order to fulfil them are less than satisfactory.
The issue of pensions, at which the amendment is directed, is an important piece of the larger jigsaw. No doubt the consultation document will make everything much clearer, but we do not know when that will be issued. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I support at least the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, although I am not sure what he proposes is the right way to solve them. Supporting the Metropolitan Police pension fund currently takes 13 per cent of its total budget. Within five years, that will be 20 per cent. This is at a time when, rightly or wrongly—and I clearly believe wrongly—government policy is to transfer resources away from the Metropolitan Police to other police forces, thus increasing the problem.>
I hope that the Minister will tell us when the consultation document will be issued. There is a major problem with the funding of the Metropolitan Police pension fund. It will be an issue of considerable concern to the MPA. I am sure that it will be of considerable relief to the authority to know that the Government have
970
not only recognised the problem but have resolved to grasp it. It is of such a scale that it cannot be resolved until and unless the Government do grasp the nettle.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for raising the issue. I hope that the Minister has something to say which will alleviate the real concern in the Metropolitan Police, and within London generally, over an increasing problem.
Lord Whitty: I recognise the concern within the police force and elsewhere about pension funding. It is true that we are talking about substantial sums of money. However, I should not wish to see support for the solution put forward in the amendment. It treats the Metropolitan Police differently from police forces elsewhere. There are practical difficulties in that the Metropolitan Police will continue to pay pension contributions into the force's fund. In any case, any national police funding formula already contains an element to enable police authorities to meet their pension costs.
We recognise the widespread concern. Following a thorough review of the police pension scheme, we have agreed among other things to seek Treasury agreement for a study of the costs and benefits of introducing a funded scheme for new entrants. But even that will not be a panacea. The initial cost will be high and there are substantial transitional problems for the funding. The rising cost of police pensions is recognised in the police funding formula. Nationally as well as in London the proportion of resources allocated to police authorities to cover pension costs has increased from 3.2 per cent to 14.5 per cent of the total allocation for this financial year. That allocation is based on the projections of pension costs made by the Actuary's department on figures from the funds themselves.
A review of police pension schemes is nearing completion. After that we intend to publish specific proposals and at least a pension scheme for new entrants. Those proposals are intended to apply to London as well as to other police forces. In the meantime, we do not believe that it would be sensible to leave the funding of the pension schemes with the Home Office. We wish to put the Metropolitan Police Authority on the same basis as other police authorities around the country.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Tope asked about the consultation process. I understood the Minister to say that the Government will bring forward a proposal rather than enter into a consultation exercise. That does not answer the problem of what is going to happen in terms of the very substantial burden not only on the London local authorities, but across the country and what can be done within the consultative process to which police authorities can contribute.
Lord Whitty: I believe I said that the police funding formula would continue to reflect for other police authorities, and now the Metropolitan Police Authority, the burden of the current police pension scheme.

971
The consultation referred to will follow on from the general review of the police pension fund and the proposals that flow from that review. We are not yet at the point where we can make specific proposals and engage in consultation. However, I am assured that that is not too far away. In the meantime the Metropolitan Police Authority will be put on the same funding basis as the other police authorities.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is no part of my case that the Metropolitan Police Authority should be treated differently from any other authority. They have the same problems to a severe degree. They are more severe for the Metropolitan Police than for other police authorities. I would not want the Metropolitan Police to be treated separately. I hope I made that clear. I certainly do so now.
We look forward to the consultation document. I know from experience that government Ministers have a number of ways of saying that a document is expected shortly. We have got no nearer than phrases of that kind today. That implies that the document is still a little way off. I hope it will include all the relevant factors, one of which is the possible proposal to take away pensions from officers who have already retired where there are disciplinary proceedings. If that proposal goes ahead, it will have profound effects on the management of the scheme. It will mean that, where they can, the police will be much more inclined to transfer to private pension schemes outside the police scheme. That kind of thing has to be taken into account in the course of considering these matters.
The main issue is the heavy burden which police pensions place on the funding of police forces and authorities generally. From what the Minister has said, I do not believe that there will be much relief in the near future. It is an increasing difficulty. It is sometimes said that chief constables have a responsibility for the size of the burden because of retirements on medical grounds and issues of that kind. That is an extremely small factor in the matter and not one which can dictate the way ahead for police pensions. For the time being we shall have to be content with what the Minister has said. We look forward to the consultation document and no doubt further and more detailed discussions on this matter in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 354YP:
Page 297, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
("(b) the Authority shall appoint a person to investigate the complaint provided that in default of this duty the Secretary of State shall make an appointment."").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 354YP seeks to allow the police authority to appoint a person to investigate complaints against the most senior officers and only in default of that process shall the Secretary of State make that appointment.
This, in effect, is a probing amendment. Our main concern is that a satisfactory independent complaints procedure is instituted in which everybody has
972
confidence. At present there are many doubts about the independence of the various complaints procedures relating to the police. I hope that the Minister will address that matter in his reply. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: I rise to support my noble friend in this amendment. Earlier we discussed a provision concerning the appointment of the commissioner. We made it clear that when an appointment is made, any recommendation made to the Secretary of State by the Metropolitan Police Authority and any representation made to him by the mayor of London would be taken into account.
If that is the case, is it not right that when talking about the conduct of a senior police officer—in this case, the commissioner or the deputy commissioner—the authority whose views have been taken into account in his appointment should also be the authority that should make recommendations in terms of the investigation of the complaint? When that authority fails to make a particular appointment or to recommend an appointment, it should be the duty of the Home Secretary to make such an appointment. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Whitty: The effect of the amendment would be to place the duty on the Police Complaints Authority rather than the commissioner, as at present, or the Metropolitan Police Authority, as proposed in the Bill.
Lord Dholakia: I am sorry to interrupt. The Police Complaints Authority is involved when the matter is neither criminal nor disciplinary. We are talking about the conduct of a police officer, which is different from a disciplinary matter, for which the Police Complaints Authority is responsible.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: For the sake of clarification, I did not say that the Police Complaints Authority should make the appointment; I said that the Metropolitan Police Authority should make the appointment.
Lord Whitty: As I understand the amendment, the original part of the Bill would provide that the Metropolitan Police Authority, rather than the commissioner, would deal with complaints against senior police officers.
I think I see where the confusion arises. In the amendment the word "authority" would refer to the Police Complaints Authority because it modifies a provision in the Police Act 1996 relating to the Police Complaints Authority. Therefore, as drafted, I think the amendment would do something which I do not believe that the noble Baroness intended. The whole of my argument was about the fact that the Police Complaints Authority should not have that role.
We are providing that, because of the special position of the commissioner and the deputy commissioner, the Home Secretary retains a role. That role would be limited to appointing an investigating officer, who may be subject to the approval of the Police Complaints Authority, and the report would go

973
to the Metropolitan Police Authority. So the Home Secretary would have limited involvement. The report would not go to the Home Secretary, but to the MPA. By virtue of paragraph 90 of Schedule 22, the MPA would be responsible for dealing with disciplinary matters of senior officers. In the present context, the commissioner himself is responsible.
The Bill makes specific provision for the appointment of an investigating officer in complaints against the commissioner or deputy commissioner because of their special status. There is no equivalent in any other ACPO grade in other authorities outside London. There might be occasions when it would be better to have a person investigating a complaint against the commissioner or deputy commissioner who was not a police officer. By definition, any police officer would be of lower rank and there may perhaps be some difficulties in that respect. It is another justification for reserving some role for the Home Secretary.
Although there may be some confusion in my mind, I believe that there is also some confusion here as regards the effect of the amendment as drafted in that it refers to the Police Act rather than this Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand the difficulty in which the noble: Baroness finds herself. By definition, "the Authority" in the Police Act 1996 is the Police Complaints Authority, whereas the authority that she wishes to refer to falls within the definition of this legislation. However, be that as it may, it seems to me that it would help us to decide the proper course of action if we knew what the position is as far as concerns other chief officers of police. I did not quite gather that from what the Minister said.
If a complaint is made about the conduct of another chief constable or someone of ACPO rank, so it speak, in another authority, who appoints the person to investigate that complaint? I appreciate that the commissioner is senior to any other chief officer of police in that he is regarded as being one rank above an ordinary chief constable of another force, but there are also Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary who, in a sense, are over all police officers—be they chief officers or more junior officers—as well as the commissioner. Presumably, if it is a policing matter as opposed to a complaint of a different character, it is likely to be one of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary who looks into the matter.
The right person to set an inspector of constabulary in motion in such a case seems to me to be the Secretary of State, rather than the Police Complaints Authority. It would indeed help us to know how other chief constables are treated in this respect. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us such details. Members of the Committee will much appreciate it if he is able to do so.
Lord Whitty: I very much appreciate the efforts of the noble Lord in spelling out exactly what he required in a time-scale within which I could respond. For chief constables in such situations it would be the police authority which would appoint the investigating officer who would, as I understand it, sometimes come from a
974
different authority. The Metropolitan Police Authority would be in that position for assistant commissioners and commanders because they are the equivalent of chief constables in other forces. So, grade for grade, the MPA would be in the same position. It is just the unique position of the commissioner and deputy commissioner which makes this a special case.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for explaining this to the Committee. He clearly outlined where the error or misunderstanding had occurred. Indeed, I found his remarks enlightening; I am sure that they are correct. This is an important matter. It is probably something about which we will need to think again and we might even wish to communicate with the Minister about it between now and the next stage of the Bill. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 354ZP not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354P:
Page 298, line 36, leave Out paragraph 98.
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings us back to the question of consultation. I believe that as it stands the Bill will remove the duty on the commissioner of police to consult the boroughs. Earlier we discussed the position of the boroughs as regards this matter. As I said, the boroughs will still have a duty to produce strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Until now Section 96 of the Police Act has imposed a duty on the commissioner to consult the boroughs on appropriate policing arrangements.
Borough policing within London has had a high profile recently. Changes have been made in borough policing to bring the police closer to local authorities and to communities and to make the structure of the police clearer to ordinary citizens. If the boundaries of Metropolitan Police areas are different from those of boroughs, that can be confusing. People know which borough they live in because they know to whom they pay their council tax. I believe that in moving towards borough policing, the Metropolitan Police have moved in the right direction. I believe that without this amendment boroughs would prepare plans without a corresponding duty on the Metropolitan Police to consult on them.
That presupposes that in terms of policing, the assembly is the only legitimate representative of the people of London. I do not take that view. If that position were adopted, it would create a situation unique to London. That is not the position in other parts of the country. It is illogical to remove the duty I am discussing and it would undermine the philosophy of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which recognises the

975
paramount importance of tailoring anti-crime and disorder strategies to take account of the circumstances of individual boroughs. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): If this amendment were agreed to I should be unable to call Amendments Nos. 354Q to 354SB inclusive.
Lord Clement-Jones: In many ways the amendment anticipates the next group of amendments. We on these Benches support the amendment. The existing borough consultative process is borough based and equates with local government boundaries in London. We wish to see that preserved. The police consultative groups in London, their co-ordinators and the voluntary organisations involved with them feel strongly that they wish to see the existing structures continue. Our motto is, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
When we reach the next group of amendments I shall want to describe in more detail how these structures work. Experience has shown that in situations such as bombings in Brixton or Brick Lane the local consultative processes must be in place to reassure local people. They have worked on a borough basis since 1984. They were set up in the aftermath of the traumatic Brixton disorders. I speak as one who lives in the borough of Lambeth. I do not believe that we should be tampering with these processes at this time. In view of the fact that we have erected another pillar in the form of the Crime and Disorder Act—which we very much welcomed on these Benches in terms of statutory partnership and crime and disorder strategy—like the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, I cannot understand why we should be trying to knock the other pillar away when it is an equally important part of the whole consultative process.
We have fears that in these circumstances the police may well be tempted not to maintain the consultative processes if they are not statutorily obliged so to do. That may sound rather suspicious but, if those processes are not statutorily based, there will always be a temptation not to engage in such processes but simply to engage in the statutory partnership process with local authorities and with the Probation Service. We feel very strongly about the subject and shall return to it in later amendments.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I hesitate to intervene. I shall have no objection if the Committee wants to discuss Amendment No. 354Q and the amendments grouped with it at the same time as this amendment. Although we are proposing slightly different arrangements, the amendments cover much the same ground. I have no objection if the Committee prefers to discuss those amendments as well.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am tempted to add to my comments. It would probably save time if we grouped these amendments.
976
As a long-standing Lambeth resident, I clearly remember the aftermath of the Brixton disorders. I remember the huge optimism as a result of the Scarman report which recommended the consultative arrangements. I remember also the way those arrangements came into effect and the success that they have had. I can testify personally to the success of the arrangements. I do not want to go on at great length, but we can point to the lay visitors' scheme that was set up in the 1980s, to the Lambeth knives amnesty and to an investigative report into the recruitment and initial training of ethnic minority police officers in Lambeth which well pre-dated the Macpherson report. Later projects involved investigations into deaths in police custody, the management of police informants, and the founding of a Black Issues Forum. More recently, in the past year we have had huge support from the community police consultative groups for the police's efforts to combat street robbery through the "Respect Not Robbery" campaign. They have spearheaded the debate about provision for young people in the borough. That has resulted in Lambeth Council reconsidering its whole youth initiative programme in this area.
The consultative groups have been extremely active. They have been very active in their responses to the Macpherson report; they have been members of DAC John Grieves's race and violent crime advisory group and they have been providing lay advisers for murder investigations and for that into the Brixton bombing on 17th April. They are highly effective police consultative groups and I know that others can testify to their effectiveness. My noble friend Lord Tope will be speaking from his own experience about his own borough.
In summary, we are convinced that the borough-based consultation structure, which ties in with local government structures, is the right way to go. As I said earlier, the Brixton bombing, the Brick Lane bombing and the Soho bombing demonstrate the need for the police to be very close to the community. We do not believe that it is right to abolish the statutory basis of the consultation. We believe that without that statutory structure there will be a temptation for the police simply to move forward with the statutory structure of partnership under the Crime and Disorder Act.
The arrangements now enshrined in the Police Act, which were formerly in the PACE Act 1984, have worked extremely well for 15 years. They should not simply be done away with as part of this Bill. That would be a retrograde step. We ask the Government to reconsider.
There are other linked amendments, but in the circumstances I do not believe that we should wish to press Amendment No. 354SA if we received a positive response to the earlier amendments. There is, of course, the possibility, and desirability, of the MPA being able to issue guidance to local consultative schemes if it believes that they need to achieve greater consistency. That is what Amendment No. 354SB seeks to achieve. But it in no way cuts across the amendments that we are seeking to press.

977
I ask the Government to reconsider. This is a very important issue for all the consultative groups. I hope that we shall receive a favourable reply from the Minister.
Lord Harris of Haringey: As we seem to be trading consultative groups, I spent at least 10 years as a member of my local police consultative group; I have not been a member for the past two months. I am slightly confused by the remarks made in the past few minutes. My understanding of the legislation is that nothing is being done that disrupts the position of the existing police consultative groups. They will continue.
However, it is important to recognise that in any local area at various times there will need to be in place appropriate consultative arrangements for the area concerned. The police consultative groups in many instances have done extremely important and valuable work, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, outlined at some length. But there are also circumstances where the police consultative group may not be the most appropriate mechanism.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about the aftermath of the Brixton disturbances. I remember vividly the aftermath of the Broadwater Farm disturbances. In that circumstance, a much more precise geographical area of consultation was needed than a borough-wide consultative group: a consultative mechanism at estate level was needed, rather than one that spanned the whole borough.
I am sure that Members of the Committee would want to see a situation in which the Metropolitan Police at all levels was ready and willing to consult with the local community in whatever was the most appropriate fashion in appropriate circumstances. I see that as the intention of this legislation.
Examining this matter in the context of the Crime and Disorder Act, and the duty that is placed on police commanders in that Act to work with the local authority chief executive in drawing up crime and disorder audits and producing a strategy, that will also be deeply rooted in the process of community consultation. Given that the intention is to ensure that consultation is inclusive and adapted for the particular needs of particular circumstances in particular local areas, and that there is legislation ensuring local community safety strategies achieved after consultation, and given that, so far as I am aware, this legislation does nothing to disrupt the statutory basis of the existing police consultative groups, I am slightly confused as to what all the fuss has been about in the past few minutes.
Lord Dholakia: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that when the matter was debated in the other place, Kate Hoey, in a reply to the Member of Parliament for Southwark, said:
The groups will be secure, and many of them will be secure if they are working well and if the MPA feels that they are working well".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 16/3199; col. 1281.]
978
It is the Metropolitan Police Authority that will decide whether or not they are working well. The groups are based at borough level, they are working well, and they ought to continue on that basis. Does the noble Lord dispute that?
Lord Harris of Haringey: What I said was that there are a number of police consultative groups which are doing excellent work, as a number of noble Lords have described. I also said that it is important to have appropriate consultative arrangements in each area.
I have not had the benefit of reading specific extracts from proceedings in another place. However, having heard the extract that the noble Lord repeated, as I understand it the Minister in the other place made it clear that arrangements were safe. But I assume that no one in this—
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps the noble Lord will indulge me. He said that nothing would disrupt the statutory basis of these consultations. Of course, if the statutory basis is taken away, as it is by the paragraph in the schedule, it will disrupt the statutory basis. There will be no statutory basis. It will be a purely voluntary arrangement. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Harris of Haringey: We will no doubt hear the definitive answer from the Minister but my understanding is that the statutory basis is not removed. The basis for the consultative groups is derived in a different way.
I am concerned about some of the comments made by Members of the Committee opposite in relation to the automatic assumption that arrangements will be working well when they might not be and that therefore they should continue. For example, if in some areas there is a police consultative group mechanism which is not working well, are we saying that it should continue because it works well somewhere else? Surely we should try to ensure that the consultative arrangements in particular areas are as effective as possible. I should have thought that in this legislation we are trying to achieve the intention to have effective consultation arrangements in every area; to build on the arrangements required under the Crime and Disorder Act for close local working, based on consultation; and to make use of the existing structures which, I understand, are not threatened by the legislation.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As we are in Committee, I shall speak briefly again. I am in no doubt that the amendment which I moved attempts to keep in place the current statutory basis for consultation. One can argue, at a pinch, that there is a new statutory basis being inserted for the metropolitan area, but it is of a much more voluntary character.
Under Section 96 of the Police Act, at present the commissioner is under a duty to consult the council of each London borough as to the arrangements that would be appropriate for the borough. There are various other duties set out in that section, but the subsection and others adjacent are being knocked out by lines 45 and 46 on page 298. To some degree they are being replaced

979
by the earlier part of paragraph 98 of Schedule 22, but that is not nearly such a direct statutory duty as that which has existed until now. That is what I seek to achieve. Members of the Committee on the Liberal Democrat Bench have used a rather different formula, but I believe that their aim is the same as mine. I prefer my formula.
Lord Tope: The noble Lord is right. We seek the same result but we prefer our formula. However, let us not argue about it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for giving me a trailer. I was not going to speak particularly about my borough, except that it is the London Borough of Sutton, which contrasts considerably with the London Borough of Lambeth in all kinds of ways—not least the fact that it has been under Liberal Democrat control for 13 years.
I have been a member of our police consultative committee. I was a founder member back in the early 1980s and remained a member continuously until last year. So it is slightly longer service than the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey.
I wish to contribute to the discussion. The police consultative groups on the whole have done and continue to do a good job. There is widespread concern among many, probably all groups, about exactly what is to be the future. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has given even more cause for concern. I can be more specific about the basis. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right, Section 96(1) of the Police Act 1996 states:
"Arrangements shall be made for each police area for obtaining … the views of people in that area about matters concerning the policing of the area".
It has been confirmed that for that purpose the Metropolitan Police district is regarded as a single police area. In other words, Section 96(1) of the Police Act refers to arrangements concerning the whole of Greater London. The statutory basis under which the borough police consultative groups are set up is Section 96(5) of the Police Act. It states:
"The Commissioner shall … consult the council of each London borough as to the arrangements that would be appropriate for the borough".
It is that subsection which is to be deleted by this Bill. What concerns the borough police consultative groups is that the statutory basis under which they are set up is to be removed. Whether or not that is the Government's intention we do not know. We shall hear the Minister's response in a moment. However, that is the effect of it. Therefore, if that provision is enacted, reliance on Section 96(1) will not ensure the continuation of consultation within each borough, by whatever means, because it deals with London as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said that we all wanted the police consultative groups to be effective. Everyone wants something to be effective. But the noble Lord implied that some were not. That may or may not be the case. I hope that the Minister can tell the Committee—if he can hear what I say—who will decide whether a particular borough police consultative group is or is not effective. What criteria will be used to judge what is and what is not effective? The effectiveness of
980
the police consultative group in the London Borough of Lambeth would need to be considered against very different criteria from the circumstances that exist in the London Borough of Sutton. If the police consultative group in my borough, which is an outer London suburb with one of the lowest ethnic minority populations in London, is to be judged against the same criteria as Lambeth, it will probably fail. However, that would be ridiculous and grossly inappropriate.
I ask the Minister to recognise the considerable concern among police consultative groups about the removal of the statutory basis under which they are set up and to make clear the Government's intentions as to their continuance. Talk about introducing other arrangements and criteria, as yet unspecified, to judge their effectiveness and appropriateness simply adds to that uncertainty and concern.
Whichever amendments are the most appropriate, they provide the Minister who is to reply with the opportunity to be clear and absolutely unequivocal, in a way that the Government have not yet been, as to the future of the police consultative groups? Are they to continue? If not, what else is to happen? If they are to continue and there is further discussion about judging their effectiveness and appropriateness, how is that to be done, by whom and against what criteria?
Lord Whitty: I suppose that I should declare a non-interest in that I have never been a member of a PCG. Nevertheless, some confusion has arisen in this debate. Certainly, the amendments in both merged groups cut across the intention that the Metropolitan Police Authority and district should be, as far as practicable, under the same statutory obligations as elsewhere in the country.
There are two main differences between the Metropolitan Police and others in the field of consultation. First, in London the duty rests with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, whereas in other parts of the country it rests with the police authority. Secondly, there are specific requirements on the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to make separate consultation arrangements for each of the London boroughs. We see no good reason why the police authority in London should be under a different statutory obligation from police authorities elsewhere in this area.
We understand the anxieties that effective consultation arrangements should not be disrupted. We are strongly in favour of improving the links between public consultation and local police objectives, and believe that the new and, for the first time, explicitly democratically accountable police authority should hold the police to account for the objectives set. It is important that the police authority in its operations and strategy is aware of the priorities and concerns expressed by local people.
Consultation is also a central component of the crime reduction strategies in which police authorities are one of the key partners. Section 96(2) of the 1996 Act, as amended by the Bill, will require the MPA to consult the commissioner, so the commissioner is still consulted. As to the rest, it is similar to other police authorities.

981
In regard to the future of police community consultative groups, there is some confusion, because they are non-statutory bodies. They are based on models proposed in the Home Office guidance issued in 1985. The Bill does not affect their status either way. Their future role will depend on the arrangements set up by the police authority, as is the case with consultative arrangements in other areas. Many police authorities outside London have PCCGs in their area, and we would certainly expect the MPA to continue to operate in that way. Placing a statutory function on the MPA would be to treat it differently from police authorities elsewhere, which do not have an equivalent prescription placed on them.
Lord Clement-Jones: Is the noble Lord the Minister saying that the current PCCGs have n o statutory basis; that they are not governed by Section 96 of the Police Act?
Lord Whitty: What I am saying is that Section 96 requires the commissioner, as the situation is now, to establish appropriate means of consultation for each London borough. That will be altered, but there is no prescription that that should be done by a PCCG in London, any more than anywhere else. The PCCGs are bodies that arise from Home Office guidance, and not from the statute, as I understand it.
In practice, we are quite clear that the Metropolitan Police Authority will continue to operate a system of borough consultation. The Metropolitan Police are already moving towards a borough-based structure. There are separate crime reduction strategies for each London borough. Therefore, it would be inconceivable that the Metropolitan Police Authority would not continue to have a borough-based consultation arrangement, which presumably will involve the PCCGs. But there is no prescriptive requirement on other police authorities to consult in that way, and there is no statutory basis, therefore, for the PCCGs in the metropolitan area, any more than there is for those in other parts of the country.
Lord Clement-Jones: I must express some bafflement, because Section 96(4) says:
"The Commissioner shall make separate arrangements—
(a) for each London borough".
I had always thought that that was the basis of PCCGs; certainly the PCCGs think that that is the basis.
Lord Whitty: The provision does precisely what it says. ft is a requirement on the commissioner at present to make separate arrangements for each London borough. No such provision relates to any other police force. What I am saying is that the Metropolitan Police Authority should have the same freedom to establish its own system of consultation as other police areas covering a large number of individual local authorities.
I am also saying that it is inconceivable, given that the police force itself is being managed on a borough basis to a greater extent and that the crime reduction strategies are based on boroughs, that the consultation
982
arrangements would not continue to be based on the boroughs; but that should not be on a statutory basis. The PCCGs as institutions may be the way in which that requirement is carried out, but as institutions they do not have a statutory basis in London or anywhere else—and they exist in many other parts of the country.
Lord Tope: The noble Lord the Minister is telling us that there is no statute which says that there shall be a police community consultative group. I understand that. May I be clear that the noble Lord is saying that the Metropolitan Police Authority will determine the appropriate consultative arrangements in each London borough, which may or may not mean the existing police consultative group; that it will be up to the MPA, in consultation, we hope, with people in the borough, to decide on the appropriate consultation arrangement in each borough and that, therefore, the police consultative groups may or may not continue? In other words, they are as uncertain as to their future existence now as they were before this debate, and they will have to await the establishment of the MPA and the time when it is in a position to consider these matters in respect of each of the 32 London boroughs.
Lord Whitty: I can give the noble Lord even less comfort than he assumes. The MPA will be under the same requirement as other police authorities across the country to consult. The Bill does not provide that it should consult on a borough basis, nor that it should consult the PCCGs, and those are not statutory requirements for any other police authority.
As a matter of practice, it is clearly sensible for the Metropolitan Police Authority to continue to consult on a borough basis, for all the reasons that I have outlined, and in many cases—possibly most or even all cases—that will be under the existing PCCGs. However, as my noble friend Lord Harris indicated, the MPA may develop different and more appropriate methods of consultation. The main point is that we will have a democratic police authority in London which should be treated and trusted in the same way as police authorities elsewhere.
Lord Clement-Jones: Why is it appropriate that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires a statutory partnership on a crime and disorder strategy on a borough basis for London, but the Minister now says that that will not be required for consultation purposes? I do not understand the logic of the Government's proposals in the light of what they have already done in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Lord Whitty: The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires strategies of all local authorities all over the country, not just in London. I return to the point that we are trying to treat London the same as the rest of the country in the way in which duties are placed on the police authority. The statutory consultation under that Act, as elsewhere in the country, includes the local

983
authorities—that is, the London boroughs—and the police authority. It is equivalent to the situation in any police area in England and Wales.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister has done his best to tell us, with his usual fluency, "Don't worry, it'll be all right. We are changing the statutory basis and taking away the specific statutory requirement, but it will be all right". I was put in mind of when I started my national service. When we all stood terrified on the square, a certain drill sergeant would come round, put his face very close usually to one of the smaller members of the troop and say, "You look worried, lad. Don't worry until I tell you to worry". Then he would go round to the back, put his mouth close to the ear of the person in question and say, "Worry now". It is not surprising that the boroughs, and the consultative committees in particular, should be worrying now.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, expressed his bafflement at what was happening. To express it as clearly as I can, what is happening is that under the present law—Section 96 of the Police Act 1996—the commissioner is under a statutory duty to make separate arrangements for each London borough to obtain the views of the people in the area about matters concerning the policing of the area and to obtain their co-operation with the police in preventing crime in their borough. That is a specific statutory duty on the commissioner that will be abolished by the Bill. It will be replaced by a duty on the new authority to make arrangements after consulting the commissioner.
The Minister says that that process is the same for other parts of the country, but London is different. The forces outside London do not have to deal with 32 different authorities. The police in my part of the country, the Avon and Somerset Police, have to deal with five different authorities—Somerset County Council and the four unitary authorities in what used to be the county of Avon. It is easier to deal with five councils than with 32 separate boroughs.
However, there is another fundamental difference. Those five councils, as in the rest of the country, are represented on the police authority. They are in a position to ensure that consultation takes place. They are the police authority. They are the majority of the police authority who decide how this consultation should take place in the future. But the boroughs, as we heard at the start of our discussion of the clauses dealing with the Metropolitan Police, are not to be represented at all.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord before he offers the usual courtesies. On these Benches, we are rather more worried, after hearing the Minister's response, than we were before, which is unusual in the course of these debates. We have heard phrases like, "There is no good reason for treating London differently" and "It is inconceivable that", and so on, all of which make me count the spoons.
In this situation London needs to be different. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, put it very well. London needs to be treated differently. London is different. The Bill deals with London and there are
984
many differences about the region. We may as well accept the fact that we cannot have "one size fits all" for consultation and that to try to treat the whole of the metropolitan area as if it were one ordinary police authority area is totally impracticable and flies in the face of the experience of the past 15 years. We have had a consultative system in the boroughs which, by and large, has worked extremely well. It is highly retrograde to be moving back from that situation.
After all, the Government have in their party strong roots in London and have considerable support in London. It is deeply disappointing that they should ignore the forces at work in the different London boroughs. They will find that this is one of the most controversial aspects of the proceedings on the Bill.
Lord Whitty: Before the noble Lord, Lord Cope, responds, because I have long experience of London politics I know that in the noble Lord's party and in my own the cry for decades has been, "Why doesn't London have a police authority in the same way as other parts of the country?" Now we are giving it the noble Lord's party finds something else to go on about. I have just consulted my noble friend Lady Farrington. In Lancashire, which ought to be an example to us all, the police authority deals with 14 different local authorities; not 32. Nevertheless—
Lord Clement-Jones: London has almost twice as many!
Lord Whitty: Yes, but Lancashire has a smaller police force. It has 14 different authorities, not all of which are represented on the police authority. I am sure that that is the pattern in the West Midlands and other parts of the country where a good many authorities come under one police area. I repeat: I do not understand why we need an entirely different pattern for London when the Metropolitan Police Authority—the first democratic police authority that we in London have ever had—would almost certainly see that it operated on a borough basis in terms of its consultation structures. But why should we have to lay that down when we do not do so for Lancashire, the West Midlands or any other part of the country?
Lord Clement-Jones: Because over a period of years, particularly in places like Lambeth, where there are deep suspicions historically between the police and the community, it has taken 15 years to build trust in structures between the police and the community. To start even raising the prospect of changing those arrangements is a retrograde step.
Lord Whitty: The statutory status of PCGs is not altered one iota by the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: One of my grandparents came from Yorkshire, so we cannot be expected to take Lancashire as the be-all and end-all of these matters, even when the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, makes the recommendation. However, as was pointed out in an

985
intervention, twice as many boroughs in London as even in Lancashire are involved in the police area. So this is a matter to which I am sure we will have to return.
The Minister said that this will be the first democratic police authority for London. That is a slur on the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is there by election and by the fact that his Government were elected. There is nothing undemocratic about the Minister. I do not take that view in the form in which he expressed it; but that goes back to our first debate on this subject some hours ago.
It is a matter to which we shall need to return at later stages of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 354Q to 354SB not moved.]
[Amendment No. 354SC had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 22 agreed to.
Clause 258 [Reconstitution of the Fire etc Authority]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 355:
Page 138, line 27, at end insert ("and shall have the same duties as its predecessor Authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, for the convenience of the Committee perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 356 which is grouped with Amendment No. 355.
Amendment No. 355 is a simple addition which makes it explicit on the face of the Bill that all we are doing is a rechristening job with a slight change in the lines of responsibility and along which resources come to the fire authority. That is not explicit in the Bill as drafted. The Minister may well say that such an amendment is unnecessary, but I believe that it helps to have the point made plain. It also helps to explain the relative simplicity of the proposals vis-à-vis the fire service.
Amendment No. 356 touches on a more difficult point. There is rot a fire and emergency planning authority in the country of which I am aware which is not under considerable—I almost said extreme—pressure for resources. It is a not unnatural state of affairs. Indeed, it is a state of affairs which in some ways, paradoxically, is beneficial. If one wants to see resources being used well, and to encourage tight management, a shortage of resources is a great cause of ingenuity.
However, in the funding of the fire service, there has been a great temptation to encourage fire services to charge for services which are outwith the firefighting part of their job. The basis on which funding for the fire services is arranged is fire risk. But, as a matter of practice and humanity, and because they are there and the only people with both the resources and expertise, they take on a number of other emergency roles, of which the most obvious is attendance at motor vehicle accidents. That may well have nothing to do with their normal firefighting role, but it is an important and significant part of their work. It is not only an important and significant part of their work; it is also a significant drain on their resources. It is expensive.
Fire services become involved in such activities as emptying flooded cellars and rescuing cats up trees. It is not unknown for them to rescue little children with their heads stuck in fences. All those services are provided for good reasons, but they are outwith the calculation of the resources that the fire service receives.
There is a temptation—I put it no stronger than that—for fire services to start charging for what I would call "off-mainline business" services. We do not think that is right, and we should prevent it. There is an opportunity in this Bill to prevent such charging so far as London is concerned. I dare say the Minister will reply that we cannot treat London differently from any other part of the country, and that is a plausible argument. However, we must begin somewhere. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: I rise to speak particularly to Amendment No. 356. I was for some years a member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority—in fact, I am still a substitute member of that authority—and we debated frequently the issue of reclaiming the costs to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred. I resist Amendment No. 356 as strongly as possible—although I may not need to do so as I suspect that the Government will do that for me.
The noble Lord said, quite correctly, that every fire authority in the country is under considerable budgetary pressure, and that is certainly the case in London. However, I do not believe that we should state in law—whether for London only because it is a place to start and we have the opportunity to do so, or generally—that a fire authority cannot even consider reclaiming such costs, whatever the circumstances. The noble Lord gave a number of examples, one of which enabled me to learn something about my noble friend Baroness Hamwee. I have known her for probably 30 years but I was not aware that she had got her head stuck in the railings as a small child. However, she assures me that she has no interest to declare because it did not happen in London. My noble friend also does not recall who rescued her, but I am glad that someone did.
We discussed many times on the LFCDA our decision to charge people who called us out because they had locked themselves out of their homes. I see no reason why taxpayers should pay for the carelessness or forgetfulness of those who have locked themselves out of their homes. The LFCDA rightly instituted a charge for that service, and it is a matter for the individual fire authority to decide the appropriate circumstances for charging. I would rather not impose a charge for rescuing small people who, like my noble friend, stick their head between the railings. That is a most distressing emergency. I would have perhaps slightly less sympathy for cats who get stuck up trees because they will invariably find their way down if one leaves them to it. I would have absolutely no sympathy for those who forget their front door keys—in fact, I believe that a charge for such a service would be an appropriate deterrent.

987
It is quite wrong to have a blanket statement in an Act of Parliament that says, "Under no circumstances whatever may a fire authority seek to recover any of its costs". If I were the Minister replying to this debate—I can only dream—I would resist the amendment most strongly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is rather trying his luck in being so condemnatory of people who forget their keys and lock themselves out. It has been my experience in life that tempting fate in that way can cause all sorts of things to happen.
Lord Tope: It has happened to me, and I am sure that it could happen to any one of us. I do not deny that. Fortunately, I did not need the fire brigade to let me into my house. My point is not that such things will not happen but that I would not expect the taxpayers to bear the cost if it happened to me—whatever the reason.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: So long as the noble Lord has plenty of paper and a torch, he can reply to all the letters from cat lovers who are cross about his wanting to leave cats up trees.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be pleased to know that the Government's intention that the duties undertaken by the present fire authority, the LFCDA, shall become the responsibility of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is covered in the Bill.
Clause 259(2) substitutes the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority for the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1985, the legislation which established the present fire authority. Sub-paragraph 2(1) of that schedule provides that the LFCDA shall be the fire authority for London. Sub-paragraph 2(2) provides that all references in fire service legislation are to be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (1). This includes Section 1(1) of the Fire Services Act 1947, which sets out the duties of a fire authority. The Bill also provides that the LFEPA is the authority on which functions may be conferred under civil defence legislation. It will therefore be the case that the LFEPA will inherit the statutory duties previously undertaken by the LFCDA. I feel sure that in those circumstances the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 356, there were reviews in 1970 and 1985. The result was to support the continuance of local discretion in the provision of and charging for special services, which has applied since before the fire service was established as the local authority service. Fire authorities often seek to recover costs through charges for special services where possible, but they would not usually do so for emergency or humanitarian purposes, both of which would cover the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with her head in the railings when young!
We believe that as a matter of principle it would be wrong, particularly in the light of a recent review, to impose restrictions on the London Fire and Emergency
988
Planning Authority which did not apply to other fire authorities. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and for her reassurance. However, I am bound to say that had she thought it entirely appropriate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, should have been charged to be rescued I should have taken a different view. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord does so, perhaps I may make it clear that I was only two at the time!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 356 not moved.]
Clause 258 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 357:
After Clause 258, insert the following new clause—
LONDON FIRE AND EMERGENCY PLANNING AUTHORITY: ANNUAL REPORT
(" . The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority shall provide annually, within three months of the end of its financial year, a report to the Authority which sets out its performance in fulfilling its functions, its financial report and any Audit Commission recommendations with regard to its performance.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment introduces a new clause along the continuing line of amendments we have tabled dealing with openness and accountability. It suggests that the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority shall provide annually, within three months of its year-end, a report to the authority setting out its performance in fulfilling its functions and so forth. It ensures that at the end of the year the service properly reports in an accountable way to the mayor. We should expect that procedure to be entirely reasonable. The Minister may say, "Of course, it will do that anyway.". If so, she could accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The proposed new clause would introduce an extra and unnecessary layer of accountability for the fire authority. A similar point was raised by the Opposition at Committee stage in another place. We explained at that time that the Government are in favour of accountability, but that we must make sure that we do not impose unnecessary bureaucracy.
The clause would cut across the Government's proposals under the best value provisions of the Local Government Bill under which the LFEPA would be a relevant authority and would be required to carry out fundamental performance reviews at specified intervals (Clause 5 of the Local Government Bill) and prepare and publish annual performance plans (Clause 6) which would be subject to audit arrangements.
The proposed provision would also cut across the requirements in Part II of this Bill under which the mayor would be required to prepare an annual report (Clause 38) including information requested by the assembly and to hold an annual state of London debate

989
(Clause 39). In those circumstances, and because matters are now even more accountable since the Committee stage in another place, I am sure that the noble Lord will wish to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: As always I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I accept her comments about the Local Government Bill, but it is not yet law. I am not quite sure what is the etiquette for the Committee stage of one Bill and whether one should consider as law another Bill at a similar stage going through the House. Here we are dealing with the London Bill as it is and the law as it stands and not as it will be in a few months time. However, that should not cause us any prolonged difficulty. I noted what the noble Baroness said, and I will consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 23 [The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 357NA:
Page 302, line 6, leave out ("appointed by the Mayor") and insert ("elected by the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to the other 10 amendments that are grouped with it. This amendment relates to the membership, tenure of office and so forth of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It concerns the nine assembly members of that authority. It is very much the same issue as the one that we argued as regards the Metropolitan Police Authority.
The assembly members are described as the "assembly representatives". It is right and proper that the assembly itself should decide by elections and appointments who its representatives shall be and not that they should be chosen and appointed by the mayor. We made these arguments in relation to the police authority. They apply equally strongly here. They are described as "assembly representatives" and they clearly will be representing the assembly on the authority. There will also be borough council representatives there. It seems a fundamental democratic principle that the assembly should have the right to choose and appoint its own members and not have something that the mayor is able to foist on them, although in practice that may not be the case.
There is no reason why the mayor should make the appointments. It is not the issue that we argued many times about the executive powers of the mayor and the scrutiny powers of the assembly. It is a question of who appoints the assembly representatives. Under this amendment we say that the assembly itself should appoint its own representatives.
Amendment No. 357PA refers to the eight borough representatives who will be members. We are proposing that they should be appointed by the Chair of the assembly rather than by the mayor on the nomination of the London Borough Councils, acting jointly. It seems appropriate that it is the chair of the assembly who makes such appointments. It is not a matter for the mayor.
Most of the other amendments are consequent upon those two proposals, except Amendment No. 357TA, which seeks to give the assembly, rather than the Secretary of State, the power to vary the number of members of the authority, should that be necessary. If there is a need to vary those numbers, we believe that it is a need that should rest with the elected representatives of London and not with the Secretary of State. That seems to us to be the proper democratic and accountability line.
Amendment No. 357ZA is slightly different, but it gives the authority the right to elect its own chair. The schedule says that the chair shall be appointed by the mayor. We see no reason that the mayor should have power to appoint the chair and impose that upon the authority. That is not the case in relation to the Metropolitan Police Authority that we have just debated. For that body the authority chooses its own chair. If the Minister is to resist this amendment, I hope that he will say why he feels that the fire authority is different. It seems to be a fairly fundamental, democratic principle, but also a matter of common sense that the authority should be able to choose its own chair from among its numbers, however they have been appointed, whether by the mayor or by the assembly and/or by the chair of the assembly.
This group of amendments reflects our view of the role of the assembly. More importantly in this respect, it institutes proper democratic accountability in relation to the membership of the authority. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord says that this has nothing to do with the ongoing argument about the difference between executive powers and scrutiny powers, but it has. These amendments would mean that the mayor, who has the executive responsibility for the fire authority, would no longer have any role in the appointment process for the assembly and borough representatives on that authority.
The argument is the same as before. These amendments are designed to weaken the mayor's position and to hand over executive power to the authority. Our policy, which has been reflected throughout our approach to this, is that the mayor would be responsible for the appointment of both assembly and borough representatives. The other powers which have been given to the mayor which these amendments seek to remove—to determine the length of a member's period of office; to renew a member's appointment or to terminate it in exceptional circumstances; and so on—are all consequences of our proposed approach. In addition, the reserve power of the Secretary of State to alter the size of the fire authority would be given to the assembly. In our view, that should rest with the Secretary of State.
These amendments, if adopted, would have the effect of severing the constitutional links between the mayor and the fire authority. Those links are important if the new arrangements are to function effectively. They ensure that the authority is suitably accountable to the mayor for the service that it provides.

991
I believe that we shall have this argument over and over again. This has a slightly different structure, but the principle is the same: that the mayor should have executive authority for those functional bodies within the GLA as a whole. While we shall not agree on this, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: This is not, as the Minister says, a matter about executive power. It concerns electoral power. It concerns the assembly representatives—a word used by the Bill—and if they are assembly representatives they must be elected by the assembly. If the people on this authority are merely drawn from the assembly, they are not assembly representatives. The Minister cannot have it both ways. As I said, if they are representatives they must be elected by the assembly.
Lord Tope: Before I decide what I am going to do with the amendment, I wonder whether the Minister can answer two points. First, he made it clear that the nine assembly members are representatives of the mayor and not representatives of the assembly. Therefore, will he agree to an alteration in Schedule 23 which would describe them not as "assembly representatives", as is the case at present, but as "the mayor's representatives?" That is exactly what he is saying. He is saying that they are there to maintain the link with the mayor's executive responsibilities. Let us be open and honest about it: they are not there as assembly representatives, they are the mayor's representatives. I hope that the Minister can tell us that he will bring forward an amendment on Report which will be honest and clear in its reflection of the Government's intentions.
My second point relates to Amendment No. 357ZA to which the Minister made no reference. It relates to the appointment of the chairman of the authority. Can the noble Lord tell us why the Government are content for the police authority to appoint its own chair but insist that the fire authority shall have the chair imposed upon it by the mayor?
Lord Whitty: On the second question, I can tell the noble Lord that the position of the Metropolitan Police Authority is clearly different from that of the fire authority; indeed, the latter's responsibilities fall totally within those of the mayor. As the noble Lord will know from previous debates, the police authority has a wider remit. Therefore, the constitutions are different and, in this context, the executive body of the fire authority will need to have on its board people from the boroughs and nominated by them. They will not be representative of an individual borough but will be nominated by the boroughs collectively.
The mayor will choose the members of the assembly who are on the board. They are not the mayor's representatives. He is constrained by having to choose from among the members of the assembly. They may not be there by vote of the assembly, but they are the assembly's component of that board. Therefore, I do not think it would be appropriate to make the suggested
992
amendment in the schedule of "mayor's representatives." Once again, I do not believe that we will agree on the matter. Therefore, I suggest we move on.
Lord Tope: The Minister is absolutely right: we are not going to agree on this and we shall move on in a minute. I should have thought that the fact that there are borough representatives on the fire authority was even more reason for it being able to choose its own chair rather than having one imposed upon it by the mayor who has no constitutional relationship with the boroughs. Indeed, I would use the Minister's argument to reinforce mine. We are not going to agree. It may well be that the representatives are members of the authority, but they are not representing the assembly; they are representing the mayor. It is the mayor's patronage we are talking about here. I am even more dissatisfied with the answer than I thought I would be. I am sure that we will return to the matter. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 357PA to 357RA not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 357SA:
Page 302, line 14, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 18 and insert ("in exercising their power to nominate members under sub-paragraph (1)(b) have regard to the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of those councils taken as a whole and to the area of Greater London from which members are appointed.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to vary the provision in Schedule 23 and suggests that, in nominating borough members, regard should be had not only to the balance of parties prevailing across London as a whole, which is clearly correct and which we encapsulate here, but also to the areas of Greater London from which members are appointed. In other words, we propose that there should be a geographical as well as a political reflection. I hope that this will be less controversial than our previous amendments because I believe that this is what will happen in practice. Nevertheless, I think it would be desirable to have that reflected in the schedule.
It is well known that in some parts of London one party is rather stronger than it is in other areas. I make no reference to any particular political parties but that needs to be borne in mind when choosing the borough nominees for the authority we are discussing. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am slightly surprised that the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to leave these decisions to the London boroughs, which is the logic of their position on other matters. In this situation, the London boroughs act jointly to nominate representatives to the fire authority. They must reflect, as far as is practicable, the political balance prevailing across the London boroughs as a whole. I am sure that in nominating their representatives to a strategic London-wide authority the boroughs will want to be satisfied that there is a good geographical balance as well as a political balance, and will not want all the nominations to be from boroughs north of the river, for example.

993
However, I think we can leave that matter to the common sense of the boroughs. I do not think that the amendment, which would slightly modify the effect of the political balance element, is helpful. It would make the selection process rather more prescriptive than it is at present without improving it. I do not see the benefit of this amendment. I believe that we should leave this matter to the judgment of the London boroughs.
Baroness Hamwee: I believe that I am the original author of this amendment. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but we are not particularly rivals in that regard. I drafted this amendment quite recently having very much in mind the fact that we believe that this Bill as a whole is too prescriptive, but our view is not being accepted. Therefore, if one accepts that the Bill is prescriptive, one has to look at the prescription. I am delighted to hear that the Government believe that some matters should be left to the judgment of the London boroughs. That is an argument that we have put forward throughout the course of the Bill. We shall note the passage where that is stated so that we can quote it at a future stage!
Lord Tope: We have said time and again—and shall no doubt continue to do so—that this Bill is enormously over-prescriptive in the extent of its detail. If one starts to be so prescriptive, one has to be even more prescriptive to get the matter right. We believe that far more matters should be left to be determined by the London boroughs and the GLA. However, that is not the route that the Government have chosen. They cannot have it both ways. They argue that they need this prescription when they think that they need it. However, when someone else suggests making the provision a little clearer and more straightforward, the Government say that that is too prescriptive. One day a Minister on the Government Front Bench will explain to us the Government's criteria as regards what is or is not necessary to prescribe. However, I do not think that will happen today and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 357TA to 357Z4 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 357A:
Page 303, line 3, at end insert—
(."() On a casual vacancy occurring in that office, the Mayor shall as soon as reasonably practicable appoint one of the members of the Fire etc Authority to fill the vacancy.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 357A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 357B and 357C.
Government Amendment No. 357A arises as a result of discussions with the Association of London Government. It sets out the action to be taken if a vacancy arises in the office of chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Paragraph 3(1) to Schedule 23 requires the mayor in each year to appoint a chairman from among the members of the authority. Comparable legislation makes express provision for the filling of a vacancy in the office of chairman. This amendment therefore provides that, in the event of a vacancy arising
994
in that office, the mayor will be required to appoint a new chairman from among the members of the LFEPA as soon as possible.
Government Amendment No. 357B is a minor technical amendment dealing with inconsistent wording. Amendment No. 357C, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, appears to have a similar purpose but the wording is not consistent with that in other local government legislation. We think that our drafting is better. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Tope: Having been provoked by the Minister suggesting that his drafting is better than mine, perhaps I may suggest that he is not right. As it currently stands, sub-paragraph (2) refers to the fire authority electing a vice chair and paragraph (3) refers to an "appointment" under sub-paragraph (2). Until the government amendments are passed, sub-paragraph (2) refers to an election; therefore sub-paragraph (3) as it stands is wrong; it should also refer to an election. I therefore beg to differ with the Minister; our drafting is better on the Bill as it stands at this moment.
The purpose behind the amendment is one that we have rehearsed already, including very recently, and I will not do so again. On a purely drafting point, I believe our amendment is correct until the government amendments are passed, if they are.
Lord Whitty: I can see the logic if not the substance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 357B:
Page 303, line 4. leave out ("elect") and insert ("appoint").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 357C not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 357D:
Page 303, line 8, leave out ("for the purpose of enabling him to meet the expenses of his office").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 357D, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 357E. This is a probing amendment. The schedule gives permission for an allowance to be paid to the chairman. That is interesting. I thought the Government had a different view about the use of the words "chairman" and "vice-chairman", but that is what it says here. As the Minister has just told me that their drafting is better than anything I can suggest, he will no doubt explain why it is so gender specific here.
The schedule refers to paying the expenses of office. Perhaps the Minister can inform me of the position with regard to paying expenses generally, not only of the chair or chairman and the vice-chairman but of all the members. What provision is there for the payment of expenses and allowances to all members of the authority? Currently the LFCDA has its own payments scheme for members; it does not rely on the home borough authority to pay them.

995
Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case under the LFEPA or will he tell me that it would be too prescriptive to provide for it in the Bill?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As to the query about the use of the terminology "chair" and "chairman", I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to rehearse the debate that we had on this subject the other evening when some members of the Committee were slightly spikey about being called "spokes". The noble Lord will recollect that on that occasion we conceded that, short of changing and amending all previous legislation, where a reference was made to other legislation in this Bill, we used the terminology used in that legislation.
The proposed amendments would broaden the fire authority's power to pay an expenses allowance to its chairman and vice-chairman so that it need not necessarily be related to the expenses of the office. The linked amendment seeks to make the allowance an amount determined by the authority rather than by what it thinks reasonable. Taken together, we believe that the amendments would be inconsistent with the proper control of payments from public funds. The reference in the linked amendment to "Authority" means the fire authority rather than the GLA.
If the noble Lord wishes detailed information about the different possible levels that could be paid to members, I would prefer to write to him on that subject. I hope with that assurance he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope: I am the last person to argue with the noble Baroness about the use of the term "chair" or "chairman". I wholly share her view. I am not sure I entirely understand her explanation. I do not think that this does relate to previous legislation. I suggest very humbly that perhaps the Government's drafting on this occasion is not 100 per cent.
The purpose of our amendment was to debate chairs and chairmen. It was to raise the issue of the payment of expenses and allowances, not only to the chair and vice-chair but to all members. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me on that subject.
It may be said, for example, that assembly members will be covered through whatever remuneration they are to receive as assembly members. But it would be useful to know what is envisaged to be the position of borough members.
Currently, the LFCDA has its own payments scheme. The costs are borne solely by the LFCDA. It is important for borough councils, and possibly for future representatives to know, first, whether expenses are to be paid—and I expect that to be the case—and, if so, by whom. Will the new authority have its own scheme, or are the boroughs from which the members come expected to bear the costs? That would be very unfair, given that there will be no more than eight boroughs involved. I should be grateful for a reply in writing from the Minister. On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 357E not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 358:
Page 303, line 21, at end insert ("; or
(d) is otherwise disqualified for any reason mentioned in section 20(1)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to paragraph 4 of Schedule 23 dealing with the disqualification of individuals from the right to sit on the fire and emergency planning authority. The purpose of the amendment is also to refer the reasons for disqualification back to Clause 21, dealing with reasons for disqualification from membership of the Greater London Authority.
The amendment may seem superfluous at this stage, and the Minister may tell me that it is unnecessary. But the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority will not consist exclusively of members of the Greater London Authority. I must confess that I am not absolutely sure whether this particular qualification, which is an important one, applies generally outwith the Greater London Authority. This is effectively a probing amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The proposed amendment seeks to add to the criteria under which a person may be disqualified from being a member of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The added criteria appear in Clause 20 of the Bill, which covers disqualification from being the mayor or a member of the assembly. However, the amendment is not considered necessary. Under the proposed arrangements for the LFEPA, all fire authority members must be serving representatives of either the assembly or of a London borough council. The individuals concerned could not be assembly representatives unless they satisfied the criteria set out in Clause 20 of the Bill.
As regards the borough representatives, they must satisfy the equivalent criteria set out in Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972, a provision on which the wording of Clause 20 of the Bill is largely based. In the circumstances, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that very clear answer. She has given me the reassurance I was seeking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 24 [Amendments relating to the Fire etc Authority]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 358YA:
Page 314, line 13, at end insert—
("The Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Duty to consider crime and disorder implications
. In section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (duty of certain authorities in exercising their functions) in subsection (2) (which specifies the authorities) after "a joint authority," there shall be inserted "the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,".").
The noble Lord said: Schedule 24 makes miscellaneous amendments to legislation which affects the LFCDA's functions in order to apply them to the

997
LFEPA. It has been the Government's general policy to apply to the reconstituted fire authority all the legislation which applies to the present fire authority.
The amendment will provide that Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 should apply to the new LFEPA. Section 17 applies to "joint authorities" under the Local Government Act 1985, a term which includes the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. This amendment should therefore not be controversial; it seeks merely to maintain the status quo. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 358YAA:
After Schedule 24, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY GROUP FOR LONDON
Membership
1.—t 1) The Environment Strategy Group for London shall consist of such number of members as the Mayor may from time to time determine.
(2) The members shall be appointed by the Mayor.
(3) The members shall be individuals—

(a) who are representatives of such bodies concerned with relevant matters as the Mayor considers appropriate; or

(b) who have knowledge, experience or expertise which is relevant to the functions of the Environment Strategy Group for London.

(4) Before appointing any member, the Mayor shall consult such bodies or persons as he considers appropriate.
(5) Before making an appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, the Mayor shall consult the authoritative body concerned.
(6) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) above "relevant matters" means any of the matters in relation to which the Environment Strategy may contain policy.
(7) In paragraph (6) above "Environment Strategy" means all strategies on which the Environment Strategy Group is to be consulted.
Tenure of office
2.—(1) The members of the Environment Strategy Group for London shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment.
(2) The terms of appointment of a member shall be such as the Mayor may determine.
(3) But a member may at any time resign his membership by giving notice to the Mayor.
(4) A person who ceases to be a member shall be eligible for re-appointment.
Members' expenses
3. The Mayor may pay members of the Environment Strategy Group for London allowances in respect of travel or other expenses properly incurred by them.
Staff facilities and money
4. The Mayor may provide the Environment Strategy Group for London with—

(a) staff,

(b) accommodation, equipment or other facilities, or

(c) sums of money towards defraying expenses properly incurred by them in carrying out their functions.

Proceedings
5.—(1) The quorum of the Environment Strategy Group for London and the arrangements relating to their meetings shall be such as they may determine.
(2) The validity of proceedings of the Environment Strategy Group for London is not affected by any vacancy among the members or any defect in the appointment of any member.").
The noble Lord said: I confess that I had to make a considerable leap intellectually and in the Bill before I could make sense of the placing of this amendment. Amendment No. 358YAA introduces a new schedule after Schedule 24. Therefore, after I had thought about it for some time, I came to understand the logic of the Committee Clerks in introducing into the midst of consideration of fire service matters a group of amendments which deal entirely with environmental matters. It is passing peculiar, but as I understand it, that is the reason. If other Members of the Committee have had the same difficulty in understanding the placing, that is the only explanation I can find. As the amendment is in that position, we must deal with it.
I shall not go into the details; it would be easy enough to spell them out but it is unnecessary because every Member of the Committee present is familiar with them. The latter parts of the Bill cover a whole host of environmental matters. We do not believe that the mayor will have the necessary expertise to be able to deal with matters in a sufficiently expert way. He should have expert backing. The purpose of our new schedule is to make that expertise available to him.
It can be argued, I suppose, that the mayor may well create this pool of expertise, or that it may be available from within some of the existing staff of the Government Office for London and so on, which may help him to run London in the initial stages.
We have also heard that there will be a certain lack of transparency over the advice that the mayor might obtain from those whom he employs directly. It is written into the Bill, and the Minister's explanation is that to a certain extent the mayor will act in his capacity as does a Minister. A Minister's advisers apparently cannot be called into question for the advice they might give, although that seems to have become somewhat eroded by the BSE inquiry.
We are concerned about the general problem. In environmental matters it is important that the mayor should have expertise available to him. We propose an environmental strategy group for London, and we have given the mayor the executive authority to choose who should serve on it. I accept that he should have that right. He should pick experts who can give him that advice and they should be a properly recognised body on the face of the Bill. I also accept that they replace an existing committee that is to be disbanded, and I do not apologise for that. I do not believe that the mayor will be able to undertake his tasks in the environmental field properly without an independent team of expert advisers, and this amendment gives effect to that. The other amendments in the group are consequential. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Whitty: This amendment is not only in a strange place but it is also a slightly strange amendment which misunderstands the nature of the environmental responsibilities of the GLA. One specific part of the GLA's general purposes is to promote environmental improvements in London as a whole. In addition, the authority will have specific environmental functions in respect of the preparation of strategies on waste, air quality, noise and bio-diversity. However, that indicates that there is no need to set down in primary legislation the way in which the mayor will obtain advice on, and organise the running of, his or her environmental responsibilities. Those responsibilities will run through the whole range of strategies and functions of the GLA. The mayor will have to put arrangements in place to obtain advice from environmental experts on all dimensions of the policies, strategies and proposals. That will have to be built into the management structure of both the authority and the functional bodies.
To put on to the face of the Bill an environment strategy group as this amendment seeks to do will tend to compartmentalise the treatment of environmental matters within the GLA. It will make them the responsibility of a separate statutorily-based environment strategy group without providing for read-across into all the other policy areas. We believe that the mayor should retain the flexibility to make arrangements to ensure that environmental considerations and advice are taken into account in all the authority's actions. We should not prescribe and limit the mayor's flexibility by primary legislation. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister assures the Committee that the mayor can make arrangements to be advised. I am very glad to hear it, but I did not really doubt it. However, the amendment puts down a marker about the budgetary consequences and the need for the mayor to be properly funded. Reading this amendment, I wondered whether the advice that the mayor would undoubtedly require would have to be paid for out of the budget for the two political advisers and the 10 other staff, or whether it would be covered in some other way.
I see the attraction of ensuring that the mayor has advice from people who know what they are talking about on environmental matters. That applies also to other areas, but in this case it is particularly important. However, I do not believe that this amendment, or any other, can provide that the people who are appointed are not just individuals who confirm the mayor's own prejudices in the particular area of concern. Although sympathise with the need to ensure that the mayor is careful to obtain high quality advice, I am not convinced that this is the way to do it.
Amendment No. 452ZAA in this group refers to the London Ecology Committee. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, intends this amendment to be dealt with in this group, or whether he intends to leave it and speak to it later.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The short answer to that last question is that I must have slipped, because I had not thought it was my amendment, but perhaps it is.
Baroness Hamwee: The amendment provides for a group to replace the London Ecology Committee. I am not sure whether that means that an ecology group will be put into place within six months or whether it will take the place of the Ecology Committee. I am aware that there is concern among those involved with the London Ecology Unit. The committee is a committee of borough representatives and the unit is the professionals. We on these Benches would be very concerned about the loss of that expertise. Whether this is the way to deal with the matter I am less convinced.
Lord Whitty: I was slightly confused by the reference to the committee. The anxiety that the noble Baroness expressed earlier about its coming out of political advisers is not justified. Clearly, the mayor would have environmental staff, and the entire staff of the London Ecology Unit would transfer to provide that kind of expertise to the mayor.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I believe that this is the moment to mention a matter that arose during the passage of the legislation relating to the rural development agencies, if noble Lords can cast their minds back to that. The rural development agencies were all going to have people who, the Government assured us, knew something about rural affairs. The sole exception was London, where we were told that it was not necessary.
I rather suspect that it is very necessary for London. It may be that London is such a great wen that it is very difficult to identify its hinterland, but every city has a hinterland, every city has problems of communication and representation with that hinterland, and every city should pay attention to what that hinterland wants. At some stage there should be written into the Bill a provision that there should be someone whose job it is to serve on the committee in question, or perhaps one of the other committees appointed under the Bill, someone with real experience and knowledge, and almost a representative capacity for what happens in the countryside outside London.
I ask the Minister to consider this, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, if he is bringing the matter back on Report to consider the possibility of producing an amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise to the Committee for my slight delay in rising; I am still scribbling notes to myself.
I should like to deal first with the question of Amendment No. 452ZAA. I apologise to the Committee for a failure of memory. The amendment is worded in

1001
the form that it is because Clause 299 abolishes the London Ecology Committee, and we therefore judged it necessary to put this source of advice to the mayor in place.
I regret that because I was trying to deal with two things at once I shall have to study in Hansard what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said. I shall have a word with him, and I hope that he will forgive me.
I shall also have to study the response of the noble Lord the Minister to what we have said. He has given some reassurance, but I would put it no higher than that. I accept that the amendment as drafted might not contain the necessary read-through across the whole of the Bill, but the best one can do in putting down amendments is to go for a principle, and if the principle is accepted as right and worthy I would have hoped that the Government might provide that necessary read-through. The Minister feels that because the read-through already exists in the Bill the amendment is unnecessary. I shall need to study what he said and think more about the issue before I am confident of that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 358YAB not moved.]
Clauses 259 to 262 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 358ZA:
Insert the following new Clause—
LONDON FIRE BRIGADE PENSION SCHEME
(" . The Mayor and the GLA will, by 2030, reconstitute the pension scheme of the London Fire Brigade moving it from the present unfunded scheme to a fully funded pension scheme.").
The noble Lord said: A little while ago, we had an interesting debate on Amendment No. 354N on the pension problems of the police service. My noble friend Lord Cope tabled an amendment that found an elegant solution by placing the responsibility for the funding of police pensions directly on to the Treasury. Amendment No. 358ZA, which i tabled, goes in completely the opposite direction. That was partly an exercise in testing the intellectual capacity of the Minister, because we wanted to see whether he could argue against both cases consistently, and it was partly because my inclination is to go one way and my noble friend's inclination, with perhaps greater experience and wisdom, is to go the other way because it is simpler.
The problem with police pensions is not as severe as the problem with firemen's pensions. The fire service demands of those who work for it an extraordinarily high degree of physical fitness. It demands that degree of physical fitness right the way through to chief officer rank. Firemen have to be able to go and fight fires. That is what they are for, but fighting fires is a very harsh job and they cannot do it unless they are physically fit and in robust good health.
The consequence is that the wastage to the fire service—and I pay tribute to its work—for fitness reasons is quite high. I would not say that it is unreasonably high, because it would be unreasonable to expect an unfit fireman to go and fight a. fire. However,
1002
that imposes costs so high that, on the projections I have seen, it is only a matter of time before the fire service becomes a pensions organisation with the provision of fire fighting services being a corollary to the business of paying pensions. That would be an extraordinary situation for a major aspect of public safety, and it would not be satisfactory.
There are two options, and we heard one explained earlier in relation to the police. In response, the Minister was good enough to say that the Government were setting up a study to consider the problem. I have no doubt that that is what he will tell me in response to this amendment. That might appear to be an answer, but the problem has been around for a long time. We have known about it for a long time and it is not study groups that are required but action.
I accept that the solution of going to a fully funded scheme is a high cost one, but if we do not face that cost now, we shall have to face it later. I suggest that that is the way to go, but it requires a decision. I would rather see a decision and the facing of the consequences of that decision than see another study. Another study would simply put the matter off; and every time it is put off, it becomes more expensive to put right. This is a most serious matter from the point of view of the provision of an important and significant safety service for the community at large. It has its own implications for London. This is an opportunity to start an essential process. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in raising this important issue, although not necessarily in the solution that he suggests, any more than I supported the very different solution suggested in respect of the same problem for the Metropolitan Police. However, the noble Lord is right to say that the unfunded pension scheme, currently with the LFCDA, is a huge and growing burden for many reasons, including those which he gave. Just as with the Metropolitan Police, it is an important issue which sooner rather than later the Government must address. It is on such a scale that only government can address and deal with it. Therefore, I support the raising of the issue, although not necessarily the solution suggested, and I urge upon the Minister, if he needs urging, the need for the Government to address this problem.
I am not as cynical about a study group as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, because I understand that it is a complex issue which needs to be studied. But I certainly support the noble Lord in saying that we need not just a study but a solution to the problem as soon as possible. On that basis, I support the issue if not necessarily the substance of the amendment.
Lord Whitty: I recognise the nature of the concern and the size of the problem, although the history of the structure of the pension scheme is different in the police from in the fire service.
The firefighters' pension scheme is a national scheme which is set out in an order made under the Fire Services Act 1947. But we adopt the same principle; namely, that

1003
we should not make changes which affect one fire brigade and not others, any more than we would do so with regard to the police. In any case, the arrangements for the scheme are already under review. The scheme, in common with a number of schemes in the public service, does not have a pension fund. One of the main purposes of the fund—the guaranteeing of employees' pension rights—is in this case guaranteed by statute.
In a technical sense, the scheme is an immature scheme in that the balance between levels of income and expenditure has not yet reached a stable state. That means that there are serious long-term problems. The Government have recognised in recent local government finance settlements the extra pensions costs for fire authorities and have included amounts for pensions in the fire share of the total standard spending.
Other changes being proposed would not provide an easy solution; for example, new entry funding would be likely to make matters worse. The authority would still carry the costs of existing pensions, but because it would have to be funded separately as a pension fund it would lose the contributions from the new entrants which would go straight into the fund.
This review of the provisions of the FPS was published as a consultative document last year. Ministers are still considering the position in the light of responses. The general emphasis of that consultation was more on the management benefits rather than the funding question. However, the Government are now considering the possible study of the costs and benefits of a funded approach for new entrants. But that would provide no easy solution to the costs. At present the cost to fire authorities is covered under the fire settlement. Until we have a more permanent long-term solution that should continue to be the case. The London fire brigade should be treated no differently from those in other parts of the country.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I understand his concern that we cannot treat the employees of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority separately from the fire and emergency planning services across the country because that is the way the system is structured at present.
However, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The debate has given us a chance to raise an increasingly significant problem. I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance that the Government are meeting, and will continue to meet, the pensions costs of the fire service pension scheme. But the matter calls for urgent action. I shall study what the Minister said. I may return with a provision if I can think of an appropriate one. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 263 agreed to.
Clause 264 [The spatial development strategy]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 358A:
Page 141, line 6, after ("shall") insert (", after consultation with the Common Council and the London boroughs,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 358A returns to a familiar theme which, if I am not advancing it, my noble friends on my right are inclined to do. However, we now move from the field of fire into the more fiery area of planning. Planning can cause immense difficulties if there is not a great deal of co-ordination and co-operation. Amendment No. 358A raises the issue of consultation with the Common Council and the London boroughs in arriving at the spatial development strategy. Amendment No. 359, grouped with the amendment, includes the words, "based on the boroughs' views", for the same reason.
Amendment No. 419 picks up a different point. It introduces into Clause 273, which deals with matters to which the mayor must have regard, specific mention of the unitary development plans of the London boroughs. The mayor is obliged to have regard to the existing planning situation in drawing up any plans. We believe that it is a sensible provision. We do not think that it is unreasonable to have it on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The amendments seek to ensure that the mayor's spatial development strategy is based on the views of boroughs. I have no doubt that any sensible mayor would want to work in co-operation with the boroughs and involve them closely in the preparation of the strategy. Indeed, Clause 265 already provides that the mayor should consult the boroughs when preparing the strategy and take their views into account. In that sense, Amendment No. 358A is redundant.
To provide, as Amendment No. 359 suggests, that the strategy should be based on the views of the boroughs is going too far. Of course, their views will carry great weight, but all of the boroughs will not agree about all aspects and there may be disagreements between the boroughs and the mayor. At times, the mayor will have to take account of strategic considerations that may conflict with his or her view. That is precisely why we need a new strategic body. The mayor is meant to take responsibility for the strategic overview for London in this instance, and Amendment No. 359 is—perhaps unintentionally—a pretty substantial curb on that ability.
Similarly, Amendment No. 419 attempts to ensure that the mayor has regard to unitary development plans when producing or revising the development strategy. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. The strategy sets the overall framework for London, and the UDPs, which are far more detailed and specific documents, must be in general conformity with it. That is the proper hierarchy of relationships and that is the logic of the position.
I think that these amendments are misconceived and, if taken literally, would hamstring the mayor in developing the strategy. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I shall study with care. At this late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 359 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 359A:
Page 141, line 6, leave out ("to be known as the "spatial development strategy"") and insert ("dealing with the matters provided by subsection (2) (in this section called "the spatial development strategy")").
The noble Baroness said: We discussed earlier during the passage of this Bill its prescription of titles for the plans, strategies, meetings, question times, reports and so on that the mayor is to produce and undertake. Although a title such as the "spatial development strategy" is not quite as exciting as talking about "the people's question time"—it does not raise issues of political correctness, for example—we do not think that it is necessary or desirable to prescribe for the title. It will be perfectly adequate to provide that the mayor shall prepare and publish a document dealing with matters of spatial development, as I suggest in my amendment.
For the sake of convenience and to avoid amending other clauses, I am prepared to concede that, for the purposes of definition in the Bill, it can be called "the spatial development strategy". However, I do not see why the mayor should be "hamstrung"—to use the term that the Minister applied in another context—by Parliament's and the Government's terminology. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment appears to carry the danger of creating some confusion if it allows the mayor to stray from using the terminology in the Bill and to use another description elsewhere. I have had a hasty look around the Chamber, and I think that no one present will take offence if I explain again what was outlined when we discussed Part II.
Although the term is new in its provenance within the United Kingdom, it accords with the Government's proposals on revising regional planning guidance and with broader concepts of spatial planning that are familiar in the European context. For this reason, we have chosen the term advisedly and are happy with it. It is a good concept for this part of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister imay recall that I supported the Government in the concept. I am arguing from their view that the mayor shall not have the autonomy to call her or his own strategy by whatever sensible title the mayor wishes. The mayor might want to call it the London spatial development strategy. The mayor cannot do so; it has to be the spatial development strategy.
That seems to be taking regulation to extremes. That is why I challenge the amendment. I do not challenge the concept for ore moment; indeed, I support it. Reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 360 to 364 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): If Amendment No. 364A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 365 to 366A.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 364A:
Page 141, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("() The spatial development strategy must include statements dealing with the general spatial development aspects of—

(a) such of the other strategies prepared and published, or to be prepared and published, under the enactments mentioned in section 33(1) above as involve considerations of spatial development, and

(b) such of the Mayor's other policies or proposals as involve such considerations, whether or not the strategy, policy or proposal relates to the development or use of land.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to define more succinctly the relationship between the SDS and other of the mayor's strategies.
Following discussion during the Committee stage in another place, we have taken the opportunity to rationalise the wording of the clause, which caused some difficulties. So this is simply a drafting amendment designed to clarify that the mayor's spatial development strategy must cover spatial aspects of other strategies and policies. Taken together with Clause 33(5), which I cite frequently in these debates, this will help to ensure consistency and integration between the various strategies. It will do so, though, in slightly less absolute terms than the existing wording, which might be construed as requiring the SDS faithfully to reflect an existing mayoral strategy even if it were out of date and needed revising. I believe that the amendment provides greater clarity and a little flexibility. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Amendment No. 366ZA is grouped with this. I was concerned about the terminology of a "general setting" for the mayor's policies, which is why I chose the phrase "strategic framework". However, I am happy for that to be superseded.
Perhaps I may confirm that, in losing subsection (4)(a), which provides in relation to spatial development a general setting, framework or whatever one chooses to call it, the Government are relying on subsection (2) to describe the spatial development strategy. Subsection (4) as amended will relate only to its relationship with other strategies and policies and one should not use the spatial development aspect. I believe that Clause 264(2) does the job.
Lord Whitty: I believe that to be correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 365 to 366ZA not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 366A:
Page 141, line 17, after ("Mayor,") insert—
("(c) in respect of the transport strategy, reflect the future land requirements of passenger and freight transport needs,").
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who is not present, and I have amendments in this group, I beg to move Amendment No. 366A and in

1007
doing so speak to my Amendments Nos. 372 and 372A. They introduce at this stage into the spatial development strategy the need to include environmental considerations. It is late in the evening and I do not believe that one needs to go into the matter in detail. I suspect that the Minister will say again that, of course, these matters will be taken into consideration. It has been said so many times that we are dealing with possibilities in this Bill. The fact that something will be done does not necessarily mean that it will. It could mean that it will be neglected to be done.
Conservation of those parts of London which have not been developed, improvement in its physical environment and the conservation of the beauty and amenity of London are very important considerations in any spatial development strategy. We wanted to call it a London development strategy. The question is fundamental to the improvement of London's environment. It is because it is so important, and we now have the Rogers report on urban regeneration, that it is appropriate to introduce these considerations in this way. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I fully accept the importance of the areas specified in these two amendments, but I do not consider it appropriate that we should put them on the face of the Bill. Presumably, they do not purport to be the full list of issues to be addressed by the strategy. I suspect that they are attempting to identify some minimum requirements. In practice they do not go much beyond the general purposes of the authority set out much earlier in Clause 25.
The problem with any such list of desiderata is that it is bound to be selective and incomplete. It is also likely that it will need to be reviewed from time to time, which is why we consider that any specification of minimum coverage would have to be dealt with through secondary legislation or guidance. To put these matters on the face of the Bill would not be appropriate. Therefore, I do not believe that we should adopt these changes albeit that I accept the importance of the two areas which have been identified. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is reassuring to hear that these are important considerations and, even if they are not to go on the face of the Bill, that he accepts the principle that lies behind the amendment. I shall explore with care what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 367 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 368:
Page 141, line 26, at end insert ("provided that it has a significant effect greater than the area of a single London borough").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a matter which is of some importance. At page 141 of the Bill we are dealing with matters which will be included
1008
in the spatial development strategy. Clause 264(6) states:
"In determining for the purposes of this Part whether a matter is of strategic importance to Greater London, it is immaterial whether or not the matter affects the whole area of Greater London".
Of course, that is unexceptionable. We have no difficulty with that at all.
At the other end of the scale, if something is not put in, there is no bottom end. We are suggesting in the amendment that there ought to be a bottom end, so to speak, and that for a matter to be included in the strategy in this context, it should be a matter that is of such significance that it will affect an area that is greater than that of a single borough. In other words, it puts the mayor's strategy into the genuinely strategic area and removes it from the possibility of conflict with matters that ought more properly to be dealt with by the unitary development plans which the borough will handle. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: In this group, Amendment No. 368A stands in my name. I tabled the amendment in order to explore, as the noble Lord has suggested, what is strategic, and more particularly how it can be determined. I am not convinced that it is possible to provide for every matter that is strategic, listing all of them in advance.
I am aware that regulations are proposed under Clause 274 and I have seen the consultation paper which has been the subject of discussion among various parties in London. That paper sets out the categories of development on which the proposed mayor of London is to be consulted. It lists four broad groups: large scale development, major infrastructure, development that may affect key strategic policies and development that may affect key strategic sites. To a significant extent, that seems to beg the question of strategic importance which will be a matter for judgment. It will be entirely possible and desirable to set out many of the types of development that would be regarded as strategic. I am not sure that it would be possible to deal with them all. If that is not possible, the question arises as to who is to be the judge. In our view Clause 264(5) rightly says that the,
"strategy must deal only with matters which are of strategic importance to Greater London".
That raises some issues.
Amendment No. 368A proposes an arbiter in the person of whoever conducts the examination in public under Clause 268. I do not believe that that is necessarily a perfect solution because, by definition, an examination in public is not an inquiry which comes to a conclusion in the same way. It examines issues, provides advice and so on. I believe it is worth reflecting on whether there may be areas where there will be dispute about what is strategic that simply do not lend themselves to being dealt with by regulation. If that is so, who should reach a view?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Amendment No. 368B, included in this group, is intended to raise the issue and

1009
to allow me to air the anxieties expressed on behalf of the City of London rather than that the amendment should inevitably form part of the Bill.
The Government have in mind that, in due course, there will be an order which will set out the categories of planning application which will be regarded as strategic and on which, therefore, the mayor not only has to be consulted, but on which he may, in the end, have a veto.
We said in earlier debates on Monday that planning was one of the major sources of friction between the GLC., the boroughs and the City Corporation. Indeed, in one sense, we returned to that today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated, there is already quite a long history about this matter. It was necessary for the Government to clarify what kinds of development would be regarded as "strategic". They have clearly learnt the lesson here of the conflict between the boroughs and the GLC and they are trying to ensure that the mayor and the authority will only have a role in planning applications that are genuinely strategic. For everything else, the boroughs and the City Corporation will remain the planning authorities.
In March, the Government answered a Written Question in another place. It is a long answer, so I shall not attempt to try to read or even summarise it, because I want to deal with my own amendment. The essence of it is contained in about seven lines which I shall read out to the Committee:
"The Mayor must also have a means of representing the broader pan-London view for individual planning applications where issues of genuine strategic importance are concerned. The Mayor will therefore become a slatutory consultee for a limited number of applications of potential strategic importance, to be defined in secondary legislation".
Mr Raynsford, the Minister who replied, goes on to say:
"He or she will also have a fall-back power to direct the refusal of planning permission in these cases where this is considered necessary on strategic grounds".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/99; col. WA 472.]
The following page sets out a long list, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred, detailing the categories which are likely to be covered in this respect. They were dealt with in greater detail in the consultation paper to which reference has already been made. One of those categories relates to very large new buildings or structures. The proposal was that that would be over 30,000 square metres in the City of London, 20,000 square metres in the rest of central London and 15,000 metres elsewhere. I ask Members of the Committee to note that what is there proposed is the actual size of the buildings. My amendment is directed towards saying that it is not so much the size of the buildings—my amendment is confined to the City of London—as the increase in the size of the buildings.
The general pattern of development and redevelopment within the City is that a large office building becomes outdated, inconvenient and unsuited to modern commerce. It is, therefore, redeveloped. The building may be either substantially reconstructed, or it may be demolished and an entirely new building may be put up in its place. Most of these buildings are already of such a size that they would come within that category
1010
of over 30,000 square metres. Indeed, one could quote some examples of buildings which have been constructed recently and which would be caught by this because they are over that limit. However, at this time of night, it will not be necessary to do so.
The effect of the Government's drafting of the Bill by looking at the absolute size rather than the increase in the size is that some 22 per cent of permissions for development and 48 per cent of floor space granted in the City would, on current figures—I am talking about 1997–98 figures—be subject to reference to the mayor. Some 48 per cent of the redevelopments in the City would be regarded as strategic. I submit to the Government that that is absurd. Merely to replace a large building with another one of the same size has no strategic implications at all. It should not lead to any significant increase in employment. It should not lead to any significant increase in traffic. It should not have any impact on any of the general strategic planning in London. However, if it happens to be over 30,000 square metres, off it has to go to the mayor.
However, if there was a substantial increase in the size of a building—my amendment takes the same figure of 30,000 square metres for London—the only developments to be caught would be 3 per cent of permissions rather than 22 per cent. Instead of 48 per cent of floor space the figure would be 7 per cent. It seems inherently probable that it is that small share of the total developments within the City of London that is likely to have strategic implications for the spatial strategy. I therefore believe that the Government must consider adopting a test of the increase in the size of a building rather than the absolute size of a building.
There are few sites within the City of London that are as yet undeveloped. There may be some sites where there will be a change of use. For example, a telephone exchange with few people may be turned into an office block with a large number of people. The amendment does not affect that position. The amendment recognises that if it is a question of a different use class and comes within the limit that is being suggested it may well have strategic applications and should be referred. However, if it is a question of a building in the same use class of the same size as that which is being replaced, I submit that it is absurd to regard that as a strategic matter which has to be referred. In the past year, 48 per cent of the buildings that have been the subject of development in the City would have had to be referred.
There are all kinds of arguments and at this hour of the night I shall not deploy them except to say that the City is proud of its record as a planning authority. It takes great pride in ensuring that the City is capable of meeting the needs of the users who, as I said in an earlier debate, include a great many from overseas running financial services in London. I believe that it would be most unfortunate if such a high proportion of the development were effectively to be taken out of the hands of the City corporation and entrusted to the mayor of London on the grounds that if a figure of over 30,000 square metres is involved the matter must be strategic.

1011
I have made my case and I hope that the Government will be prepared to listen. There is plenty of time. The measure does not have to come into effect until the mayor takes over and an order will have to be made. The consultation has shown that what the Government propose does not make sense. I hope that they will be prepared to reconsider the matter. When we reach that point I shall withdraw my amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding on this matter. The City of London is an important international financial centre and needs to be on an even keel with other financial centres in terms of being able to provide new premises, or to extend premises, or to refurbish premises within the same kind of timescale that applies in cities such as Frankfurt. I am told that the Corporation of London is concerned that if the amendment which refers to the 30,000 square metres is not carried, a serious delay will arise which could militate against the City of London retaining its pre-eminent position as leader in the area of financial services.
Lord Whitty: I understand some of the concerns in the City and other places to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness have referred. However, we are referring to Clause 264 and it seems to me that we are in danger of confusing what can be regarded as important in terms of the development of the strategy with the thresholds which can be regarded as strategic in terms of planning applications. This clause concerns the development strategy. Most of the issues the noble Lord addressed will not arise until we reach Clause 275 or thereabouts.
The strategy will require the mayor to look at the totality of London and to propose various strategic developments around London, some of which may be of a certain size and some of which may be of a smaller size but have strategic importance. All of the amendments as drafted seek to place some limitation on what the mayor can deem strategically important. One amendment, for example, relates to instances where the mayor cannot propose developments which do not directly affect other boroughs. It may well be that, in the strategic development context, the mayor would wish to establish, or arrange to be established, for example, a major conference centre, sports centre or even a railway station, the effects of which may not be easily assignable to more than one borough but would be quite important from a strategic point of view. It would therefore be unnecessary to try to constrain his ability to include that within the strategy.
Of course, the mayor should not interfere with matters that are best left at borough level. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that we do not want to reintroduce a two-tier planning structure except for very important planning applications. But here we are talking about a development strategy in a more general sense.
1012
Amendment No. 371 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove the explicit power to make different provisions for different cases.
Lord Dixon-Smith: If I may interrupt the Minister. Amendment No. 371 is one of my amendments and is not in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Lord Whitty: I apologise. I am misreading the clauses. In whoever's name it is, the amendment would fetter the mayor's ability to make proper and considered plans for London's future needs. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis concerned the River Thames. There was a general consensus that the mayor should be able to replicate what now exists in the strategic planning guidance for the Thames, which is currently the Secretary of State's publication. But the Thames is not homogenous in its character and the implications of development vary from place to place. It is therefore necessary for the spatial development strategy to reflect the power to deal differently with different parts of London. It would not therefore be appropriate to put this constraint on the mayor in that respect.
I have referred to Amendment No. 368B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It is not appropriate here, but it would impose a restriction on the clause. Its implication is that the mayor could not, in relation to the City of London specifically, designate smaller developments as part of the strategic plan. Again, that is an unnecessary constraint. The argument about the threshold on planning applications probably comes later.
Midnight
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps the Minister will give way. I entirely take his point that this matter might have been raised. I do not suggest that in the end this will be an amendment to the Bill. The amendment is a peg on which to hang this request. Perhaps, even at this late hour, the Minister will respond to the request rather than to the idea that this might be an amendment to this clause of the Bill. I accept his point, but the issue is a very real one which I hope he can address.
Lord Whitty: It may well be, and I am aware of that concern. In so far as we are dealing with amendments to particular clauses, it does not seem appropriate that I should go into detail in replying to this point. One has to determine a threshold above which matters automatically come within the planning purview of the mayor. Following the consultation—during the course of which various changes were made—it was felt that these were the appropriate thresholds. I could no doubt go into some lengthy correspondence with the noble Lord on this point. But in so far as we are trying to amend a clause of the Bill, I do not think I wish to detain Members of the Committee further, particularly as the noble Baroness has tabled an entirely different form of amendment which does pertain to the Bill, although I regard it as inappropriate. I understand that we may well return to this matter when we reach the planning process aspects of the Bill, possibly at a more appropriate time of day.

1013
Turning to Amendment No. 368A tabled by the noble Baroness, Clause 264(5) already ensures that the spatial development strategy has to deal only with matters that are strategic. It does, however, imply that the mayor himself must make a judgment as to what is strategic; and while he has some discretion in making that judgment, it is of course the case that his judgment is reviewable in the courts.
The noble Baroness's amendment seeks to transfer the decision on what is strategic in a type of appeals process to the panel holding the examination in public. That is not right in principle, but it would also fundamentally change the role of the EIP panel. Under the Bill, the panel reports to the mayor. It does not take binding decisions just as under planning legislation, generally speaking, inspectors or chairs of the examination in public would report to local authorities which take final decisions on the contents of their development plans. Even if we wished to transform that panel into an appeals and decision-making body over the mayor's own decisions, it would completely change the nature of the relationship and the panel as envisaged here. Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
I am sorry that my response has been slightly confused. A number of different points were raised. We shall no doubt return to some of them later. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment—especially as it is row one minute past midnight.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may press the Minister once mere on the particular issue of the criterion as regards the size of the buildings in the City of London. Is he prepared to consider something along the lines that I have suggested? I recognise that this should perhaps have been in a later clause, for which I apologise. However, it is a matter of huge importance to the future of the City. Perhaps even at this late hour, the Minister would be prepared to say that his door is open and he will continue to discuss the matter with the people involved.
Lord Whitty: I am always open to representations from the noble Lord and others. However, the decisions that have been made so far on this and on the consultation which has already been widely pursued throughout London have led the Minister for London to determine that these are the appropriate thresholds. Therefore, while during the progress of the Bill here and elsewhere we are prepared to consider further representations, at this point the Government are determined that the thresholds they set at the end of the consultation are the appropriate thresholds.
1014
That is something short of an absolute "No", but nevertheless it would be misleading for me to say that the Government are still in a consultative mode on it.
Baroness Hamwee: When I was speaking to my Amendment No. 368A I accepted that the role of those undertaking the examination in public was not the same as that of an inspector at an inquiry. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to confirm that the examiners, those conducting the examination in public, would be entitled, in advising the mayor, to make comments on whether certain parts of the proposed strategy fall short of being strategic.
Lord Whitty: The answer is, yes. I was objecting to the quasi appeals position which I thought the noble Baroness's amendment involved.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I thank the Minister for his reply which indicated sufficient reasons why I should be brief and we should end our debate this evening. The Minister raised points of concern, particularly as to the planning process which will cause me some anxiety, although I shall have the opportunity to raise them again since I have tabled other amendments which will deal with them. For example, a decision to put some major installation in a specific borough would be likely to have strategic implications for the whole of London. It may be a reasonable decision to take, but it could cause acute difficulty in the borough. The borough's unitary development plan may have been through the approval process. Nevertheless, it has to conform to the mayor's special development strategy and therefore it would require amendment after it had been examined in public. That would create a procedural hiatus. However, we can return to the matter.
The debate has gone on for a considerable time, but we have shown that a number of important issues lie behind the debate, even if it was not wholly appropriately placed in the Bill. Those issues are matters to which we will undoubtedly have to return at a later stage. For tonight, that is sufficient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 368A, 368B and 369 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at 10 minutes past midnight.

  Fire Regulations: European Directive
  Fire Regulations: European Directive
  Schools: Religious Education
  Schools: Religious Education
  Historic Steam Vehicles: European Directive
  Historic Steam Vehicles: European Directive
  London Underground Penalty Fares
  London Underground Penalty Fares
  Airport Transport and Access Consultation: Responses
  Airport Transport and Access Consultation: Responses
  Transport Council, 17 June
  Transport Council, 17 June
  Rail Travel
  Rail Travel
  Appeal Hearings: Photocopying and Fax Facilities
  Appeal Hearings: Photocopying and Fax Facilities
  Poet Laureate
  Poet Laureate
  Private Members' Bills
  Private Members' Bills
  Royal Parks: Unlicensed Vendors
  Royal Parks: Unlicensed Vendors