Sitting of 18 June 1999

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

  Gaming Act 1968
  9.33 am
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town): I wish to present a petition, which states:
  To the honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of Martin Bowers, Chairman and Company Director of the Peacock Gymnasium, Caxton Street North, London E16 1JL, Charity Number 102296, and Fred Cutts, Trustee of the Peacock Gymnasium, Caxton Street North, London E16.
  Sheweth:—That since implementation of the Gaming Act 1968, no areas in London other than those described as permitted areas, namely the boroughs of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and part of Camden, have been identified as appropriate for 'casino' operation.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the Secretary of State, the Home Office, to acknowledge that the mischief the Act then sought to address having now been achieved, to now include the area known as Docklands as a permitted area within which casinos may operate (subject of course to other existing regulations)."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Tourism (New Millennium)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the proceedings of the House, but I wonder whether you have had a request from a Minister to make a statement about the written answer that was snuck into Hansard yesterday in response to a planted question from the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), which is reported at column 213. It announces that the Government will not now implement part II of the Family Law Act 1996 in 2000, as had been previously expected.
  As I understand it, the Act, which humanises and liberalises the law of divorce, was passed under the previous Government with the co-operation of the then Opposition and with the personal blessing of the then shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg. It now appears, as a consequence of the planted question, which was tabled on Wednesday for answer yesterday, that the Government have admitted that they are not prepared to put the resources into the necessary reconciliation procedures that would be required to make the Family Law Act 1996 work.
  I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, or any other Minister, has had the decency to condescend to come to the House to tell us why the Government will not do what they said they would do in opposition.
  Madam Speaker: I have not been informed so far today that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on that issue. The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand and appreciate that Ministers make statements either orally at the Dispatch Box or by written answer. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to pursue his point, he must find ways and means to do so through the Order Paper.
  9.37 am
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): May I begin by offering many congratulations to the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on the Opposition Front Bench on surviving the reshuffle? It is always a pleasure to see them in their places. I wish to apologise to the House and especially to the hon. Member for West Suffolk and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for my inability to stay right to the end of the debate, because I have to be in Scotland this afternoon. I will read with great care what is said.
  I am pleased that we are able to have this debate today. It is the second debate on tourism in a few weeks in the House and there have also been several debates recently in the other place. I am especially pleased to see with us this morning my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who played such an important part while we were in opposition in laying the foundations of a robust tourism policy which, I am pleased to say, we are now able to implement. The document "Breaking

  667
  New Ground", which my hon. Friend played an enormous role in producing, has been the foundation stone on which we have sought to build.
  I note in passing that, during this Parliament so far, we have had far more debates on tourism than in any previous Parliament. That reflects a growing recognition by the Government and the House of the importance of tourism as an industry. It is of course a vital industry, which contributes £53 billion annually to earnings in the economy. It supports at least 1.7 million jobs and it accounts for some 18 per cent. of the increase in employment in all sectors of the economy since 1987. It is also set to grow still further over the next five to 10 years.
  Our strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", was launched on 26 February, and I am pleased to say that it is already having an impact. Under the strategy, all branches of government involved in tourism or hospitality are helping to foster a modern, competitive tourism industry for the new millennium. We want that industry to contribute fully to economic prosperity and job creation, to improve quality of life for everyone while contributing to greater social inclusion; to contribute to sustainable development and urban and rural regeneration; to help sustain local communities and economies, particularly those that have depended traditionally on tourism-related employment; and to contribute to the appreciation and conservation of our natural and built heritage. All of those things are part of the effect that tourism can, and should, have.
  "Tomorrow's Tourism" was developed with the help and co-operation of Departments across Whitehall and some 200 representatives of the tourism industry. It contains specific proposals for action by central and local government, the tourist boards and by the wider industry. The Government will ensure that we follow up those proposals, and we are committed to reviewing and reporting annually on the progress made in implementing the strategy. I am particularly pleased that we will ensure that there is co-ordination between all relevant Departments across Government by holding a high profile tourism summit each year where Ministers will review progress and consider future action.
  We are beginning to implement several key and specific action points from the strategy. It refers to the need to provide effective support for tourism and to introduce a coherent approach across Government. We have already begun to do that. We are setting up the new English Tourism Council, which will provide strategic leadership to the industry in England. We interviewed recently for the position of chairman of the ETC, and we hope to make an announcement about that very soon. The establishment of the English Tourism Council will enable us to free up more money for the English regions to spend directly in support of their individual regional tourism needs. The balance of the money devoted to supporting tourism in England will shift from the centre to the regions, and I believe that that is right.
  We are also starting to work with the regional development agencies, which became operational on 1 April, and we will establish shortly regional cultural consortiums that will bring together all cultural and tourism activities in a region to ensure that we can influence properly the work of the RDAs. We are already providing additional funds for the British Tourist
  668
  Authority's overseas marketing work, and we are taking up a wide range of policy and regulatory issues with other Whitehall Departments. At the same time, we are ensuring that tourism businesses—from large hotels to the many micro-operators within the industry—can benefit from Government initiatives such as the new deal and the forthcoming creation of the new small business service, and all the measures to support small business that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up a matter of some uncertainty? In the event of regional assemblies being established, does he believe that the regional cultural groupings to which he referred will report to the assemblies rather than to any national body?
  Mr. Smith: That is not my view or intention. The role of regional assemblies—as and when they emerge—will obviously be extremely important. I hope that there will be cross-representation from the assemblies to the regional cultural consortiums. The consortiums will bring together all the bodies—mainly national or nationally derived bodies, such as the regional arts boards, the regional arms of the English Sports Council and regional tourist boards—to discuss what is needed to develop culture and cultural activities in the regions.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I raise this matter because, as the right hon. Gentleman may recall, I drew his attention recently in a written parliamentary question to an issue involving a castle in Wales. I received a reply that it was a matter not for him as Secretary of State—nor apparently for the Secretary of State for Wales—but for the Welsh Assembly.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten—I would be surprised if he has—that my writ does not run beyond Offa's dyke when it comes to built heritage. I am responsible for the oversight of built heritage in England, but I am afraid that I have no power or locus to intervene in relation to castles in Wales—attractive though that proposition might be.
  At the heart of our published tourism strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", is the principle of ensuring quality in terms of both standards of accommodation and the service that visitors receive from the people running hotels or visitor attractions. Quality of accommodation and quality of service must lie at the heart of any approach to the development of tourism in this country. I recently read a most interesting piece about the results of work done at the behest of the British Tourist Authority, which sought the opinion of first-time visitors to Britain as they left the country about their impressions of tourism in the UK.
  We scored very high marks for heritage—including Welsh castles—for history, pageantry, the performing arts and for visitor attractions, which achieved a 90 per cent. plus approval rating. We scored rather good marks—one might be surprised to hear this if one thinks back 10 or 15 years—for the quality of food. We scored rather good marks for the friendliness of people and the welcome that visitors had received. However, I am afraid that we received very poor marks for the quality and value for money of accommodation.

  669
  That is why the strategy places so much emphasis on the importance of getting quality in accommodation right. I am very pleased that the English tourist board, the Automobile Association and the RAC have almost completed their inspections under the new harmonised accommodation grading scheme for hotels and guest houses, which will be launched to consumers in September. My Department is working with the Department of Trade and Industry and with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discover how we can use the spread of different Government support mechanisms to improve accommodation facilities.
  Alongside the need to improve quality in accommodation sits the need to improve quality of service. For too long, people have regarded careers in tourism and hospitality as a second-best option: not real jobs, but temporary or casual employment without decent remuneration, career structures or training. I believe that that perception is now mistaken. Many of the larger players in tourism and hospitality are putting in place high-standard, good-quality training and career development for their staff. They appreciate that decent remuneration, good facilities and conditions of employment, decent training and good career opportunities make for a motivated work force who will provide good service and not only enable visitors to have a good experience during their stay but encourage them to return.
  There was evidence of that change of mood within the industry at the hospitality careers festival, which I launched on Monday and which has lasted throughout the week. It has drawn thousands of young people from around the country to learn about careers in hospitality and tourism, and it is a good sign that the industry is keen to ensure that we reverse the old cycle of despair and turn it into a virtuous cycle of good employment and good service.
  I am also pleased by the way in which the industry has responded to the new deal challenge issued by the Government. Of all the industries in this country, tourism and hospitality have so far responded best to the opportunities offered by the new deal. Many new deal entrants to the industry—including, I am pleased to say, several in my constituency—are making a success of their participation.
  In addition to the provision of effective support through Government structures and the emphasis on quality of accommodation and staff training, a major issue facing tourism and hospitality is the onset of the millennium, which offers this country significant tourism opportunities. The British Tourism Authority estimates that the millennium will help to draw in an extra 2 million tourist visitors from overseas during the millennium year. The millennium dome—which, I am pleased to say, is now known around the world as the most impressive celebration of the millennium—and a wide range of millennium projects and festivities planned by communities throughout the country realise the BTA's slogan, "Britain, now is the time." The millennium offers the opportunity to draw in visitors who might not otherwise have thought of Britain as the destination of their choice.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): That is all lovely, touchy and feely, but what action is the Secretary of State
  670
  taking to ensure that people will not be exploited by excessive costs and charges if they want to go out and enjoy themselves on new year's eve?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not strike me as being lovely, touchy or feely, but perhaps I am being a touch churlish, so I immediately withdraw that remark. We must balance the need to ensure that people are not exploited with the consideration that those who work through the millennium evening and night and the early hours of the next morning, when they might prefer to be out celebrating with their friends and family, should be properly and decently remunerated.
  As well as providing the opportunity for a number of major capital projects—some £1.4 billion of capital has been spent on schemes throughout the country, not only on the millennium dome—the millennium offers us the chance to hold the millennium festival, in which £100 million is being invested by the Millennium Commission and other lottery distributors. More than £50 million has already been allocated to large projects and festivals around the country, including major arts festivals, youth sports competitions, oral history projects and local heritage projects. Many more such projects will be set up as smaller grants of up to £5,000 are distributed. That means that many exciting millennium activities will add to the major capital projects and attractions for visitors around the country.
  There are of course other tasks to be undertaken. The first is the provision of better information for customers and businesses. If quality is the principal theme of "Tomorrow's Tourism", better information is its second most important one. I am pleased that the BTA is now using new technology to make it easier for tourists to find out about Britain. The majority of the BTA's 36 new websites will be launched this year. The BTA is also publishing themed information to appeal to tourists with specific interests. A few days ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting helped to launch the movie map, which identifies Britain as the place where many film locations can be found. Many tourists want to come and see where a particular favourite movie was filmed. I note in passing that the four current biggest grossing films around the world, including "Star Wars", were all filmed in Britain, a fact of which the British film industry should be very proud.
  The Government will also be exploring with the industry how it can give customers clearer pricing information; for example, on hotel accommodation. My hon. Friend has also been exploring the cost of telephone calls made from hotel rooms, many of which are charged at very high premium rates. We shall find out what can be done to help the consumer.
  The new small business service aims to simplify and give coherence to the Government's support for small businesses, which constitute the bulk of businesses involved in the provision of tourism services and activities. The service will help them with many matters, including coping with regulations. My Department will be working very closely with the DTI to ensure that tourism truly benefits from the service.
  As part of our work, we shall pay particular attention to the needs of traditional resort towns and communities, particularly, but not solely, in coastal areas. For many decades, tourism has been their staple industry,

  671
  but traditional forms of tourism may well be in decline. We shall assist the local authorities and regional tourist boards in those areas to develop strategies to transform their appeal and begin to expand their tourism industry in the modern world. That will be one of the major priorities of my Department and the new English Tourism Council in the coming years.

  I am keen to ensure that, across government, the mainstream funding mechanisms for regeneration, ranging from support from the European regional development fund to the work of the single regeneration budget areas, are applicable to those resort towns where the impact on employment of changing patterns of visits and holidays can be very dramatic.
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The Secretary of State mentioned seaside resorts; we are very concerned about the decline of some, but not all, of them. He mentioned that help will be given, and various methods are suggested, but has he any specific ideas on whether section IV grants, for example, will be reintroduced to enable the improvement of small hotels, for instance?
  Mr. Smith: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the specific assurance that he seeks. However, we must ensure that all arms of government are working with the needs of seaside resorts and other resort towns very much in mind. I am pleased, for example, that, in his constituency, the heritage lottery fund has come through with support for the refurbishment of the pier, which will undoubtedly help to stimulate the regeneration of tourism in his area. We must consider all the different ways in which the Government can support such areas.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham): In pursuing that point, may I ask what the right hon. Gentleman is doing to encourage his Government to give seaside resorts objective 2 status?
  Mr. Smith: That matter has not of course yet been finally determined, but I am in close discussion with my right hon. and hon. Friends across government about precisely how best objective 2 status can be applied and where the funds that flow from it can best be deployed.
  As well as providing better information for customers, "Tomorrow's Tourism" focuses on the theme of encouraging the wise growth of tourism. Ensuring that that growth is sustainable is extremely important. One of the great debates in tourism around the world is on ensuring that, in encouraging people to visit attractions and places of interest, the quality of the natural environment, built heritage and attractions is not destroyed. Ensuring that the balance is right is therefore very important. That is why the English Tourism Council will be asked to report annually to me on progress on achieving more sustainable forms of tourism development.
  We shall ensure that tourism features in the Government's forthcoming White Papers on urban and rural policy. The English Tourism Council will also undertake research on why 40 per cent. of the population do not take a long holiday. Obviously, for some, there may be physical or employment barriers to doing so.
  672
  Finding out why such a large proportion of the population do not take any long holiday during the year, and considering how we can ensure that opportunities for them to do so can be created, are some of the items on which—we hope—the English Tourism Council will focus.
  We very much hope that the conditions for travellers with physical disabilities will continue to improve as the remaining provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 come into force over the next five years.
  There is indeed a bright future for the tourism and hospitality industries in this country. "Tomorrow's Tourism", which we published in February, has been widely welcomed as the best and most comprehensive national tourism strategy ever produced. Over the next few weeks, our regional roll-out of that strategy, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting talks to people in the tourism industry in each region about how to implement it, will take that process further forward. The appointment of a chairman and chief executive of the new English Tourism Council is imminent, and the reconstitution of the tourism forum will maintain the momentum that we have gained.
  As a country, we continue to attract visitors. On the provisional figures for the first two months of this year, inward visitor numbers and spending look very much like improving on those of last year. But we must strive to improve the quality of the overall tourist experience that Britain offers so that we can both maintain and improve our market share of international tourism as well as maximising domestic tourism—encouraging people to take some breaks during the year here in Britain even if they take their main holiday abroad. That is what our strategy seeks to do.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the growth over recent years in activity holidays, particularly for children, which stands to be diminished by the impact of the minimum wage, especially since employers are not allowed any abatement for the granting of full board to their employees?
  Mr. Smith: I am pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman; I did not think that he would make such a fool of himself. He is right to say that that activity tourism is on the increase—and rightly so. Intelligent and innovative hoteliers and facility operators are ensuring that they tailor what they have to offer to the activities in which people want to participate. He is completely wrong to say that the introduction of the minimum wage somehow diminishes the industry's ability to serve the visitor.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to the remarks that I made about the importance of quality of service. Firm after firm in the tourism and hospitality industries readily recognises that decent remuneration of employees is an essential component of providing a good service. Well-remunerated, well-motivated staff provide a good service. That is what the visitor wants, and what the industry is increasingly providing. I am pleased to say that more and more firms are now far more attuned to the needs of their employees and of visitors than the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Smith: No, I am drawing to a conclusion.

  673
  Our strategy seeks to improve our market share of international tourism and to maximise domestic tourism. It will succeed if all key players—central Government, local government, the English Tourism Council, the BTA, the tourist boards and others—are committed to making it work. We have already begun to implement it; good progress is already in train. I look forward to a further flourishing of the industry in years to come.
  10.8 am
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind remarks on my reappointment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) to our respective posts. This is my first public opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition for keeping us in our posts. It is a sad fact in politics that one spends much time getting to know a brief and then, all too often, just as one is beginning to know one's way around the terrain, one is moved to completely different terrain and someone else must start all over again. I am therefore delighted to have been given the opportunity to continue with what in many ways is the widest and most interesting brief on offer in Westminster.
  I am also delighted to have the opportunity to debate this very important industry. The economic case for supporting tourism has often been stated, but it cannot be stated enough. The figures that the Secretary of State gave are worth repeating. If things are repeated, they occasionally sink in where it really matters. The travel and tourism industry is worth more than £50 billion to the economy every year—more than we spend on the national health service. It accounts for roughly 4 per cent. of England's gross domestic product and 7 per cent. of consumer spending. It is a huge employer, providing one in five of all new jobs and 1.75 million jobs overall.
  Tourism is big business and it is set to become the biggest business in the world in the next few years. But if tourism were only about business, I would not be here today, and nor would the Secretary of State. If tourism were only about business, it would be sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry.
  It is significant, and not a little depressing, that I have recently become aware of a growing body of opinion within tourism that the industry might be better served were it treated like any other business, such as car manufacturing or pharmaceuticals, and sponsored by the DTI—but tourism is different. We are constantly told that, in the next century, we shall work for less of our lives—that we shall have more time to spend on being ourselves. If that is the case—I think that it probably is—the age in which people have been very much defined by what they do as much as by who they are may be coming to an end.
  The arts, television, film, the entertainment industry, sport and holidays—these are the things that fill our lives when we are not at work. These are the things that are sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Far from being a rag-bag of peripheral and politically marginal activities, these are the things that make life worth living. Some of those present may be aware of the memorable remark made by the actor Stephen Fry last year, when he said that he doubted that there were many people who would sit up on their deathbed and say, "Oh my God, I wish that I had spent more time in the office."
  It has always seemed to me that one of the fundamental purposes of politics is to improve the quality of life. Improving the standard of living is only a part, albeit an
  674
  essential one, of that wider agenda. The issues collectively sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are by no means peripheral to our lives, and any political philosophy that treats them as a diversion or a curiosity is in danger of making itself marginal. Tourism is not only by far the largest industry in economic terms that comes under the DCMS banner, but the glue that holds the whole idea of the Department together.
  I am acutely aware that the 25.5 million people who visit Britain every year do not do so for the weather. I was told last night that the managing director of a major German company, currently based in the United Kingdom, indirectly offered some advice for this debate. He said that if he were running the British tourist industry, the first thing that he would do would be to mount a major campaign to persuade people that London is not always foggy and that it is not always raining. Looking at the beautiful day outside the House today, it is hard to disagree, so I commend that policy to the British Tourist Authority.
  At the moment, however, people do not come to Britain for the weather; they come for the theatres, the galleries, the museums, the historic buildings, the concerts, the sporting events and the fashion. They go to Notting Hill at the moment, too. Without those things, we would have very little to market to the world. The British Tourist Authority knows that, which is why it has published its film map, which the Secretary of State mentioned. Yes, we could do with a world-class modern visitor attraction near the capital; yes, the dome will be the focus of international attention next year—but without the complex, rich, historic and evolving hinterland that is our culture, we would have precious little to offer.
  That view is shared by the chief executive of the Association of British Travel Agents. Commenting on the Department's consultation exercise last year, which followed the comprehensive spending review, he said:
  "We were … disappointed to note that tourism rates virtually no mention in the Secretary of State's preface to the consultation papers … The economic importance of travel and tourism dwarfs the rest of the DCMS's portfolio. Indeed, it is possible to argue that without the economic benefits that tourism brings much of the UK's cultural infrastructure would disappear."
  I know that that view is shared by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which published its very critical report last year. No doubt, the Secretary of State is well aware of its contents and looking forward to the outcome of the Select Committee's current review of the relationship between the Department and its quangos.
  The idea of cool is cheap, transitory and based on a narrow perception of contemporary glitz. It is essentially very superficial. This seems an appropriate time at which to comment on the dome.
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson):You were there.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I was indeed there the other day; I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. I visit it quite regularly.
  Mr. Fabricant: Commiserations.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I enjoy visiting the dome, and I have seen a major transformation on that site since it was a

  675
  barren wasteland. The structure of the dome has been there for some months, but the contents are starting to be put in place. A huge amount of work is taking place and more than 700 people are employed on the site. I again take the opportunity to pay tribute to Jenny Page and all the people who are working on that project, who have done a terrific job to date to get the work done on time and to budget.
  There are problems with the dome. There is a huge amount still to do and time is short. There are fewer than 200 days to go until the opening. I suspect that the really difficult bit, the introduction of the technology, involving moving parts—the sort of thing that the Health and Safety Executive gets excited by—has yet to be tackled.
  There is another serious problem, which I wish to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State. That is the public attitude to the dome, which is still extremely negative. During my visit to the dome last Monday, I spent an hour with Talk Radio, which has been appointed official radio station to the dome—I am very pleased about that. Talk Radio found it difficult to discover a single caller in the whole country who would ring in to say that they thought that it was a great idea.
  There is a real problem of perception. The other evening, one of Labour's distinguished Back Benchers described the whole project to me as a crock of something which I can assure the Secretary of State was not gold. The Government need to work on persuading people that the dome is not a waste of money. There is still a widespread perception that public money is going into the dome. Not a penny of public money is going into the dome, but no one yet seems to be aware of that. It falls on the Government to convince people that what is happening in Greenwich will be worth while, is not drawing money away from the national health service and will be an exciting celebration of Britain in the new millennium.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is there not a perception—which, of course, is wrong—that the dome will be pulled down after a year? I believe that the most exciting aspect of the future of the dome is what it will be used for after 2001.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I accept that one of the key issues—decisions need to be taken on that pretty soon, because time is going by—is the after-use of that site. Invitations have been sent out to people to come up with ideas, and the response has been pretty good, but it is terribly important that the Government get on with that process because there is no time to waste. The Greenwich peninsula site offers a real opportunity for London if the right decision is taken, and could bring major benefits in terms of urban regeneration, use of the river and so on.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that if the previous Government had had their way, the dome would indeed have been pulled down at the end of a year, and that our decision that it should stay and that we should invite expressions of interest in future use has saved it?
  Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is making a clever party political point. I was trying to
  676
  be helpful to the Government by assisting them in persuading people that the dome is not the crock of something not gold that many Labour Members believe it to be. The fact that the dome—a building which I rather like—will remain in place complicates the after-use of the site and makes things more difficult.
  I was pleased that the Secretary of State referred to other millennium projects that are under way, many of which are still looking for private sponsorship. It would be helpful if we could have an update today on the exact amount of private sponsorship that is still needed by millennium projects throughout the country. We do not want to end up with a lot of half-built white elephants with only one leg. It is true, as the British Tourist Authority will confirm, that the millennium programme—as the Secretary of State is in a party political mood, I remind him that the programme was put in place by the Conservative Government—will attract visitors from around the world. It is vital that it presents a compelling and attractive offer to the international public next year.
  It seems to me that there is a profound communality of interest—an interdependence—between tourism and all the other industries sponsored by the Secretary of State's Department. Those who are dissatisfied with what the Government are doing to and for tourism should be campaigning for a stronger Department, not a different one, to represent their interests. I hope and believe that they will do so. I believe also that they will be campaigning increasingly for not only a stronger Department, but a different Government.
  What should the Government be doing to help the tourism industry? I generally take the view that the capacity of politicians to be unhelpful is infinitely greater than their ability to be helpful. Usually the most useful thing that politicians can do is to get out of the way. In making the case for clearer political recognition of the centrality of the tourism, hospitality and leisure industries to the quality of life, I am not arguing for greater political control or interference. The Government may contribute strategies, but it is the work of 1.75 million people that contributes £53 billion a year to the economy.
  I keep meeting people involved in the industry—there were 200 of them, so it is not surprising—who confess to having been contributors to the Government's tourism strategy. It is hard to meet anyone in the industry who has not felt the touch of Tony on his shoulder. I know that the Government have produced a well-intentioned document, but well-intentioned guff is guff all the same. It is still guff when it comes out a year late.
  I am still trying to find someone in the industry who asked for the English tourist board to be abolished. I am still trying to find out why its abolition will be helpful to the industry. I have been reading the responses of some of those in the industry to the Government's consultation document of last year. The Government were sent a strong message. The executive director of the Council for Travel and Tourism said:
  "We can see no intrinsic merit in … replacing the ETB with new bodies undertaking essentially a similar function".
  Robin Head, the head of Devon Farms Accommodation, said:
  "There have been a number of occasions over the last few years when we have found the opportunity of talking directly to the ETB absolutely invaluable when trying to sort out problems."
  Mr. Swayne: Is my hon. Friend not being a little churlish? Does he not think that the industry will today

  677
  welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that it will now be able to sort out problems by speaking to regional cultural consortiums?
  Mr. Ainsworth: No, I do not. My hon. Friend makes an extremely compelling point in his inimitable way.
  Devon Farms Accommodation is typical of a local organisation that does an enormous amount of work to promote tourism in its particular area. Its view about the abolition of the English tourist board was clear. It said:
  "The options for an alternative structure to the existing ETB are all in danger of ending up with a body that will look remarkably similar to the ETB, but will lack the experience and expertise of current ETB staff."
  That is a fair point.
  Finally on this issue, Richard Wilkin, the director of the Historic Houses Association, said:
  "The Association considers that the existing ETB performs its functions well and wonders why it is necessary to replace them with another organisation to perform the same role."
  Unfortunately, as we have heard this morning, the new English tourism council has not been charged with performing the same role. It is not only a change of name, but a change of function. It strikes me—
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: If the Conservative party is such a fan of the English tourist board, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Conservative Government reduced the income of the ETB from about £25 million in the 1980s to less than £10 million by the time of the general election?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient. I shall deal with funding later in my speech.
  Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman be promising more money?
  Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.
  When the much-vaunted tourism strategy was eventually announced, the reaction of the majority of those involved in the industry was summed up by the British Incoming Tour Operators Association, which said:
  "The regions will now be responsible for their own marketing and there is little doubt that competition will be directed against other regions rather than against our continental competitors … This is particularly disappointing".
  It continues:
  "Clearly, we have a major task to convince Government that allocating funds for tourism development and marketing in England is an investment, not a cost. Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have bought into that premise: in England the Government seems to have lost the plot".
  That was the association's conclusion. Yet the Secretary of State continues to say that the Government have the full support of the industry for their tourism strategy. That is simply not true.
  It is a pity that the Secretary of State was not able to announce the identity of the new chairman of the English Tourism Council. We would have very much welcomed the announcement. We look forward with bated breath to knowing who the chairman will be, and subsequently the chief executive.
  678
  With the English tourist board marginalised and with its marketing remit removed, who will handle the 300 or so calls that come in each month to the board from consumers and the media? Will it be the British Tourist Authority? If so, it has not been given the necessary resources. Given that the financial constraints on the BTA are already leading to the closure of offices around the world and that there is a growing number of questions even over its ability to fund its part of the splendid new visitors centre in Regent street, I rather doubt that it is willing to pick up the tab.
  I understand that international meetings are being planned, at which Wales and Scotland will have a place at the table along with France, Germany and other countries. However, the chair that should be occupied by England will be empty. The unnecessary and unhelpful abolition of the English tourist board is really the only material consequence of the Government's much-vaunted tourism strategy. The promise of an annual tourism summit may sound rather grand, but we shall have to see whether it is more than a classic new Labour photo opportunity.
  Ministers claim that the industry is pleased with the Government's document. That is about as convincing as saying that the collapse of the Labour vote in the Euro elections was a reflection of the Labour party's popularity, or as convincing as saying that the tourism budget has been increased when, in fact, it has been cut by £2 million in real terms.
  Mr. Smith indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The Secretary of State seems to demur on the funding figures. The figures that I have quoted came from the Library. If the right hon. Gentleman takes exception to them, he should take up the matter with the Library.
  The Opposition have spent a great deal of time listening to people in tourism over the past year. We set up our own tourism policy forum—which the Secretary of State was gracious enough to acknowledge when we last debated these matters—under the chairmanship of Sir Ron Watson. It is actively seeking ideas as we take our policies forward in this important area. It is doing so from a basis of considerable understanding of the industry and long experience of it.
  It does not take long to find out what the industry thinks it needs from Government. There are several recurrent themes—excessive regulation and taxation; the so-called fairness at work proposals; transport problems; planning problems; an archaic licensing system; training and recruitment; the strength of sterling; and funding.
  The extra costs of administering the minimum wage, the working time directive, the part-time workers directive, the parental leave directive and the thousands of other new regulations introduced since May 1997 all add up to a massive imposition on the tourism industry, which is in the front line of the regulatory assault that the Government have unleashed on the country.
  The major companies can take most of that in their stride. They do not necessarily want to, but they can. However, an awful lot of companies in the tourism sector are small companies, and the burden on them is greatest.
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 4 November 1998, the right hon. Member

  679
  for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that the cost of the parental leave directive was "tiny" and "fractional". Does my hon. Friend agree that that illustrates the Government's ignorance of the fact that, for small businesses, such costs can make the difference between surviving and going under?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. On a related issue, I was interested to note that, in a debate in another place a few days ago, Lord McIntosh, pressed by my noble Friend Lord Luke, admitted that the Government had got things wrong over the working time directive to a significant extent. He said that the Government could have done better. I hope that the Secretary of State will urge him not only to express regret, but to take effective action to ensure that the situation improves.
  Seventy five per cent. of the tourism sector comprises small businesses, to which the tangle of red tape poses a real threat. The fixed on-costs of compliance in terms of extra clerical work, computer systems and so on are much the same, whether a business is turning over £50 million or £500,000 a year. Many of the businesses in tourism are very small indeed. Hugh Becker, the founder of Micro Millions, makes a compelling case for explicit recognition of the particular needs of the very small company.
  It is estimated that about a quarter of a million jobs in tourism are in businesses employing fewer than 10 people. In rural communities in particular, such little businesses play a vital role in underpinning the local economy. There is nothing of practical value to those businesses in the Government's tourism strategy. More than most industries, tourism needs flexibility in the way that it works. Nowhere in the strategy do I see any commitment to reduce regulation.
  In that regard, may I say how sorry I was at the dismissive way in which the Secretary of State treated the question from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). He will know that the British Activity Holiday Association has expressed well-founded concern about the impact of the minimum wage on those businesses. The association takes no issue with the principle of a minimum wage. Its concern is specific and relates to the £20 accommodation offset.
  I raised the matter with the Tourism Minister in the House on 5 May and asked for her reassurance that she was taking effective action on behalf of those businesses to ensure that activity holiday centres would not close as a result of the introduction of the national minimum wage. I received no reply. I offer the hon. Lady now another opportunity to provide reassurance to the House and to the British Activity Holiday Association that she is lobbying hard on its behalf.
  Janet Anderson: I had intended to deal with the matter in my winding-up speech, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to respond now. As he knows, the Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to look again at the accommodation offset, which is set at a limit of £19.95 a week, as it could cause serious problems for the industry if set at the wrong level or discontinued. The commission proposes that the matter
  680
  be kept under review and it will deal with the longer-tem future in its report next September. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we understand the importance of that for activity holidays.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In the light of what she said, I hope that the Secretary of State might think it proper to write a note of apology to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West—
  Mr. Swayne: In response to me yesterday, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), gave the latest position. He said:
  "Following the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, there is no offset allowed for the provision of board when calculating whether the national minimum wage has been paid. There is a limited offset of up to £19.95 a week allowed against the national minimum wage to recognise the benefit of the provision of accommodation."
  That is it. There will be no further concessions. The Minister of State's retort to me yesterday was:
  "The hon. Gentleman's attitude of let them eat cake' is out of date."—[Official Report, 17 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 548–49.]
  That is one better than the folly of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The situation seems to be confused. I ask the Minister to write to me and to my hon. Friend, setting out the Government's present position and what they propose to do. There is considerable concern. I commend my hon. Friend for his work to secure the interests of activity holiday centres throughout the country and in his constituency.
  Janet Anderson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It might have saved us all time if he had listened more carefully to what the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said. He was simply stating the current position. As I said, and I repeat, the matter is being kept under review by the Low Pay Commission, which we have alerted to our concerns about the effect of the accommodation offset, if it were removed, on activity holiday centres.
  Mr. Ainsworth: We shall have to wait and see.
  Mr. Bercow: I must support my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Unlike the hon. Lady and the Secretary of State, I was present for Trade and Industry questions yesterday. Will my hon. Friend take it from me that the tone, as well as the content, of the reply from the Minister of State brooked no misunderstanding. He stated the current position and gave every indication to my hon. Friend that that position would not, and should not, change. It is time that we had an apology from the weakest Secretary of State in the Cabinet.
  Mr. Ainsworth: We shall have to return to the matter. What my hon. Friend tells us of questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday is typical of the arrogant and dismissive way in which the Government have treated our representations about the impact on businesses throughout the country of the imposition of the

  681
  minimum wage and a host of other regulations that they could well do without. The attempt to characterise the Conservative party as a party of people who wear stovepipe hats and want to water the workers' beer and grind the faces of the poor is ludicrous, far-fetched and insulting.
  Mr. Smith: Am I right in thinking that we have just heard from the Conservative Front Bench a commitment to abolish the national minimum wage?
  Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman is extremely inventive.
  On the topic of transport, I do not see any attempt to solve the growing difficulty of simply moving round this country. All but 37 of the 140 road improvement schemes that the Government inherited have been dropped. Difficulties with road transport are a major issue for tourist centres such as Eastbourne, Scarborough and the south-west. The Secretary of State talks enthusiastically about coastal resorts—they indeed have many problems, and much needs to be done to help them—but if people cannot get to them no amount of effort from any Government will make much difference.
  There is no doubt that the doubling of air passenger duty has been detrimental to the interests of tourism and it would be helpful to know exactly how robust the Government intend to be about the present European Commission moves to double it again on internal flights. It would be plainly ludicrous for up to two thirds of the cost of a cheap flight to Scotland to be tax, but, with £17 in every £20 spent by motorists at the fuel pump being taken in tax, almost anything is possible.
  On 31 May, an article in The Daily Telegraph entitled
  "Britain to fight EU flight tax demand"
  said:
  "The prospect of doubling domestic air passenger duty … which would raise £60 million for the Treasury, has alarmed the travel industry …
  However a spokesman for Customs and Excise said Britain was prepared to go all the way to the European Court to contest the commission's interpretation."
  That is encouraging, but unfortunately, a letter from Customs and Excise—a copy of which I have—to an industry representative who had inquired about this matter, following the article, says:
  "Customs and Excise has yet to determine its final position in respect to the European Commission challenge to the domestic return leg exemption and there is, therefore, no basis to the content of the article."
  Which of those statements is true? Will the Minister say in her winding-up speech exactly how robust the Government intend to be?
  If the tourism industry is to fulfil the central role in the economic and social environment of the next century, it must be allowed to expand and the significance of tourism needs to be better recognised in the planning system. I am not referring only to mega-projects such as terminal 5 or new large-scale visitor attractions. I have a constituency case in which a local man has gone to hell and back simply in an attempt to convert a Victorian house into a guest house.
  The sustainable tourism section of the strategy is long on aspiration but short on proposals. I shall not dwell on the complex issue of licensing laws, partly because they
  682
  are so complex that I have difficulty in understanding them myself, but it strikes me as a good example of government that is not joined-up when the Department can publish a tourism strategy that does not even mention the laws governing how and when a tourist can buy a drink or a meal. However, I am pleased that, after 210 years, the Home Office has finally got round to reviewing the Sunday Observance Act 1780, which prevents dancing on Sundays. We will support that review if the consultation exercise produces a recommendation that is brought to the House in due course.
  The strategy strikes a more positive note on training and recruitment. Here again, however, it remains to be seen whether aspiration can be converted into reality. I applaud the work that the industry is doing to improve its image as an employer and to raise the all-important standard of service, and only this week I was able to attend a gathering to celebrate the hospitality industry's first national careers festival. I pay tribute to the work being done on that by Springboard, the British Hospitality Association, the British Incoming Tour Operators Association and others.
  Much remains to be done, however, and I know that there are those who think that there is unhelpful duplication and confusion in the way that the national vocational qualification system operates. Real joined-up government is needed to sort that out. I also understand that, despite what the Secretary of State said earlier, the take-up of the 40,000 places that have been offered by the industry under the new deal has so far been pretty dismal.
  The quality of service that people receive from the tourism industry is improving, but it is still subject to some severe lapses. Mercifully, I was able to take only a glance at one episode of a television programme called "Tourist Troubles", but what I saw revealed rudeness, arrogance and ignorance from some people in the industry that left me aghast.
  British tourism is operating in an intensely competitive world market and the level of sterling in any one year is probably the biggest single influence on it. The balance of trade deficit in tourism is worsening—it was minus £3.9 billion in 1996, minus £4.7 billion in 1997 and minus £6.6 billion in 1998, which substantially reflects not only mistakes made in the Chancellor's initial Budgets, but, latterly, problems in the far east and the 30 per cent. appreciation of sterling against leading European currencies.
  To those who suggest that that justifies early entry into the euro, I suggest that the worst reason for joining would be to seek the benefits of devaluation. Given anything like the present disparity between sterling and euroland, we would simply be locking in long-term uncompetitiveness. However, there is no discussion of those issues in the Government's tourism strategy.
  Finally, there is the issue of funding. To those who take an interest in history, and I know that Labour Members take a keen interest, I say that I am fully aware that I am on a slightly sticky wicket, but not as sticky a wicket as the New Zealand cricket team had to play on a couple of days ago. There are those who argue that a £53 billion industry should be able to do its own marketing—the industry spends £150 million a year on that—but I accept that destination marketing can be done properly only by central Government. Destination marketing is about selling the whole idea and the whole product, and the

  683
  Government are ultimately responsible for that. It is still far too early even for early pledges, but I am aware of the BTA's excellent work around the world and of its assertion that every £1 it spends yields a return of £27, of which £4 goes straight to the Treasury. One does not have to be an economic mastermind to work out that that is a magnificent return.
  If the Government set the right framework, tourism will have an exciting future. It will grow in significance, both economically and socially, and provide new jobs in our cities and towns and, importantly, in our rural communities. However, the capacity of the Government to mess things up is substantially greater than their capacity to help. That will be especially true if they become obsessed with structures rather than encouraging output, if they show no genuine engagement in the issues that matter to the industry, if they continue with their naive faith in the power of regulation to enhance the quality of life, and if, despite having consulted, they put their own political agenda first.
  I look forward to the months ahead as tourism strives to take advantage of the opportunities opening up with the new millennium and as Conservative Members develop new, positive policies based on the genuine needs and aspirations of this great industry.
  10.48 am
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I join the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) in welcoming the debate, and I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in congratulating the hon. Gentleman and his twin, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), on keeping their posts. When the hon. Member for East Surrey chided my right hon. Friend for being in party political mode, he clearly had his tongue in his cheek. The hon. Gentleman made a very party political speech, which was a pity because some Members of the House have been working across party lines to assist the tourism industry. I think that we were doing that work well.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we have had many such debates in the House over the past few months. That highlights the Government's concerns for tourism and, as he pointed out, the expansion of tourism presents a huge economic and employment opportunity for this country. I shall not trot out all the figures, although I accept the remark of the hon. Member for East Surrey that we cannot possibly spell them out often enough because tourism is such an important industry.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend Secretary of State on selecting this debate from his very busy departmental portfolio. It signifies the importance that the Government attach to tourism, which is backed up by the policy initiative, "Tomorrow's Tourism", about which we have heard. I am pleased to have played a part in raising the profile of tourism in the political sphere with the publication of "Breaking New Ground", Labour's pre-election tourism strategy. I also welcome the efforts made by my right hon. Friend and the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, to develop and build on that initial document once in office.
  I shall use this opportunity to raise several important issues in the tourism portfolio, to which I hope both Ministers will turn their attention. As hon. Members
  684
  know, I am chairman of the all-party tourism group. I am pleased to see the secretary of that group, the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), in his place. I am also fortunate enough to be the chairman of the all-party sports group. Until a moment ago, the secretary of that group, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), was in his place, but he has temporarily left the Chamber.
  More still needs to be done to promote the synergies between sport and tourism. It is disappointing to note that only one reference is made to sports tourism in "Tomorrow's Tourism" because sport is one of the fastest growing areas of tourism—be it in respect of international visitors following major sports events, of which this country has a rich stock, or the taking up of activity holidays. The variety ranges from the Secretary of State's ilk favourite pastime, mountain climbing, to playing the links on the great Scottish golf courses, to pick just two examples.
  The British Olympic Association reports that, between 1986 and 1998, the United Kingdom played host to some 34 senior world championships and 35 senior European championships in the sports that it represents. If we add to that the events of Euro 96, and the cricket and rugby world cups, we can see the potential. The British Tourist Authority has worked hard to promote the cricket and rugby world cups, which are being staged here this summer. It is now working on a more detailed sports strategy that it hopes to launch later this year. What a prize it would be for tourism if we were fortunate enough to host the soccer world cup in 2006—something that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is working hard to bring about.
  May I make a plea that the Government get more actively involved in that area? There is much natural synergy between the Departments. Sport should be integrated into tourism thinking, as arts and heritage are integrated now. That could be achieved through the instigation of a special unit within the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to co-ordinate such opportunities. I understand that the former head—
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: May I pay tribute to the immense amount of work that the hon. Gentleman has put in to tourism and to sport over the years? He is a distinguished spokesman on both. Does he think that sufficient information is available about the value of sport to tourism in this country? There seems to be a dearth of statistics.
  Mr. Pendry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I agree—I do not think that sufficient information is available. Indeed, I was about to say that I understand that the former head of sport within the Department is to become the head of tourism—if he has not done so already—which could be a useful first step.
  An issue that has only recently come to my attention is one that poses a significant threat to the growth opportunities that have been discussed this morning. It concerns the European Union's infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom Government over air passenger duty, to which the hon. Member for East Surrey referred.
  The all-party tourism group recently received a delegation of leading figures from the travel and tourism industry. We were addressed by the heads of the

  685
  Association of British Travel Agents, the British Tourist Authority, the Federation of Tour Operators, the British Incoming Tour Operators—heavyweight representatives of both the inbound and outbound industries. They described to us the damage that that tax has caused and continues to cause to tourism. The BTA estimates that APD has reduced by at least 3 per cent. the number of tourists choosing to visit the UK. That is not surprising when one considers that even our European APD is double the airport tax in France and Italy and more than three times that in Spain. Those countries are our major competitors in tourism.
  As we approach the millennium, Britain should be experiencing a tourism boom. It would be tragic if we squandered the potentially massive economic benefits of a boom by letting unfair and uncompetitive levels of APD squeeze tourist numbers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, ably supported by my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, has been strong in making the case in government for the need to keep APD as low as possible. We welcome the fact that it was not increased in the last budget, for which much credit goes to my ministerial colleagues.
  However, we now face a new threat in the form of the EU's infraction proceedings against the UK's domestic return-leg APD exemption. Put simply, that means that the current level of £10 may rise to £20 on a return UK flight. That is hardly likely to encourage more visitors to London to visit our regions, or Scotland and Wales. Indeed, the consequences for Northern Ireland, which is struggling to develop its tourism, do not bear thinking about. Britain has led the way in the development of low-cost air travel and has seen a resulting tourism boom in the regions, particularly in Scotland. We must be careful to ensure that that strength is not lost and that those remarkable gains are not thrown away.
  I recently undertook some research and tabled a series of questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the economics of the APD. The answers make interesting reading. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that, if APD is charged on both legs of the domestic return flight—this is no doubt where The Daily Telegraph got its information from—an extra £60 million would accrue to the Treasury. That is a minor windfall by Treasury standards, but an extremely severe hit on an industry that must compete in the cut-throat international market of tourism.
  I hope that my ministerial colleagues will make strong representations to the Chancellor, as I am sure that they have already. They are the industry's champions and this is one battle that I hope they win. If the EU infraction proceedings cannot be defeated, the Treasury should consider reducing the overall EU rate from the current £10 to about £8.50, which would be a revenue-neutral charge.
  I take this opportunity to urge the Chancellor to go to every possible length to resist the imposition of that return-leg APD in the United Kingdom, but if we are legally obliged to introduce the tax, I urge that, at the very least, the European rate be lowered so that consumers, and therefore the industry, bear no increased tax burden as a result.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the Association of Recognised English Language Services. An often forgotten but important sector of tourism are
  686
  the English language schools, which attract some 750,000 students to the UK each year and provide some £1 billion to the British economy. ARELS represents the quality end of the market. Its 224 members have all had to pass the British Council accreditation scheme, which guarantees high levels in both educational and pastoral care for all its students. Many of the issues with which it is concerned range across a number of departmental areas. I welcome the commitment in "Tomorrow's Tourism" for the DCMS to work with other Government Departments. We promised that before the last election, and it is a promise well kept. It should be of great benefit to organisations like ARELS, which seek closer co-operation with a number of Departments, especially the Department for Education and Employment and the Foreign Office.
  I understand that the Government's tourism forum will continue its work as a conduit between the Government and the tourism industry, but I wonder why ARELS is not part of that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that point when she winds up the debate.
  Having been brought up in a seaside resort, I am pleased that the Government have recognised the social and economic importance of such resorts, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said—I call him my hon. Friend, because he is, even though he is on the Opposition Benches. I know that the British Resorts Association is well pleased with the Government's tourism strategy. Indeed, in response to "Tomorrow's Tourism", it has produced its own document entitled "UK Seaside Resorts—Behind the Facade", which states the case clearly for the regeneration of our seaside resorts.
  I should particularly like to commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), who chairs Labour's Back-Bench committee on seaside resorts. It has a large membership following the last election. My hon. Friend and his colleagues have highlighted the need for targeted assistance to regenerate resorts that have been neglected during a long and turbulent period of change for the domestic tourism industry.
  The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have been gracious enough to acknowledge the contribution that I have made towards tourism. The Secretary of State did so again today, and I am grateful for that. I do not want to spoil the party, but I think that, in some areas, the Government could have gone further. Their proposals fall short of some of those contained in "Breaking New Ground". I hope that the Secretary of State has not lost sight of some of the pledges to which a new Labour Government were committed, one of which was a new Development of Tourism Act. We made that commitment because we recognised that an Act that was more than 30-years-old needed updating to accommodate the structural changes and the different priorities of tourism.
  Another important pledge was to harmonise quality hotel ratings across the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales have gone their own way. Will the Minister tell us what is being done to adhere to the commitment that we made before the general election on a UK harmonisation scheme?
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on initiating the debate. I sincerely hope that, with the coming of the millennium, we shall enjoy a significant number of extra tourism visitors as a result of the investment in quality proposed in "Tomorrow's Tourism".
  11.2 am
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I am pleased that the Government have given the House this opportunity to debate tourism fully—we have had other debates, but not a full one. I hope that that is an indication that the Government now take tourism seriously, because it vital to our future.
  The Government's strategy for tourism correctly identifies the challenges and problems faced by the tourism industry as it continues to develop. The key is to find solutions to those problems in the new millennium. Speaking of the millennium, I must say that I think the dome will be a great success during 2000 and afterwards. I have been amazed by the exciting progress that has been made: it will be a great attraction— indeed, as a result of skilful pre-publicity, it already is. We in the House should talk it up, not talk it down.
  I welcome the tourism forum, which is much in line with the Liberal Democrat proposal for a tourism commission. The forum has drawn in many sectors of the industry: it covers everything. Only by working with people with experience on the ground will we eventually make progress.
  I hope that regional development agencies will take the same inclusive approach, especially in the north-west of England. I am worried that they will take an autocratic approach, as quangos often do. Nowadays, the Local Government Association takes a co-operation approach to tourism. Tourism needs that spirit to overcome many challenges. What about the RDAs? What safeguards have the Government put into the RDA system to ensure proper consultation and co-operation?
  The tourism forum sets high goals. I agree that standards must be raised. We must invest in the people who work in the industry and at our tourist attractions. We must market effectively at home and abroad. If we are to increase tourism yield without damaging the environment, quality must be the name of the game.
  The Government's strategy document has identified many problems but does little by way of proposing solutions or alleviating some of the burdens on tourism. Taxes on tourism have gradually risen—new and increased taxes have already been imposed or proposed, such as air passenger duty and road pricing for London taxis—and will continue to rise unless the Treasury is made to understand how it is milking this important industry.
  I do not know when the industry will buckle under the stress, but I fear that it will reach that point quite soon. I am pleased that, as a result of pressure, the Government have wisely decided not to impose a flat-rate tax on restaurants, cafes and bars to fund the Food Standards Agency. That would have been over-the-top taxation on tourism.
  Tourists cannot always be relied on to come to Britain no matter what the price. Many British holidaymakers no longer take any holidays in Britain, because leaving Britain even for a short break has become cheaper than a short-break holiday in this country. The continued strength of the pound is a key cause for concern. In that respect, tourism is no different from all our other imports and exports. What of the 40 per cent. of Britons who do not take any holidays, whom the Secretary of State mentioned? With domestic prices so high, that type of social exclusion will continue even when the pound falls.
  688
  To help people who do not take holidays, investment in affordable public transport must be stepped up to improve access to our seaside resorts, some of which—including my constituency of Southport—now attract investment for tourism developments from many sources, such as the lottery, European objective 1 and the single regeneration budget. That investment is valuable, and I hope that RDAs will see the potential in our seaside resorts, and will take up their cause. If visitors cannot reach the resorts easily, private industry will not be prepared to put in the funding needed to operate new tourist developments. Southport receives 4 million day visitors a year, but investment in rail links is urgently required. That problem is duplicated all over the country.
  London hotels are some of the most expensive in the world, yet their prices are sometimes not matched by standards and quality. Property prices are high, but so are taxes. VAT rates are among the highest in Europe. The Government must do more to create a climate in which tourism can flourish. I must again ask what progress the Treasury has made on its investigation into the proposal that VAT rates on tourist accommodation should be reduced to average European levels. That important question has not been answered in the tourism document, although the detailed report produced by Deloitte and Touche has been on the Chancellor's desk for over a year.
  I am pleased that the Department of Trade and Industry consumer affairs department is at last trying to get to grips with the apparent overcharging and poor treatment of single guests. When will the investigation be completed? More important, will the treatment of single travellers be included as a feature in the criteria for the new grading system? I hope that the new grading system will be easily understood, relevant to the needs of guests and well-monitored. If the scheme takes off, it could really help to encourage hotels to raise standards. When does the Minister expect the scheme to be fully implemented? The Secretary of State said that it would be launched in September, but when will implementation commence?
  Mr. Chris Smith: I can confirm that September will be the date of implementation. Gradings will be announced and published for individual hotels and guesthouses across the whole of England.
  Mr. Fearn: I am pleased to hear that. If the regional tourist boards are to implement the scheme, can we have assurances that they will stick to the same criteria to monitor standards? If the same standard of accommodation is classed as two-star in one area and four-star in another, the system will fail.
  London is a great tourism asset, and a gateway to the rest of Britain. It has wonderful heritage sites, and great innovations. It is very fragmented, however, and the lack of effective co-ordination and strategy has led to uncertainty. I am very hopeful that the new London assembly will have both the range of powers required and the will to take the lead. I am optimistic that it will adopt a positive approach, and will see the value of tourism rather than just seeing that which is superficial.
  The mayor and the assembly must work with the London tourist board, giving it strategic support and facilitating negotiations rather than imposing hidden taxes. I refer to the threat to black cabs of having to pay extra taxes to go into the west end, as proposed in the

  689
  document "Breaking the Logjam", produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That would be an additional tax on our theatre industry, which is a major tourism asset. I hope that improving all forms of public transport will be a priority. West end taxis really are part of our integrated public transport system, and a vital component of the tourism product—as the Government have already stated.
  The Thames is also one of our biggest tourist attractions, drawing in more than 2 million visitors a year. The "partners in progress" initiative launched by the Port of London Authority in 1993 provided boat owners and operators with licences. It has invested £25 million in sightseeing and restaurant services, creating many new jobs. I am very much in favour of an improvement in public transport on the Thames. I also seek assurances that existing providers of tourist and leisure cruises will not be penalised, and that all agreements with existing boat operators will be honoured by London River Services. London Transport should be commended on any improvements that it can make in addition to, not at the expense of, existing operators.
  For many years, successive Governments have neglected to recognise just how much tourism contributes to the economy, unless that is related to how much tax they can squeeze out of it. This Government must never forget that tourism is worth £53 billion a year, and employs 1.75 million people—7 per cent. of our work force. That makes it more important economically than all the other functions of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport put together.
  Air transport is vital to our industry. Will the Minister vigorously fight the threat to impose air passenger duty both ways on internal flights in the United Kingdom? Will the Department safeguard the one-way rate for day return visitors? Tourism is the largest industry in Scotland, and is also essential to the economic future of Northern Ireland. The great majority of international visitors to the United Kingdom arrive in London and then travel on within the United Kingdom. Is not the proposed increase in air passenger duty an incentive to tourists to stay in the London area, which, in the summer, already teems with tourists paying over the odds? Sustainable tourism involves encouraging visitors to spread out to all other areas; this measure deters them from doing so.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) tells me that a return flight from London to Newcastle costs about £280. Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to learn that it is possible to travel to Boston and back with American Airlines for about £210?
  Mr. Fearn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, having seen those prices. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been to Boston himself. As I said earlier, people are making the choice to our detriment.
  The British Tourist Authority and the British Incoming Tour Operators Association are particularly alarmed by this development. I ask the Minister to take the matter very seriously. It cannot be handled by the new Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly; it must be dealt with here in Westminster. I urge the Minister to support Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and also to ensure that the British Tourist Authority continues to
  690
  market and promote Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales abroad. Overseas marketing is still within their remit, despite the existence of their own Parliament and Assemblies.
  I was pleased to be at the launch of the British Hospitality Association's careers festival this week. It is encouraging to see such a fragmented industry co-operating to produce such an event, and it is a signal that the tourism and hospitality business is now regarded as a good career option rather than casual work.
  I hope that the days of low pay and high staff turnover are coming to an end. I believe that the minimum wage will give many workers a real living wage. Initial reports suggest that more businesses are beginning to invest in training their staff, and I am sure that that trend will raise standards of service in the medium to long term. Is the Minister taking any steps to verify the increase in training in tourism since the introduction of the minimum wage? What role will the regional tourist boards play in this regard? Will not the bidding system for funding encourage regions to compete rather than co-operating with each other? Finally, what will be the make-up of the regional tourist boards?
  I have asked many questions. I hope that the Minister will answer many of them today; otherwise, I shall ask them again and again when she visits Southport on Monday.
  11.7 am
  Mr. John Grogan (Selby): Tourism authorities in Scotland have a distinct competitive advantage that gives them the edge over their colleagues in England and Wales. It is nothing to do with "Rob Roy", "Braveheart" or Sean Connery, or with the attractions that the Scottish Parliament may hold for tourists and visitors when it opens for business in a couple of weeks. In Edinburgh and Glasgow—as opposed to Birmingham and London—it is possible to get a drink after 11 pm. It is possible to have a drink with a meal in civilised surroundings without having to listen to loud dance music.
  Mr. Fabricant: I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the abolition of licensing laws, but does he not agree that Scotland also enjoys a competitive advantage because it receives £3.76 per head in grant aid from the Government, whereas England gets only 20p?
  Mr. Grogan: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall develop my argument about licensing laws a little further. I may make other comparisons later. My central contention is that any measures that the Government take to boost tourism in England and Wales—especially in the context of the figures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—would be dwarfed by the impact of abolition, or rather reform, of the licensing laws. That would have a major effect on the tourism industry.
  I am delighted to note that the Government have committed themselves to liberalising and modernising the licensing laws. On 5 May last year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), said that it was time that the laws controlling pub and off-licence opening hours were

  691
  modernised. He said that new regulations should reflect changing social trends, and bolster the tourism and leisure industries. He did not call for total deregulation, but said that
  "people should be able to decide when they want to go out and where they want to go".
  A consultation paper has been promised early next year. It should be a White Paper, and "early next year" should mean January or February to allow the prospect of legislation in the current Parliament.
  We all know that the licensing laws date back, if not to the middle ages, at least to the first world war, when Lloyd George famously said:
  "We are fighting Germany, Austria and the drink and, as far as I can see, the greatest of these deadly foes is the drink".
  The restrictive licensing laws that he subsequently introduced during the war have hampered the growth of our night-time and evening economies ever since, for the last 80 years. Our hospitality and tourism industries have become far more important during that time thanks to our increasing affluence, but they have been hemmed in by the liquor licensing laws. It is a great shame because some of our most innovative young entrepreneurs are in the hospitality sector. They are involved in bars, clubs and restaurants.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the police in Lichfield tell me that they would prefer it if, instead of young people all streaming on to the streets just after 11 o'clock, the pubs were allowed to close at different times, so that there would be—dare I use the word—staggered closing times?
  Mr. Grogan: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that everyone spills on to the streets at the same time, with many people having drunk far too much in the final half hour. They are all after fast food and transport home at the same time. That is when trouble on the streets and violence occur. The crime argument is powerful.
  The English have always had an ambivalent attitude to nightlife and the night-time economy. As long ago as 1941, a social commentator, Thomas Burke, wrote a book entitled "English Nightlife: From Norman Curfew to Present Black Out". The language is a little arcane, but it is worth bringing to the attention of the House. It states:
  "Nightlife, nightclub, nightbird. There is something about the word 'night' as about the word 'Paris' that sends through some Englishmen a shiver of misgiving, and through another type a current of undue delight. The latter never get over the excitement of sitting up late, the others see any happening after midnight, even a game of Snakes and Ladders, as something verging on the unholy, as though Satan were never abroad in sunlight. A club they can tolerate, call it a nightclub and they see it as the ante room to Hell. This attitude towards entertainment after dark is held by most officials. Whenever they hear of some new development of nightlife they get a prickling of the thumbs and give the impression that they would be happier if the Universe had so contrived its system as to give the whole globe perpetual day."
  That attitude has meant that, too often, our town and city centres after dark are the province of the young. Many people, citizens and tourists alike, are not catered for in towns and cities.
  Our licensing law anomalies are not restricted just to those directly to do with hours. My local evening newspaper, the Evening Press in York—a city that
  692
  depends on tourism—has in the past year highlighted some of the anomalies in a series of editorials. I quote from the edition on 2 October 1998:
  "Each time a York cafe-owner explains to a puzzled foreign tourist that he cannot simply sit and sip a beer on the premises, it sounds more absurd.
  There is no point in explaining that a restaurant licence only allows the holder to serve alcohol with food. The perplexed visitor will be confused enough already."
  On 13 February 1999, the newspaper commented on the attempts of York city council to develop a café culture to attract more tourists to York. It said:
  "If cafe culture is good enough for families on the European mainland, then it should be good enough for ours in York.
  The support given by the licensing office to the notion of developing a sense of outdoor evening time bustle in England's ancient capital is to be applauded.
  Serving drinks at pavement tables is more than just a sop to foreign tourists.
  It is an opportunity to add excitement and colour to the grandeur of the architecture and street scenes of our historic city.
  But while we are shouting bravo to the police and City Council … unyielding licensing laws are putting a dampener on the idea.
  The price that has to be paid by enterprising cafés which have just received on-licences is that they must now bar from their premises all children aged under 14. That puts these premises out of reach for many families."
  Hours are the crux of the issue. It is clearly absurd that, in order for pubs to be able to stay open after 11 pm and for restaurants to stay open after midnight, they have to make more noise—they have to have a dance floor, food and entertainment, which is invariably loud dance music.
  I chair an all-party panel that is examining the issue of liquor licensing reform. Some of our most powerful evidence has come from Scotland. Mr. David Smith, chairman of the British Institute of Innkeeping in Scotland, said:
  "Coming from Scotland, I find it incredible to witness the out of date licensing hours that are imposed on English public houses, particularly in the capital. This is nothing short of remarkable, even Cinderella was allowed out until 12.00 pm!
  What do our visitors from Europe make of all this when they consider the sensible drinking hours they enjoy when spending their leisure time back home. These limitations will only serve to have a serious effect on tourism".
  Mrs. Lait: I am enjoying what the hon. Gentleman is saying and agree totally. Does he think that we would get reform of our licensing hours much more quickly if they were imposed in the House of Commons?
  Mr. Grogan: The hon. Lady raises a good point. Only the House of Commons, railway trains and airlines are exempt.
  Short-break tourism is affected. That sector is becoming more and more important as people want to pack as much as possible into 48 hours. In the Sunday supplements, there are articles on 48 hours in Barcelona and 48 hours in Milan. It is not possible to write such guides for many English cities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) mentioned attracting big national events to Britain. The licensing laws harm our case. London First, the campaigning organisation for business, has said that

  693
  those laws reduce London's ability to attract major international events. They put us at a competitive disadvantage to other European cities.
  The crime issue is the one that might finally clinch it for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It is obvious that change is needed. All the experiments—policies as well; they are more than experiments—show that. In Scotland, there was a relaxation during the garden festival in Glasgow in 1988. In some English cities, including Manchester and Leeds, there was some relaxation during the European football championships. There have been many experiments in Dutch cities. They always led chiefs of police to say that relaxation of the laws cuts crime. That is the most convincing argument.
  Perversely, reforming the licensing laws is probably the only way in which we will improve the behaviour of some British tourists abroad. As the Evening Press pointed out on 10 June 1998:
  "At a time when foreign travel has become the norm, our inflexible approach to the alcohol trade is looking increasingly ludicrous. Some Britons holidaying on the Continent can be so overwhelmed by the ability to drink as and when they like that they over-indulge, explaining the somewhat ambivalent attitude of Europeans to British tourists."
  The only way to change that is by changing our attitudes towards alcohol. Reforming our licensing laws is part of that.
  I have allies in the Front-Bench team. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to continue to press within Government the urgency of the case and to press for reform of the licensing laws before the next election.
  11.27 am
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The delights of Beckenham are manifold, but they are not a prime tourist attraction, despite Crystal palace park, which used to include Crystal palace, the home not of football on this occasion, but one of the predecessors of the dome. Tramlink will open soon, which will take the burghers of Beckenham directly to Croydon. We also have Eurostar, which helps to bring tourists both into and out of London passing by our back gardens. I wish that Eurostar were a bit more tourist conscious and that its marketing was more clever and flexible in terms of increasing the number of people who travel on that very good service and through that marvellous tunnel, of which I am proud and which I frequently use, particularly as I suffer from travel sickness.
  The other joy and delight of Beckenham that brings in, or used to bring in, visitors, friends and relatives of my constituents is our green and open spaces. Since a Lib-Lab pact took over in local government and since central Government cut grants to Bromley borough, however, the parks and grass are no longer being cut; graffiti is not being cleaned up; and the streets are covered in litter. That is a strong recommendation for the Lib-Lab pact to resign, as well as the Government.
  The dome is close to Bromley and Beckenham. We have watched with admiration, particularly those who have access to the closed circuit television screens, the dome being built. When one was bored and there was no crime on the streets of Bromley—something that happens fairly regularly—it was tempting to watch the construction of the dome, and fascinating it was too.
  694
  The knock-on effect is what concerns my constituents in Beckenham—the potential difficulties of arriving at the dome using any form of transport, and the extra clutter of parking on the streets that will inevitably affect the borough of Bromley and, I suspect, other nearby boroughs, although I would not wish to speak on their behalf.
  The completion of the Jubilee line will, I hope, help those who live in constituencies north of the Thames, and it is a pleasure for me to be able to say that one of the major contracting engineers on the project is based in Beckenham, and the people there reassure me that the Jubilee line will be open in time for people to use it to travel to the dome.
  Those of us who live south of the Thames, however, will still have problems getting there. I would be grateful for any reassurance that Ministers can give not only that there will be transport facilities for people south of the river to get to the dome, but that the streets of Beckenham and Bromley will not be further littered with cars left by people taking other means of transport to it.
  My other connection with the dome is personal. I have an uncle in the United States, who lives in Greenwich, Connecticut. He was one of the pioneers of satellite and cable television, and he is in the process of trying to link up Greenwich borough and Greenwich, Connecticut for the millennium eve. He is having difficulty in encouraging the powers that be in Greenwich, London to participate in the event, so I hope that we can move that idea gently forward. It will be good public relations and good for tourism, and will build closer links between those two areas.
  Most of the tourists who come to the United Kingdom go primarily to London, Oxford and Edinburgh. It is difficult to attract them beyond those three destinations. We all work in London, and some of us live there, and we all know about the sheer pressure of tourism in London, especially in the central areas.
  I have listened and tried to evaluate the thinking behind the move towards regionalisation of the tourist boards. I do not have a problem with their being strengthened; there is a real need for that, but I do have a problem with the idea of the English tourist board being downgraded.
  As one of our biggest problems is the difficulty of getting the bulk of tourists out of those three primary destinations, why do we not give the regional tourist boards the opportunity to advertise and market directly in other countries? Other countries allow that to happen. In some places it has evolved naturally through the market.
  In France, which I know quite well, Maison de la France does most of the public relations and advertising within the UK for France as a destination—and extremely successful it is. Millions of us go to France every year. In France the regions, or rather the departements, can, if they wish, do their own marketing and advertising. I am aware of the efforts made by the Tarn and Picardy in particular, as those are both areas that I visit fairly regularly. Their marketing in the United Kingdom is not done under the auspices of Maison de la France. That allows those departements to reach out and attract tourists in different ways from those used by the bigger organisation, using different media, public relations and advertising.
  I do not understand why we cannot give our regional tourist boards the same flexibility to market and advertise. It will not stop most of the tourists who come here for the

  695
  first time wanting to go to the three major destinations, but it may mitigate some of the effects, build up the opportunities for our regions and enable them to attract more tourists.
  I do not want the regional development agencies to take that job on as their direct responsibility. That would be a bad idea—indeed, I do not think that the RDAs are a good idea anyway—but the regional tourist boards should have that flexibility.
  I do not want to repeat the arguments put by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). I commend his ideas thoroughly, and he put them in an entertaining and interesting way that made a major impact. I congratulate him on making that particular point. Indeed, it was ironic that the petition presented this morning by the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was on a similar deregulatory theme, and I applaud and support his efforts, too.
  It is sad that the present Government have not continued with the Conservative Government's proposal to increase the number of casino licences available throughout the United Kingdom. It is not only the British people who want the opportunity to go into casinos; casinos are also a tourist attraction. In the United Kingdom, with its well-developed form of regulation and its understanding of the high standards required of people who operate casinos, we could easily offer a high-quality casino product.
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Does the hon. Lady agree that docklands would be an appropriate area for a licence? The exhibition and conference centre now being constructed will be the biggest in the United Kingdom when it is finished. That, plus the number of hotels in the area, means that the clientele will be there to generate more income for that part of the leisure industry, which is important to us.
  Mrs. Lait: I would have no problem in suggesting to the Government that I would have gone further than the Conservative Government's proposal. If there is a desire and a proven business plan for a casino in any area, then people of high standing and quality, who can manage the facility, should be allowed to do so. There is no need to consider casinos on a geographical basis, as happens now. I am relaxed about saying that the market should decide.
  That is how I would approach the licensing laws, too. If people do not want to use a pub at midnight it will not open at that time. Let us try to match the provision to the demand. We can then build the licensing system round that, rather than allowing the licensing system to drive the provision.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) mentioned activity sports, and there was some discussion about them. I have long championed chess, and helped to get it moved from the Department of Education and Science, as it used to be called, to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with the object of getting it recognised as a sport.
  I am well aware, because of my previous incarnation representing Hastings and Rye, that chess is an international tourist attraction, and the United Kingdom is recognised as one of the countries that produces
  696
  high-quality chess players. At the moment, chess does not have access to the funding that would allow it to offer the high-quality facilities to match the quality of the playing and the players that we produce in this country.
  I urge the Minister to take away my suggestion and those of many others, that the Department take a serious look at chess as a sport. I know about the argument that chess is a mind sport, not a physical activity, and the Sports Council is unhappy about that, and feels that it does not therefore have a locus in providing aid. However, there must be some ingenuity within the Department that would allow chess to be recognised as a sport and properly funded, so that, among its many other attributes, we could use it as a way of attracting more tourists.
  There have been many references to the need to help the seaside resorts become more attractive to tourists. I have long believed that seaside resorts need to think more imaginatively because of the change in the pattern of British family holidays. Over the past 20 years, many have done so and are now offering a year-round product. However, as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) said, getting to them is a nightmare.
  Seaside resorts around the country have high unemployment rates and a low economic basis. They share a pattern of deprivation that matches objective 2 status. Shortly after the general election, I wrote to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury but was then a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, suggesting that the Government should consider designating the coastal strip as a region to meet objective 2 status. That is not impossible. The Secretary of State said that he was working with other Departments on objective 2 status. Perhaps the Minister will have another look at my suggestion. Seaside towns are not just for holidays. They need to provide industrial and commercial jobs throughout the year and must be well connected to the rest of the country. We have to tackle the problems of deprivation, because the communities are often remote. Objective 2 status would be one way of helping.
  Our high rates of excise duty on tobacco and alcohol have created a growth area in the tourism business that I am sure that the Government did not intend when the rate imbalance first emerged with the creation of the single market in 1994. Anyone who stands in Dover docks for five minutes can see how many people use the ferries and trains to smuggle and bootleg tobacco and alcohol. They are no longer just the small local—dare I say it—entrepreneurs who used to pop over to Belgium for a haversack full of tobacco or to France for a white vanload of Blue Nun. Well organised criminal gangs are using mules recruited from the unemployment register, despite the alleged success of the new deal, to bring over large quantities of cheap tobacco and alcohol.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will know that Burton is not a million miles from Lichfield and is a home of brewing in the United Kingdom. Is she aware that up to 15 per cent. of the alcohol consumed in the United Kingdom is reckoned to be brought in in the way that she has described? Brewers are not the only ones to suffer. A number of pubs are likely to close as a direct

  697
  consequence. Does she agree that pubs are a tourist attraction and, if they start to close, inward tourism will be damaged?
  Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend makes many of the points that I could make. This is a big issue that I could talk about for a long time, but I promise that I shall not. I am most grateful to him for adding to what I was going to say.
  On the day that the Government announce that tobacco advertising will be banned before Christmas, they should be concerned about the fact that the number of people smoking is increasing by 2 per cent. a year. I suggest with the utmost humility that there is a correlation between the increase in smoking and the differences in excise duty. It is ironic that, in a debate on tourism, we can point out that the existence of different duty levels is creating tourism that none of us wants. I hope that the Department will make that point strongly in its next Budget submission to the Chancellor. We have to resolve the difference in duty. We cannot solve the problem merely by increasing the number of customs officers and police. That has never worked in the past and it will never work in the future. The only way to address the issue is by taking the profit out of smuggling and bootlegging.
  I agree that everyone, including children under 12, should have their own passport. Unfortunately, the UK Passport Agency decided to introduce the change at a time of year when the largest number of people want a passport. Instead of making the change in the dog days of November to March, the agency has decided that everyone going on holiday should have their new passport in May, June, July and August. My brother—this is a relative-friendly speech—is trying to set up a business deal in France. His passport runs out in August. To try to help the agency, he thought that he would go and get his new passport in May, in time for his next business trip on 10 June. The agency promises speedy service. However, it cannot produce passports quickly at the moment because all the kids are getting passports and there is a real jam. My brother's business, which is tourism-related, is being affected by the agency's inability to produce passports quickly. Will someone please get a grip on the agency and tell it to leave the change for a year and do it in the dog days? Passports should be sent to the people who need them as fast as possible.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I take it that my hon. Friend does not think that the situation is a secret ruse to try to redress the trade imbalance in tourism.
  Mrs. Lait: I would never accuse my brother of such a thing. He is merely trying to add to the Exchequer's income.
  Mr. Ainsworth: By buying Blue Nun.
  Mrs. Lait: No, by making a profitable investment. He does not have to smuggle or bootleg tobacco and alcohol.
  I urge the Minister to try to make the UK Passport Agency get on top of the problem, because my brother is not the only one who is affected. I am receiving similar complaints from constituents. We have to provide an efficient service not just to tourists coming to this country, but, as we become richer and ever more of our people travel, to our constituents and the British people who wish to travel.
  11.49 am
  Miss Geraldine Smith: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate because I represent a seaside resort that depends heavily on tourism. It is important to us that British tourism reaches its full potential.
  We are fortunate to live in a country rich in tradition, history and cultural diversity, with the ballet, the theatre, the opera and the cinema, as well as areas of outstanding natural beauty such as the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales; I could go on at length. So why do we not capture a better market share in tourism? Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world, but we have lost out over the years. We are not getting our fair share, and I am glad that the Government have recognised that and are beginning to do something to tackle the serious difficulties that we face.
  In some areas, we do well. Tourism in London is successful, although there are some difficulties. It has been said that the prices of hotels in the capital are very expensive compared with elsewhere in the world, and the quality of service is often sadly lacking. We must address those problems. However, millions of tourists come to London each year and it is well marketed overseas.
  The same cannot always be said of other areas, especially the British seaside resorts. They have been left for years to stagnate and decline, with nothing done to help them. The response from the previous Government was, "Well, leave it to market forces. If people do not want to go to the seaside, tough." During the 1980s, I watched the place where I have lived for most of my life decline, and the Government did nothing to help. Unemployment rose and the only use for small hotels was as Department of Social Security hostels, as welfare dependency increased under the previous Government. That was the story for British seaside resorts in the 1980s: I do not want that to be the story in the new millennium.
  The Government can do much to help. The new strategy is right to envisage a co-ordinated approach to marketing and greater use of new technology. Why is it that I can walk into a travel agents and book a holiday to any seaside resort on the continent, but I cannot book a holiday at a seaside resort in Great Britain? I could not get a late package deal to Morecambe or Scarborough. We must make the seaside resorts more accessible.
  Mrs. Lait: The hon. Lady is making many of the points that I made and I am sympathetic to her argument. Has she thought about looking on the internet? Many British areas have websites and it is possible to book holidays in the UK through the internet.
  Miss Smith: That is helpful, but less than a third of people in this country have access to the internet. Those people who probably would be most likely to visit British seaside resorts—those with smaller incomes, who might want a short break—might not be connected to the internet. We must widen access, and one way to do that is through tourist information centres. There is no reason why people should not book holidays in different parts of the country.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Is not it a sad state of affairs that, for people who do not have a lot of income, it is probably cheaper to go to southern Spain on a package deal? Is that not ironic?
  Miss Smith: It is a sad state of affairs, which is why more needs to be done to help the British tourism industry, so that we can get cheaper deals. I am sure that many hotels often have no guests. Perhaps if they reduced their prices and offered late deals, they could get more people in. The Conservative party does not recognise the benefits of the minimum wage but, if more people had a higher income, the 40 per cent. of people who do not take a holiday might be able to afford to do so. That could be very beneficial for the British tourism industry, but the Conservatives have not yet decided whether they would abolish the minimum wage.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Lady has expressed eloquently the difficulties that many seaside resorts have had in attracting visitors in sufficient numbers. She will know that there is a long-term trend away from traditional seaside holidays. Does she think that the abolition of the English tourist board is helpful if the objective is to give people more information about where they can stay in England?
  Miss Smith: I can judge only from my own experience, and I was involved in tourism for many years as a local councillor before I became a Member of Parliament. I have to look at my area and ask whether the English tourist board made Morecambe a successful seaside resort. What has it done for my area? The status quo is not good enough. The previous Government were willing to accept seaside resorts going into decline. We cannot afford to do that, because too many jobs depend on that not happening, including some 6,000 in my constituency.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is it not a little harsh to blame the previous Government, or indeed the present Government, for the problem, which is due to societal changes? Does the hon. Lady agree that those resorts that have tended to buck the trend are either ones that have turned themselves into caricatures of themselves in their marketing, such as Blackpool, or those that have aimed at a completely different clientele, such as Torquay? The basic problem is that there is no popular market for traditional holidays in seaside resorts. Unless people are prepared to think constructively and produce some alternatives to attract individuals to their resorts, no amount of Government money or tourist board activity will make any difference.
  Miss Smith: That is precisely the attitude of the previous Government and that is why there are so many Labour Members of Parliament in seaside resorts.
  Mr. Fabricant: I cannot resist asking the hon. Lady whether she thinks that tourism in Blackpool and Morecambe is helped by the fact that the Labour party has decided that the area is too down market ever again to hold its party conferences there.
  Miss Smith: The last Labour party conference in Morecambe was in 1952, but I do not think that the Conservatives have ever been there. The problem is that we do not have the accommodation. We do not have the large hotels to take conference trade, but the Government can be helpful in directing hotel building to coastal areas to encourage regeneration through the planning process.
  700
  Problems with transport to seaside resorts has already been mentioned. There is a new fast Seacat service to Belfast from Heysham port in my constituency. The hardest part of the journey to that service is the last two miles, because there is no way to do it by bus and there is only one train a day. That service brings thousands of tourists into the area every year, but it might be stopped because people are tired of having to travel the last two miles by taxi. That is a simple problem that could be addressed with a bit of thought and co-operation.
  One of the good aspects of the Government's strategy is that it involves people working together. It is about joined-up government at all levels—locally, regionally and nationally. We all know how fragmented the tourism industry is. Tourism affects planning, crime and disorder and licensing laws, so the Government must ensure that we make the necessary improvements.
  The document, "Tomorrow's Tourism", refers to the regeneration of seaside resorts. Words are great, and I think that the strategy is a good one. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the delivery and in the resources allocated to back up that strategy. That is how the Government will be judged at the end of the day: it will be a matter not of whether we have a good strategy on paper, but of what has been achieved in my area and across Britain to promote tourism.
  Seaside resorts face great problems. I have raised them with the Minister before, but I make no apologies for highlighting them again today. There is splendour and squalor side by side. People are trying to run small guesthouses that are situated next to DSS hostels. The problems in my constituency would match those of any inner-city area. We have pockets of deprivation and drug abuse and the urban poor have been attracted to the resort by the over-supply of cheap, rundown accommodation. An enormous number of absentee landlords who do not live in the area and have no connection with it make a lot of money out of housing benefit. Those issues must be addressed seriously. People who operate hotels, shops and all sorts of other small businesses must receive our assistance. They have struggled for years against the odds and they deserve our admiration. However, it is no good just admiring them: we must help them. I hope that the Government appreciate that fact.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) mentioned the possibility of objective 2 funding for coastal areas. That is a very good point, which I have also made to the Department of Trade and Industry. Coastal areas need Government funding. The coalfield communities received funding when mining and other traditional industries declined, yet tourism in seaside resorts has declined and we have so far received little assistance. We must find alternative means of employment for those who live in such areas. Seaside resorts are isolated, so we clearly require a great deal of assistance with transport—not just road transport, but good railway and bus networks. A fully integrated transport strategy is needed so that people can visit the coast more easily.
  The Government's document, "Tomorrow's Tourism", mentions several case studies. I draw hon. Members' attention to a constituency case on which I seek the Minister's assistance. There has been talk recently about a movie map. The film "Brief Encounter" was filmed at Carnforth railway station in my constituency. It was a lovely, mainline station, with a motorway junction nearby.

  701
  However, the station does not have a mainline platform and trains run straight through Carnforth to the Lake district.
  The Furness line runs around the coast to Carlisle and the station would be a terrific inter-junction for visitors to the Lake district. They could park their cars—huge areas of derelict land could provide massive park-and-ride facilities—and then travel by train to the Lake district or the Cumbrian coast. Developers want to make that plan a reality and the local council is very interested. However, we cannot secure the necessary funding. That practical suggestion could boost tourism in my area, help public transport and relieve much of the pressure caused by motorist numbers in the Lake district. It is a matter of receiving assistance when we need it on the ground.
  At the end of the day, the Government will be judged on what we have done in those areas. The strategy says all the right things and I think that the Government are taking tourism seriously. However, we require the resources and the funding to back it up. Struggling business people in our seaside resorts need help if they are to make a go of it and create many more jobs in coastal areas.
  12.3 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is relatively easy to develop a dislike of tourism. Those of us who appreciate the beauty of remote parts of the country are acutely aware that the tourist might destroy the very thing that he has come to see. Away from the remoter parts of the country, anyone who has been elbowed off the pavement in London by a hoard of Italian schoolchildren will be left questioning the benefits of this rather grisly trade.
  However, one must temper those feelings with the knowledge that tourism provides employment for many of our constituents. It represents some 4 per cent. of gross national product, employs 1.5 million people directly and constitutes 6 per cent. of total expenditure. Many people—certainly those in my part of the world—will be acutely aware that, if it were not for tourism, parishes throughout my constituency would have no shops or commercial provision. Those small shops survive as economic concerns throughout the year because of tourist trade during the summer months. Tourism is therefore a vital industry.
  To some extent, the Secretary of State paid tribute to the fact that in his speech. The problem is that there is a deficit between his words and his actions. The Government's policy has been a disaster. I sometimes wonder what is the purpose of the vendetta against an industry that is disproportionately made up of small concerns, private undertakings and sole traders. Of course, that fact might explain why there is a vendetta. Tourism does not consist of large corporate bureaucrats, who are now extremely sympathetic to the Labour party's aspirations and whose every expression of support for Labour is often a job application in disguise. Small firms lack compliance departments and, therefore, the ability to deal with, and welcome, the regulations and taxes that the Government have imposed on them.
  The vendetta against tourism is evident not only in regulations and tax changes, but in some of the Government's principal acts of policy. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the
  702
  Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, has already drawn attention to the Government's extraordinary decision to abolish the English tourist board. I certainly was not reassured by the rather dismal prospect of regional cultural consortiums. Does not the Secretary of State recognise the strength of the brand image of England as a whole as a holiday destination, with the attractions of history, tradition, culture and warm hospitality?
  There is a lack of credibility and sales potential in the slogans, "Come to the south-east region for a true south-east region experience," and "Enjoy the history and traditions of the north-east region." That regionalisation owes a great deal more to the Government's determination to see England broken up into bite-sized chunks for a Brussels banquet than to the needs of the tourist industry.
  I want to concentrate particularly on the Government's tax and regulatory changes, which have had a truly devastating effect on the smaller enterprises that are the mainstay of the tourist industry. I shall give two examples. The first, as hon. Members might expect from exchanges that have already taken place, relates to activity holidays. I know a thing or two about activity holidays. Even as I speak, my 10-year-old son is on an activity holiday. One might question how he comes to be on holiday during term time. Such is the benefit of activity holidays in promoting healthy living, citizenship, leadership, social education and environmental awareness—many of the things that Labour Members say they are in favour of—that class 3 of the Burley Village county school has, en masse, during term time, gone on such a holiday to promote those virtues.
  Members of the British Activity Holiday Association provide such opportunities for some 200,000 children a year. Next year, however, the situation may be different because, in providing that service, they rely on being able to create jobs for some 4,000 young people, many of whom are students aged between 18 and 21, and most of whom are employed on temporary, seasonal contracts of between two and eight months.
  We have been accused of being mean-minded and mean-spirited in questioning the operation of the national minimum wage in this respect, but I draw attention to the fact that a vital part of remuneration for such employment lies in the provision of full board and lodging. Without such provision, organisations would not be able to attract employees. Anyone who knows anything about activity holidays knows that their locations are often remote. There is no alternative accommodation—nor is there a transport network, or cafes and restaurants selling food at prices that employees could afford.
  Mrs. Lait: I did not want to interrupt my hon. Friend while he was in such full flow on the national minimum wage, about which I absolutely agree with him, but is he aware that, potentially, organisations that provide activity holidays for eight to 14-year-olds will not be recognised under the Tax Credits Bill, and will therefore be unable to claim for child care facilities? That is yet another difficulty facing such organisations.
  Mr. Swayne: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention because I was entirely unaware of that huge threat to the industry, which of course adds to the difficulty in which it already finds itself.

  703
  As I was saying, part of the remuneration offered by activity holiday organisations is full board and lodging. If they cannot offer that, they will be unable to acquire staff, for whom there is no alternative provision. So, they would naturally expect an abatement of the national minimum wage for the provision of full board—but none is allowable. For the provision of accommodation, the abatement is less than £20 a week. The Secretary of State called me a fool, but I am not such a fool as to believe that, anywhere in the land, accommodation can be had for £20 a week—especially with full board thrown in.
  This problem is faced not only by activity holiday companies; such provision is a feature of many other contracts and remuneration for jobs in small hotels and restaurants throughout the south of England and elsewhere. I am absolutely certain that accommodation cannot be had during the summer in Lymington, Barton-on-Sea, Milford-on-Sea or anywhere else for £20 a week. People who work in such enterprises are well aware of the advantages of the provision of full board and accommodation.
  I shall quote from a letter from my constituent, Mr. Alan Outhwaite, who runs Travel Class Ltd., an activity holiday organisation my constituency. He says:
  "The national minimum wage has cost us an extra £25,000 for this season—all totally uncosted when we set out our prices"—
  and marketed them—
  "in April 1999."
  He will have no doubt been mightily relieved to have heard the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting say that the matter is under review. That is a great help now that it has already cost my constituent £25,000. We have already begun to question whether the perception that the matter is under review is correct. There was certainly no evidence of it in a parliamentary answer I received yesterday.
  The deputy chairman of the British Activity Holiday Association sent me a fax on 16 June, saying:
  "In respect of the National Minimum Wage legislation, … the British Activity Holiday Association's representation about the negative impact of the minuscule accommodation allowance of just £20 per week, the Low Pay Commission did not recommend any change to this rate and … consequently, member companies of the British Activity Holiday Association have already had to reduce the numbers of students and young people employed in the industry, thereby denying them the highly-valued 'life-time skills' experience that the industry previously provided to them."
  This is a problem not only for organisers of activity holidays but for all those tourism enterprises, including small private hotels or restaurants, that provide board and lodging as part of remuneration. The latter have been hard hit by the Government's unwillingness to accept and act on representations that have been made by making a more generous provision for taking account of board and lodging in their regulations for the implementation of the national minimum wage.
  As I have mentioned small hotels and restaurants, I wish to discuss another problem, which was drawn to my attention when I was visited at one of my constituency advice sessions by a Mr. Conway, who runs a small restaurant—the Candlesticks restaurant in Ringwood. Mr. Conway is 61 and his wife is 60. He has had the restaurant for 16 years, nursing it through two recessions,
  704
  and it was his intention to retire in the year 2003 when he reached the age of 65. Like most small business people, Mr. Conway does not have a pension plan because his pension is effectively the business that he runs. The disposal of that business has to provide him not only with sufficient income for his pension but with somewhere else to live because, like so many of those who operate in our tourism industry in the form of restaurants and hotels, Mr. and Mrs. Conway, in effect, live above the shop. The premises from which they trade are their home, and, when they retire, they expect to be able to sell those premises and generate sufficient income to buy an annuity to pay for their retirement and to buy somewhere else to live.
  Selling the restaurant should realise about £250,000. Before Labour class warriors say, "That is a very large sum", they should bear in mind that Mr. Conway must buy another property with that and pay for his retirement. Last year, the tax arrangements would have enabled him to do so—to realise that £250,000 and pay no tax. Now, however, because of the tax changes that the Government have introduced by abolishing income tax relief for capital gains purposes, he will have to pay £55,000 in tax as a consequence of selling that restaurant and realising the £250,000 that he thought would pay for his retirement and buy him somewhere else to live.
  These are the small enterprises that predominate in our tourism industry. One might say that they are the sort of people the Labour party used to care for before it became new Labour. I am not a great man for state intervention and I have reservations about a strategy of promoting tourism. I prefer to see enterprises make their own way, promote their own products and thrive as a consequence of their own initiative and enterprise, but the Government's policy is characterised by a determination to see those industries wiped out as a consequence of their regulation and taxation policies. It might not be an intention: it might simply be lack of care and attention to the consequence of their actions—but that makes no difference to those who are affected by it. The consequence for them is the same.
  12.20 pm
  Gillian Merron: I am fortunate to represent one of the top historic cathedral cities, where my constituents and I enjoy the benefits of living amid a wealth of heritage and culture that spans some 200 centuries across the city.
  More than 1 million people have the opportunity to visit us each year to share in the benefits of living in a colourful city that has deep historic roots as well as a vibrant future. As we have heard, tourism is a growth industry and its economic importance cannot be underestimated. One in six of all new jobs created over the past 10 years has been in tourism, and it is the fifth largest industry in the United Kingdom. It is probably no surprise that tourism is our largest invisible export, but it is a disappointment, as we have heard today, to have to face the fact that our share of the world market is not all that we might like it to be. That is great waste but it is also clearly quite a challenge.
  Tourism has had a reputation for providing a variable quality of service, with poorly trained and often low-paid temporary workers. It has been seen as a somewhat haphazard sector. However, I believe that that reputation is heading for a great change as a result of the efforts

  705
  of local authorities such as Lincoln city council; of the implementation of the Government's "Tomorrow's Tourism" strategy; and of the contribution and commitment of people within the industry.
  Last Friday, I had the pleasure of presenting an Investors in People award to the Hillcrest hotel. It is the first small hotel in Lincoln to receive the award. I believe that that represents a turning point, since the quality of training enjoyed by all the staff will make a major contribution to that hotel's prosperity and to the quality of service that is offered to tourists who come to Lincoln. Similarly, Government policies such as the national minimum wage have helped to put quality and standards at the very heart of tourism.
  Many hon. Members have told me that they have enjoyed visits to Lincoln. Those Members who have not been blessed with the opportunity to make such a visit will be most welcome in future. Lincoln's appeal to tourists is predominantly in the uphill area of the city. It is an historic and unspoilt part of the city featuring the cathedral and the castle. The downhill area, separated by the aptly named Steep Hill, is lively with plenty of shops and places in which to socialise. It has the new university and an inland marina, the Brayford pool. A recent survey revealed the many plus points that visitors to Lincoln see and experience. However, the results of the survey highlighted the challenges that must be tackled.
  Tourism needs to grow in a sustainable way so that it can contribute positively to the life and economy of Lincoln. People love to come to Lincoln but we must be mindful of the results of the survey, which are reflected in the city council's economic regeneration, tourism and arts strategy. It is right and proper to recognise that all those aspects are linked. In that context, we must examine the trends of tourism. Overwhelmingly, visitors to Lincoln are day visitors who travel by car. This puts tremendous pressure on car parks but there is also pressure on rail and bus stations. Those are areas that the city council has rightly identified as needing improvement.
  Lincoln has a reputation for being difficult to reach, and this has contributed to it being too much of a well-kept secret. I am delighted that the Government have seen fit to address the problem, particularly by agreeing to dual the A46 from Newark to Lincoln. The work will begin in the early years of the new millennium. Its completion will be a tremendous boost to tourism and to Lincoln's prosperity.
  It is also pleasing that there has been an improvement in the train services that connect Lincoln with the rest of the east midlands. However, we need much better rail links to draw in visitors from further afield. It is lamentable that the Conservative-controlled Lincolnshire county council has seen fit to cut rural bus services despite the Government's support for such services. These are important to tourism and to the quality of social and economic life within the county.
  Lincoln city council's strategy rightly identifies the need to develop further visitor attractions downhill. A heated debate is going on in our city about the best location for a museum, which is an exciting and necessary development for the city and the county. There has already been an announcement by Lincolnshire county council—premature and unjustified, in my view—that uphill Lincoln castle is the council's preferred solution. That assessment has been much criticised by my
  706
  constituents and by organisations such as the museum action group, which brings together many esteemed experts.
  There must be a serious evaluation of downhill sites, so that the nature and needs of the collection and its visitors—tourists and local residents alike—can be properly considered. The question of a suitable location for a much-needed museum is a taxing one. It must be approached openly and with imagination and vision, so that we get it right.
  Lincoln's role as a specialist and regional shopping centre is a prime draw for many visitors, who enjoy the excellent array of shops such as Imperial Teas, whose teas and coffees from every corner of the world are a joy, or Goodies, a traditional sweetie shop where sherbet fountains and quarters of pear drops are sold in paper bags, or the House of Wines, which stocks a fabulous array of German wines, and which recently initiated Lincoln's first-ever German wine fair.
  The annual programme of events goes from strength to strength in our city, attracting tourists from far afield. The Christmas market, which has been inspired by our German twin town, Neustadt is the highest profile event. Hon. Members might also be interested in the jousting tournament or the international clowns convention.
  Roman heritage is perhaps the most significant of Lincoln's hidden assets. I shall raise some concerns about that with my hon. Friend the Minister. Most of the field work is carried out as a result of planning conditions and is funded by developers. There has to be monitoring to ensure the preservation of sites and appropriate recording. However, developers almost invariably look for the lowest price, which can mean lower quality.
  There is a tendency to neglect the analysis of data, which is funded by developers, as funding covers only the preliminary assessment of the findings. Furthermore, specialists in local pottery and artefacts, for example, are being lost to the profession as there are not enough resources from project income to cover the cost of their employment.
  There is much to be done. I pay tribute to the work of Mick Jones, director of the city of Lincoln archaeological unit, and his team for their dedication and professionalism. They have done much to enhance the role and relevance of archaeology in our city and across the country. I should welcome the Minister's comments on Government support for such work.
  In Lincoln, we have many other achievements that promote the well-being of our tourist industry. The talented and energetic Lincoln Shakespeare company is celebrating its 20th production, and Lincoln city council recently won an east of England award in national tourist information week for its St. George's day celebrations, in which St. George galloped through the streets to rescue a damsel in distress, after slaying a fiendish dragon—a vision which, I am sure, will interest many Government Departments.
  In Lincoln, we have the tourism cake and the icing on it. The cherry would be the granting of lord mayor status for the city, which would be conferred by decision of the Crown. That would be an appropriate way to mark the millennium for a city noted for being steeped more deeply in history and tradition than many others, while also having the brightest of futures.

  707
  The United Kingdom, like Lincoln, must not be a well-kept secret. We must aspire and work to be the most visited country. Tourism is about enjoyment, but it is also about education, appreciation and economic prosperity. I welcome the Government's understanding of that and of the need to link the quality and well-being of tourism to other policies such as transport, employment rights and training.
  Like other Labour Members, I look forward to our heritage being preserved, our present being honoured and our future being developed through, and with, the tourism industry, which is vital to our country and its standing in the world. We can achieve that only by strategic leadership and partnership. I look forward to supporting that and to seeing it happen.
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is a great pleasure to participate in this wide-ranging debate and it is apt that we are debating tourism because, looking at the Gallery and the people walking in and out of it, I see that the House of Commons is a tourist attraction in itself.
  Tourism is relevant not only to the coastal regions, to which a number of hon. Members have referred, but to inland parts of the United Kingdom. We have heard from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), and, before I get on to the main part of my speech, I want to say a little about Lichfield, which is about as far from the sea as it is possible to be in this country, although there is a lot of water in the city because of its many lakes.
  People do not realise that Lichfield district has more than 4.5 million visitors each year, despite the fact that we do not have a good rail connection, and they spend about £73 million in the excellent restaurants and facilities in the area. Even though I was once accused by an ignorant journalist of being Member of Parliament for the M6, I can assure that House that neither the M6 nor the M1 nor the M40 come too close to Lichfield. I know that because driving back there on a Friday afternoon or evening takes about four hours.
  If I may digress for a moment, I was delighted with the contribution of the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who talked about licensing laws. There are a number of pedestrianised areas in the centre of Lichfield and, on a lovely sunny Sunday, I went to Colley's Yard restaurant to sit outside reading The Sunday Times with a glass of red wine. I was shocked to be told that I would be breaking the licensing laws if I sat outside drinking.
  I will not tell the House whether I sat outside and drank the red wine despite that, because that might be admission of guilt, but, as an Englishman, such laws seem absolutely crazy to me. As the hon. Member for Selby said, would they not seem even more crazy to foreign visitors? We have archaic rules which, as the hon. Gentleman said, were introduced in 1916 to prevent munitions workers from blowing themselves up.
  I have spoken about those laws with the chairman of the Lichfield licensing Bench, Mr. Bob White, who is a justice of the peace. He would like the legal position to be changed so that it would be acceptable for pubs and restaurants to serve liquor, as the Americans would say, any time at all. The presumption would be that
  708
  establishments could open 24 hours a day if they wanted—that should be up to the licensee—but local people could appeal to the licensing magistrates to define a closing time for a particular place that is, for example, next door to an old people's home or a hospital or in a residential area, where the slamming of doors would be a nuisance.
  That would be reasonable and modern; after all, we are debating tourism in the new millennium. Good God, as we are entering the new millennium, it is time to wash away the laws that were introduced in 1916. I must pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was seen pulling a pint in a pub several years ago, when he was Home Secretary. Shame upon shame, horror upon horror—would England fall as a consequence?—he was introducing all-day drinking. Have we seen drunks rolling in the streets as a consequence? Of course not. Indeed, there has been far less drunkenness at lunch time because people do not hurry to finish their drinks. As the hon. Member for Selby said, there are lessons to be learned from Scotland, where people do not have to finish their drinks by 11 o'clock because it is throwing-out time. That seems far more sensible.
  It is not just in Lichfield where crowds of people appear on the streets. I see that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) is in his place. For a few years in the last decade, I was chairman of the Conservative party in Brighton, Pavilion. I went to Brighton, Hove and Sussex grammar school and took my masters degree at Sussex university. Those are my Brighton credentials. If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that we shall hear that Brighton, too, would benefit from a more flexible licensing regime.
  May I say a few more words about Lichfield? Lichfield enjoys a number of attractions, not only many restaurants. We attract some 5 per cent. of visitors from overseas. Those who come into the Lichfield tourist office are from Australia, the United States, Canada, South Africa and Germany. A significant number come to Lichfield district.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) was telling the House about her brother's aim to link—
  Mrs. Lait: It was my uncle.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend's uncle is trying to set up a telecom link between Greenwich in the UK and Greenwich in Connecticut. I am trying to do the same, because Lichfield is twinned, rather oddly in my opinion, with a town in France and one in Germany. I shall be politically incorrect and tell the House how that happened.
  The original plan was to twin Lichfield with a cathedral city in Germany, Limburg. That made good sense. However, Limburg is twinned with a French town in the suburbs of Lyon. Residents of Lichfield had not visited that town, so they agreed to twin with the French town as well as with Limburg. They then visited the French town and discovered that it had little similarity with Lichfield because it was an industrial suburb. When they asked Limburg why it was twinned with that French town, they were told that in 1940 a Luftwaffe squadron from the Limburg region had bombed that French town because it was an industrial area. That is why the two towns twinned after the war—and it shows the danger of twinning.
  I should like to see Lichfield in the United Kingdom twinned with Litchfield in Connecticut, which is not a million miles away from Greenwich in Connecticut. As I

  709
  said earlier, the irony is that, when representatives from Lichfield fly to Lyon, it costs them more than flying to Boston, which is the nearest international airport to Litchfield, Connecticut. That is because the Thatcher Government introduced freedom of the air and real competition between airlines, which is why so many American tourists visit the UK. However, there is no freedom of the air between France and the UK, which is why flights to France are so expensive.
  I hope that the Minister will encourage the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to introduce more deregulation so that there is competition in travel to Europe. There are cheap flights to Spain and Italy, but not to France, which still has a subsidised airline.
  I shall mention the interesting sites worth seeing in Lichfield. I claim credit for the fact that I moved to Lichfield. Usually, great men are born in Lichfield and move away. Dr. Samuel Johnson was born in Lichfield, but left. David Garrick, the first knight of the theatre—some hon. Members may be members of the Garrick club and some will have gone to the Garrick theatre in London—was born in Lichfield, but left. Elias Ashmole, who founded the Ashmolean museum at Oxford, was born in Lichfield, but left. I want the House to note that Michael Fabricant was born in Rottingdean near Brighton, but moved to Lichfield by choice.
  Mr. Grieve: It is all the more commendable that my hon. Friend moved to what was once one of the prettiest towns in the midlands in view of the destruction wrought on it by the planners between the 1960s and the 1980s. His intervention may be required in the future to preserve the little that is left.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am not sure that that intervention will help tourism in Lichfield, so I shall not thank my hon. Friend for it. Huge areas of historic significance are left in Lichfield, and I invite him to visit the city, as I suspect that he has gone to Wolverhampton and thought that that was Lichfield. I live in a 500-year-old house by a cathedral that is more than 800 years old, although some of the outskirts of Lichfield may have been destroyed not by German bombers but by planners in the 1950s and 1960s. I can assure my hon. Friend and any tourists thinking of visiting Lichfield that there is still much of historic significance and interest to see there.
  The Secretary of State's opening speech was filled with self-satisfaction and smugness, as is his nature. It is a shame that he had to leave early—he gave his apologies—to scuttle off to Scotland, no doubt paying a fortune because it is so expensive to travel internally in the United Kingdom. As the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport report pointed out, the problem with the Secretary of State is that, like the Government as a whole to some degree, he is full of good intentions but is highly and wholly ineffective. He introduced the idea of cool Britannia. There is nothing new about the phrase "cool Britannia". For those who are interested in rock music, it was a song in the 1960s by a punk rock band, whose name escapes me at the moment—just as the phrase "new deal" was first introduced by Roosevelt in the 1930s.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: It was the Bonzo Dog Doodah Band.
  Mr. Fabricant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. It was far more helpful than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is a debate on the general topic of tourism. The hon. Gentleman is testing it to its furthest boundaries. It would be helpful if we talked about tourism policy.
  Mr. Fabricant: Cool Britannia has everything to do with tourism policy. The Secretary of State used the phrase "cool Britannia" to try to attract visitors to the United Kingdom, but failed. I listened with great interest to his opening speech. He said—it will be recorded in Hansard—that people come to the United Kingdom not because of modern buildings, modern art or modern music, which is what cool Britannia was all about, but because of our heritage, our tradition, our theatre and our other attractions that could in no way be described as cool Britannia. That is why cool Britannia is not being promoted by the British Tourist Authority. The Department's marketing has been wholly ineffective in that regard, and has now had to be reversed. This has been one of the Department's weaknesses. When the Secretary of State visited China to discuss relations with that country and tourism there, he did not once raise the subject of the human rights problem that deters many people from visiting it. That reflects his own weakness.
  Much has been said about the millennium dome. I congratulate the Government on achieving its sponsorship targets. I, along with many others, thought that they would not be able to do that, but I was wrong. I am not sure whether the year of the millennium experience will be a success; only time will tell. I certainly will not make any predictions now in regard to whether the 12 million visitors target will be achieved.
  What I find very exciting and interesting is the fact that the dome is built to last for at least 80 years. The Government are asking companies to suggest what they could do with it after the millennium experience has closed. There could be a major impact on tourism in London. I used to work for the broadcast electronic industry. Every year, the industry holds a big exhibition somewhere in Europe: it is known as the international broadcasting convention. It cannot be held in London, because there is not enough space, at least not in a nice, prestigious area. I mean space for the exhibition itself, not hotel accommodation. The convention has therefore gone to Amsterdam, and it is not the only one not to be held in London.
  A possible use for the dome after 2000 is as a major convention centre. Alternatively, as was suggested earlier, it could serve as a venue for the world cup if Wembley stadium cannot be used. It is certainly large enough.
  Tourism is an important element of Britain's economy, and we should not be ashamed of it. It is the largest foreign currency earner in the United States, and also in the United Kingdom. There is nothing wrong with that—and it reflects badly on the Department that the most important area for which it is responsible is not included in its title. Culture, the media and sport are included but

  711
  tourism is not, which suggests that promoting tourism in the United Kingdom may be a low priority in the Department.
  As I said earlier, England—for which the Department is responsible—loses out badly in terms of grant aid for tourism. Whereas £8.25 per person is spent on tourism in Northern Ireland and £3.76 is spent on it in Scotland, a mere 20p is spent in England on promoting tourism abroad. That has to be wrong. We cannot take it for granted that people will come here simply because of our heritage. Other countries, particularly Australia and Germany, are promoting themselves heavily abroad, and the United Kingdom must do the same.
  There has been some talk about the minimum wage. One of the great advantages of being in opposition—there are few advantages, but here is one—and of being a Back Bencher is that I can speak for myself. I am not opposed in principle to a minimum wage, but when the Prime Minister announced that a minimum wage would be introduced, he said, "What is wrong with it? They have it in the United States of America." He is right, but there is a crucial difference: in the United States, tourism and other industries—which I will not bother to list, although, for some strange reason, broadcasters employed in radio are included—are exempt from the national minimum wage.
  I am not suggesting that people should work in sweat shops, but we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and, indeed, from Labour Members about how the minimum wage has impacted on people's lives. In some ways, it is very good, but we hear of some people going abroad, for example, to Marbella or Greece, because it is cheaper. One of the reasons is that pressures on small businesses in the UK are driving costs up; they are certainly not driving them down or keeping them stable.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: I am aware of a case of someone working in an amusement arcade and being paid £1.50 per hour. Do you think that that is right and proper?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Miss Smith: Do you think that the minimum wage should be—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Once I am on my feet, the hon. Member must sit down. She is referring to someone in the second person. That means that she is addressing the Chair. I think that she meant to refer to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
  Mr. Fabricant: Obviously, I do not know the circumstances, but supposing it was a student working in the arcade and doing it as a holiday job. Supposing the £3.60—
  Miss Smith rose
  Mr. Fabricant: Let me finish. Supposing the £3.60 an hour rate means that that person will not be employed. When I was a student, I would rather have worked in an amusement arcade—in fact, for a short while, I worked on Brighton palace pier doing the turnstiles—for less than
  712
  the minimum wage and earn some money than have no job at all because I had been priced out of the market. That is the only point that I make.
  Not having made a prediction about the future of the dome, I will make one about the minimum wage. The £3.60 an hour rate will be kept for a number of years. I do not think that it will go up with inflation. The Government will allow it to wither and to die.
  There is a problem. In the United States, the minimum wage, which is about $5.50, varies from region to region. The £3.60 an hour rate may not be much in London, but it is a hell of a lot in Northern Ireland. That, too, is a big mistake.
  Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the British Activity Holiday Association submission to the Low Pay Commission was not a request to pay less than £3.60 an hour? It asked merely for a more realistic recognition of the value of full board and lodging. It asked that it should be accounted for at £35 a week, rather than less than £20 a week.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes his point well now, as he did in his speech. It is interesting to know that in the United States, too, similar provisions exist for that very purpose. The Government have not thought things through. They are good at coming up with marketing ideas but not at thinking the consequences through. By marketing ideas, I do not mean the marketing of Britain abroad—as I have said, "Cool Britannia" has not succeeded—but the Government marketing themselves to the British population. Their marketing was certainly effective in 1997, but it has not been so recently. We have all heard about the European elections, so I shall not bore the House with them now. It is, however, interesting to see how the tourist initiative in Lichfield is changing because both the city and the district are now Conservative controlled again, since the recent local elections.
  The Labour Government have a lot to answer for. They have doubled air passenger duty—Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that—and increased fuel prices so that they are now the highest in Europe. Many people come to the United Kingdom for fly-drive holidays. In the United States petrol costs about $1.10 a gallon. The American gallon is only seven eighths of the imperial gallon, but even so, petrol there—or should I say gas?—costs only a third or a quarter as much as British petrol. In this country, it is expensive both to hire a car and to put petrol in it, and that will begin to deter tourists.
  A dangerous trend is shown in the number of people who come here for the first time but do not visit again for a long time, simply because the costs in the United Kingdom are so high.
  Dr. Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that air passenger duty, so far as I recall, was implemented by the previous Government and set to come into force after the general election? The fuel price escalator, too, was a policy of the previous Government, so the hon. Gentleman is being a little careless when he tries to blame all that on the present Government.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Conservative Government introduced those things,

  713
  but it is his memory that is a little careless. The Labour Government increased the fuel price escalator by 20 per cent. and doubled air passenger duty so, although I agree that it would be nice if those measures did not exist in the first place, the present Government have made a situation that was not good, far worse. Treasuries are always greedy, and our present Treasury is especially greedy.
  Despite what was said by one of my hon. Friends, Lichfield is a pleasant place to visit. Despite the steps being taken by the Government to drive prices up, the United Kingdom as a whole, too is worth visiting—but the Department, and the Secretary of State, must do better.
  12.57 pm
  Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion): I welcome this debate, not least because it has enabled the Opposition to continue to explore the ambiguities of their position on the national minimum wage. The press reports last week led us to think that it had been settled once and for all, but now we see that that is not so.
  Earlier this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) asked me whether I had come here today to "boast for Brighton". As my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) talked about her town's bid to become a city, I shall take the opportunity to remind the House that Brighton and Hove has made a similar bid, and we have the same hopes.
  Having heard what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said, before I go any further I must put in a disclaimer, in that the hon. Gentleman's place of birth, Rottingdean, and the Palace pier, where he worked as a young man, are, I am pleased to say, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), so I am not guilty by association.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman may be wrong about his own constituency. I think that he will find that the Palace pier is in Brighton, Pavilion.
  Mr. Lepper: We could debate that point later, but as no voters live on the pier it is not an issue that I have come across in canvassing. I praise Nobles, the management of the Palace pier, who have made it a marvellous success that attracts 4 million visitors a year. I believe that it is the second most visited free tourist attraction in England, possibly in the United Kingdom.
  I welcome the way in which the Government developed their tourism strategy. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has fond memories of more than one day spent in my constituency, but particularly the day that she spent there as part of the consultation exercise, when she met hoteliers, restaurateurs and others involved in the tourism trade before we put our hard hats on and walked on the West pier. At the time we were still waiting for an announcement on our bid for lottery funding, which I am glad to say has now been agreed, to help refurbish and restore the West pier.
  I should like to place on record my thanks and the thanks of many people in my constituency and in Kemptown and Hove to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is not here today. Over many years in opposition and in government he was very supportive of many of the proposals that have enabled us to develop the cultural industries that have become such an important part of our local economy.
  714
  I welcome the tourism summit that was held to launch "Tomorrow's Tourism" and the fact that it is to be an annual event. That is one of the many ways in which the Government will remain responsive to the needs and wishes of the tourism industry. Despite all the dismissive comments about our strategy document, I remind Conservative Members that Leisure Opportunities began its article on the strategy by saying:
  "Tourism professionals have welcomed the government's new strategy".
  Sussex Enterprise, my local training and enterprise council, joined in that welcome. Alan Brook from Sussex Enterprise wrote to me yesterday saying:
  "The Government's 'Tomorrow's Tourism' document has been welcomed by the agencies involved with tourism strategy in Sussex. It marks a significant step towards the recognition of tourism as an important industry and highlights the main areas which need to be addressed in order to develop the UK's tourism potential."
  Tourism professionals and business professionals have welcomed the strategy.
  To avoid disappointing my hon. Friend the Member for Test, I shall do a bit of boasting for Brighton. There are 55,000 jobs in the Sussex economy directly linked to tourism, with another 17,000 indirectly linked. The Brighton and Hove conurbation has an estimated income from tourism of £145 million, of which £65 million comes from the conference trade. I have already mentioned the 4 million visitors to the Palace pier. The area attracts a total of 5 million tourists a year.
  High standards in the tourism industry are important to us. I welcome the fact that part of the strategy involves encouraging 500 firms in the industry to become Investors in People, which is a very worthwhile scheme. I should like to place on record the appreciation locally of the work done by Brighton college of technology to help develop training in all aspects of the tourism industry. If I were not in the Chamber today, I would be at the local launch by Brighton college of technology and Springboard of our careers advice initiative in hospitality, tourism and the leisure industries. Despite what has been said about the national minimum wage by some Conservative Members, it has been welcomed in my area, especially by those working in the tourism industry, as a sign of the worth—in monetary and status terms—that the Government attach to employees in that essential industry.
  Thirty years ago, wisdom prevailed in Brighton—as it was then, not Brighton and Hove as it is now—about the need to diversify. We became aware of the demise of the two-week seaside holiday in the UK and that more people were travelling abroad. We began to specialise in short breaks and, in particular, in business tourism and the conference trade by investing in a conference centre. However, because we were a pioneer in the conference trade, our conference centre will soon be in need of real refurbishment. It has bookings way into the next century, but we will soon need to make the case for help with the funding for refurbishment.
  I am glad that Brighton is mentioned in the Government's strategy document, together with Bournemouth, as those seaside towns that began the process of diversification ahead of many others. We have recently begun to explore other areas of niche marketing in tourism. We are now recognised by the BTA as one of the British art cities, and I am sure that the £10 million investment made mainly by local ratepayers in the refurbishment of the royal pavilion in Brighton helped us to achieve that status.

  715
  Gay tourism has become increasingly important. The gay pride event each summer now attracts some 60,000 to 100,000 visitors to the town, bringing in some £5 million in revenue. We have linked with the BTA's gay tourism initiative to explore the real value of the pink pound.
  We have made investment locally for the new millennium, including work on the racecourse, improvements to the marina and a massive project to refurbish our Dome concert hall, the museum and the art gallery. We already have a virtual Brighton website. Hon. Members have already mentioned the importance of the internet in generating tourism markets and bringing people into areas. We estimate that the virtual Brighton website has some 250,000 visits a year.
  Dr. Whitehead: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the single regeneration budget, which is another important source of investment in the larger cities in the south-east that can have an impact on tourism? It is important in older seaside towns in the south-east to bring their amenities and domestic facilities up to scratch.
  Mr. Lepper: I welcome that intervention and I agree with my hon. Friend. My local area has benefited from the single regeneration budget, and it has enabled us to lever in private investment required to match SRB funding to help to improve our chances as we move into the next millennium. However, reference has already been made to the fact that not all seaside resorts are in that happy situation and there is a real case to be made for objective 2 status for many of them, including my area and other parts of Sussex.
  We are taking forward the initiatives that I have mentioned, but we need central Government and European funding to enable us to build on the investment that we have been able to make from other sources.
  As I have said, the strategy document has been welcomed locally because it recognises the important role of local authorities in tourism. It gives a sharper focus to the work of the British Tourist Authority and recognises the importance of standardising destination management systems, including—and especially—the use of the internet. It suggests, and makes links with, many areas of Government policy other than those that are the remit of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
  I have a few concerns. The document refers to support for the London tourist board—and I do not detract from the importance of that assistance. However, the board will receive £1.5 million annually for three years because of London's role as a gateway to the rest of the United Kingdom. Those of us in other parts of the UK need to be assured and to see that a significant element of that additional funding for London is being used in relation to its gateway role to ensure that we also derive some benefits.
  Similarly, reference has been made to the dome and its potential role as a conference centre. The strategy document talks about a new international conference centre for London. I do not decry the need for that facility, but I urge the Minister to bear in mind the importance of the conference trade to towns such as mine and many others across the country. We must ensure that the correct
  716
  balance is struck between attracting new conference business to London and sustaining existing conference industries in regional areas.
  I have three additional points. Transport has been mentioned frequently in this debate, and Brighton and Hove could benefit from enhancements to our rail network, in particular. There is a fast rail link between Gatwick and London but not between Gatwick and the south coast. There is an abysmal rail link between Brighton and Hove and the channel tunnel at Ashford. That is to the detriment of not just the tourist industry but the economy generally in our part of the south-east. Sussex Enterprise, two county councils, Brighton and Hove council, BAA Gatwick and Connex have produced a strategy document on tourism, which I believe is being studied by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I urge the Minister to discuss with her colleagues in that Department—if she has not already done so—the importance of transport infrastructure for our tourism and other industries.
  My final point relates to an aspect of sustainable tourism: the role of English Heritage. English Heritage performs an important function and it is vital that it provides advice and funds the maintenance of our historic buildings. Many of our historical buildings—I think particularly of the Palace pier in Brighton—are also working buildings. They have lives other than as museum pieces. I urge the Minister to ask English Heritage to consider—rather more than it does at present—when commenting on planning applications and funding decisions, the importance of buildings, such as the Palace pier, that continue to bring revenue to their areas even though they have listed status.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that English Heritage sometimes over-specifies work that might need to be done to change or repair a structure, whether it be a pier or a building, to the extent that the cost becomes prohibitive and the work does not get done?
  Mr. Lepper: I cannot specify such a case, but I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I know that he has a genuine concern. I hope that the Minister will take into account my point about the role of English Heritage.
  In conclusion, let me say that the prospects for tourism in Brighton and Hove for the millennium are bright, but I emphasise the solutions that have already been suggested by my hon. Friends and the importance of assistance to seaside towns. Even towns that diversified early, such as Brighton, cannot always go it alone in making the most of that diversification.
  1.17 pm
  Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members on both Front Benches for not being here for the opening speeches.
  I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Hon. Members may know of my previous career in retailing. Not only was I a shopkeeper, but I should declare my interest as a shareholder in a Hungarian eco-tourism company. I am still, as it were, on the books as a specialist ornithological tour leader for Limosa

  717
  Holidays. I must point out, with a certain degree of regret, that, since being elected to the House, I have not had the time to take any tours abroad.
  Many of my constituents are actively engaged in the tourism industry because they are involved with Heathrow airport, which is a major employer in the area. The area also boasts many hotels, and although they are not all situated in my constituency, many of my constituents are employed by them. Uxbridge is fortunate in having a golden location with a very good transport system and easy access to central London. West London is a good place from which to visit many exciting places. Lichfield might be a little too far away, but one can go to Oxford, Stratford-on-Avon and those hidden gems of the southern British countryside, the Chilterns,
  Mr. Grieve: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Randall: I am sure that my hon. Friend is often described as the gateway to the Chilterns.
  Uxbridge has a vested interest in the promotion of tourism. If I had realised that so few hon. Members who represent London constituencies would be present, I would have concentrated my remarks on London. Only the two hon. Members who represent Harrow are here, but I had assumed that on a Friday the Labour Benches would be full of London Members putting forward London's case. I am therefore rather sorry that I shall concentrate my remarks on other matters. I hope that if either the hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) or for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) are lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will speak for London, and I should like to associate myself with their comments, which are always of a high standard.
  I have been extremely lucky in that I have travelled extensively throughout the world and visited many exciting places on every continent but, as I came to the House on this wonderful June morning, I could not think of any destination in the world that could match this country on such a day. Having only a few weeks ago spent a very pleasant week on half term with my young family in north Norfolk, I can report that, by popular demand, I am actively trying to book our summer holiday there. The holiday was a great success; perhaps I feel a little uneasy in Tuscany. I do not know what it is but there is something very special about this country.
  As I said, I have a particular interest in wildlife and its role in tourism. It is perhaps not generally recognised in the House that sensible, sustainable promotion of our extensive areas of natural history interest can often extend the natural holiday season. I think of the Isles of Scilly in particular, where many birdwatchers from all over the world go in September, October and into November, providing much welcome resource for local hoteliers and restaurateurs—although sometimes local farmers despair a little when an extremely rare bird appears in one of their fields.
  There is similar great potential in the area represented by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), who is not in her place at the moment. I am sure that she is aware of it; I remember reading her maiden speech, in which she acknowledged the many wildfowl and waders to be found in Morecambe bay.
  Our greatest assets are often overlooked because familiarity breeds contempt. In Britain, we have not only some of the best scenery but some of the most spectacular
  718
  wildlife habitats. Our seabird cliffs, for example, are at top of the league in the world. Many ornithologists and holidaymakers generally would be very keen to see such a wildlife spectacular. It is something of which we should be proud and should give the opportunity to develop.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend concede that there is a danger of destroying beautiful areas and wildlife by attracting too many people to them?
  Mr. Randall: I would concede that. That intervention, as in the one on my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), shows that my hon. Friend seems to be psychic, because I was about to make that point. His natural impatience is probably as a result of my inability to make my points quickly. I was about to point out that any development must be sensible and sensitive—otherwise, we are in grave danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
  One side-track, which relates not just to wildlife and the environment but tourism generally, is that we have a great opportunity to promote growth in holidays and tourism for disabled people. We have a good record on which we may build. We could attract people from all over Europe, if not further afield.
  We must not just guard natural areas against over-exploitation. Attractions that have introduced positive visitor-management schemes have shown that is it possible to increase a destination's capacity.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: On the question of holidays for disabled people, is my hon. Friend aware of the wonderful work that is being done by the Holiday Care Association, which is based in my constituency and which I had the privilege of visiting recently, in promoting access for disabled people to high-quality holidays throughout the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Randall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was not aware of the association's work, but I am certainly very interested to learn of it. Even non-natural sites must be sensitive in the way in which they attract tourists; otherwise, the exploitation and the number of visitors can put people off.
  I hope that the Minister will shed some light on Government thinking on the relationship between the taxation and the preservation of historic buildings. Obviously, if a building is repaired, renovated or brought back into use from dereliction, either a site is created or an existing one is improved. I wonder whether, as part of their approach to boosting tourism, the Government would consider zero-rating VAT on the repair and adaptive re-use of historic buildings.
  Let me return to the general picture of tourism. We know that the business climate may well become increasingly difficult for tourism in Britain as it faces more competition and consumer expectations grow. The Government have not helped to reduce the burdens of the industry by introducing more regulation. To be fair, many Governments seem to spend more time adding to the weight of regulations than considering how to make life easier; but this Government's record is not at all good. I speak as a small business man.
  Since the general election, the Government have introduced 2,600 additional regulations. I feel that that can only damage and hamper many of the small businesses that form the core of the tourism industry. Seventy-four per cent. of such businesses employ fewer than 10 people.

  719
  The working time directive is causing problems to an industry that requires a great deal of flexibility with shifts and hours generally. That initiative is causing a problem for small business because of the additional administrative costs associated with the directive. All companies find extra clerical costs and computer work unwelcome, but the bigger ones can absorb those costs more rapidly than small businesses can. Very often, those few extra costs can drive the final nail into the coffin of a small business.
  We know from Library figures that the Government have increased costs on business to the tune of £40,700 million over the lifetime of this Parliament. Is the Minister prepared to give us some specific information, or promise to examine the impact of those measures specifically on the tourism sector of the economy? What impact does she believe that those extra costs will have on the tourism industry?
  Unfortunately, I have my doubts. I remember reading the June 1998 report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which criticised the Department for subordinating tourism in favour of more glamorous and trivial matters.
  Tourism has been, and I hope will continue to be, a great success story, but I want the Government to confine their role to helping to promote the industry and its interests, instead of interfering in a rather damaging way, at a time that is likely to be a turning-point for British tourism's future success.
  1.28 pm
  Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley): I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on wildlife because last week, on behalf of Derbyshire Wildlife Trust, I performed the ceremony of topping out an otter holt, which was a des-res, three-bedroomed place for otters to move into. However, it had nothing to do with tourism. I was sworn to secrecy. I am not allowed to tell anyone where it is because we do not want any visitors to come and disturb the otters. Otters can cope with a railway nearby but not with visitors, so the wildlife issue can work both ways.
  I am very pleased to speak in the debate because tourism is important in my constituency. Like others, I shall take the opportunity to celebrate tourism, because the promotion of tourism and of what is happening in our areas is obviously important to our success.
  I shall start by commenting that many hon. Members, particularly on the Government Benches, become rather worried if they find themselves appearing in The Guardian diary columns. I cannot understand why. I was pleased when I was referred to in Simon Hoggart's column recently, not because of anything that I had said, thank goodness—there was nothing about me being ridiculous or that I had said something embarrassing—but because he said that I am the Member who represents the Labour interest in the most beautifully named constituency in England—Amber Valley. I have only one problem with that: Amber Valley is indeed as beautiful as it sounds, but I knew that I would have difficulties when, having just been selected to stand for the constituency, I met my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), who congratulated me on my beautiful Welsh constituency. He was not alone.
  720
  If anyone wants to attract industry or tourists to their area, it is rather difficult when they do not even know what country it is in. In that respect, I am envious of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron). However, she does know where Amber Valley is because she came from near by. I am envious also of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). The areas represented by my hon. Friends are well known. If they wish to promote them, at least people know where they are.
  One of the tasks that I set myself in my maiden speech was to put Amber Valley on the map. I was intent on telling people where it is. I think that I have made enough noise about Derbyshire since being in this place, along with my fellow Derbyshire Members, particularly about its funding problems, to ensure that hon. Members do not fall into the trap of believing that my constituency is in Wales. Amber Valley is in the heart of Derbyshire and in the heart of England.
  It is not surprising that people think that Amber Valley may be in Wales. Both Wales and Derbyshire are mining areas. Mining country is often extremely beautiful, so long as we can keep it away from opencast mining, which is a complete blight on any area. It keeps tourists away without bringing any benefit to the local economy.
  Last week, the English Heritage board toured my area and I met its members after they had visited the neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Hon. Members may be interested to know that my hon. Friend has his own castle—Bolsover castle is a wonderful tourist attraction. I do not think that it is often associated with him.
  In my discussions with English Heritage, we agreed that there is a need to change people's perception of our industrial areas, which often combine glorious countryside, wonderful historic sites and fascinating and rich industrial heritage. Very often, people do not associate mining areas, for example, with anything other than gritty, horrible realism. In fact, these areas are usually beautiful and have considerable tourism attractions.
  Promotion—telling people where we are and what attractions we have to offer—is essential to any tourism strategy. Traditionally, we have not put as much as we should into promoting tourism when we compare our efforts with those of other countries. I welcome the emphasis that is now put on tourism with the Government's strategy for tourism. That will be extremely helpful.
  Amber Valley borough council has an active tourism strategy. The tourism information centre that was established in Ripley in 1994 registered 53,000 visits and 15,000 queries last year. However, it is still the case that only 11p per household per week goes into promoting tourism, which is an important industry within the area that I represent.
  When I was using my computer last night, I was pleased to look at the website that has been developed by the borough council in recent months. It is excellent. It sets out many of the things that we have to offer. For anyone who wants to visit Amber Valley, the website is on www.ambervalley.gov.UK. It will help people to become aware of all the wonderful things that we have in the area. I hope that it will entice many hon. Members to visit us.

  721
  As I have said, Amber Valley has beautiful countryside. We are surrounded by the most amazing historic buildings, including Kedleston hall, Chatsworth, Hardwick hall and Wingfield manor. Visitors can go to the Belper river gardens or to Shipley country park, where recently a play was put on about the last rebellion in England. That rebellion was not very successful. The poor working people who were unemployed and starving in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire decided to march on London to demand their rights under the leadership of Jeremiah Brandreth, who was a rabble rouser. The rebellion lasted about 12 hours before those involved were rounded up. It had all been set up by agents provocateurs. Jeremiah was hanged and others were transported. The rebellion did not do very well, but it made a wonderful play in Shipley country park, which is part of our tourist attraction.
  Visitors can go for white-knuckle rides at our adventure theme park, American Adventure, or ride on a tram with the national tramway museum. They can look at the photographic site of its archives on their computer. They can paint plates or make frogs at Denby pottery. People can visit the national tramway museum or the midland railway museum. If they decide that they like the railway museum enough and want to stay in our area, they can have their marriage ceremony there. Visitors can go up and down on the narrow-gauge light railway that I was pleased to open recently, on which railway enthusiasts have worked for the past 12 years. Children can see the Fat Controller there, and Thomas the Tank Engine. As hon. Members may have seen in the papers recently, people can even have their wake there when they die. Our tourism attractions will look after them from birth, through marriage and children, unto death.
  Visitors can sample Thorntons chocolates, visit Heage windmill, an historic mill that has received support from the national lottery and English Heritage, or visit the birthplace of John Flamsteed, the first astronomer royal, who founded the Greenwich observatory and whom we hope to commemorate at the millennium. There are many, many attractions in our area.
  There are many beautiful walks in our area, which is also the gateway to the Peak National Park. Other hon. Members have mentioned that it is important that we get people away from the honeypots. Our honeypot in Derbyshire is the Peak park, which is being eroded through over-walking. We should encourage visitors to go there for a couple of days of their holiday, and then to visit some of the other wonderful attractions throughout Derbyshire.
  As has been said, it is essential to our local economy that we develop our tourism industry. We all have good examples that we can quote. The midland railway museum has 20 trainees through the new deal programme who are learning skills to assist them to get into work.
  There has been much mention of the links with film and media. Seven series of "Peak Practice" have been filmed in my constituency. Carsdale is, in fact, Crich in my constituency. The filming brings much spending and revenue into the area, and a small production unit has recently been opened on one of our industrial estates.
  There are a few issues that I wish to draw to the attention of Ministers. My initial point, that people do not know where Amber Valley is, is critical to our ability to promote the attractions in our area. There is a particular
  722
  problem relating to signposting, which needs to be dealt with by the Highways Agency, the county council and those who have responsibility for putting up signs.
  We have had difficulty in obtaining permission to put up signposts on the boundary to Amber Valley, as opposed to the approach to a particular town. We also have problems with the signs at exits from the motorway. There are signs to Alton towers, which entails driving right through Derbyshire to get to Staffordshire, and signs to Matlock Bath, which is grossly overcrowded, but there are no signs to leave the motorway to go to the national tramway museum, which is one of only 26 museums throughout the country that is considered to be of sufficient national importance to be designated as such.
  Like other hon. Members, I shall refer to transport. As has been said, many tourist attractions are not well linked to the transport infrastructure. It is often difficult for buses to travel within market towns as there is not a great deal of space for them, and the transport links are not very good. It is odd for me to say that, as Amber Valley is a transport heritage centre, with the midland railway museum and the national tramway museum.
  When I visit the tramway museum, I look at the timetables for what was, I understand, the longest tram ride anywhere in the world, between Ripley and Nottingham. Travelling between the two places on the trams was an awful lot easier than it is now and perhaps link should be redeveloped. Nottingham has been given authority to develop its tramway up to Hucknall.
  I would like us to reopen the railway line from Derby that goes through Ambergate, Matlock, Bakewell, Buxton and up to Manchester, as that would help to relieve the pressure on the Peak park. Our area has a good history of reopening lines—the Robin Hood line, for example—but further transport measures are essential to developing and promoting the tourism industry, to preventing us from having too many cars and to enable people to use public transport.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the sustainable tourism issues that the Department considers are always compatible with the economic sustainability arguments put forward by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. For example, we have been trying unsuccessfully for years to develop a difficult brown-field site, but it is hard to unlock the site and get the necessary money in. We have a programme for developing the site, which is in the deprived Langley Mill area, which has single regeneration budget funding.
  The site originally had planning permission for the sort of retail development that has now gone out of the window under the planning considerations that we want to operate. We have planning proposals to develop a cinema and the neighbouring canal basin and moorings as a tourism and leisure site, but they have been called in and will be the subject of a public inquiry. That is because the site is next to a settlement that is regarded as a small town in the structure plan. There are concerns about the car parking space that would be needed and that damage might be done to other town centres.
  There seem to be some contradictions here, because we do not want people such as me to go by car to the cinemas in Nottingham and Derby. To my horror, because I am a great film fan, there is no cinema in my constituency and I have to travel a long way, usually by car, to get to one. However, planning decisions are taken which stop us

  723
  having a cinema because of what will supposedly happen in respect of car parking. The decision may or may not be right, but it is subject to a public inquiry. I wonder whether there is always consistency between the sustainable development arguments that we use in these two spheres.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion mentioned working buildings. The English Heritage board toured the east midlands last week, and was asked by the region to consider what is regarded as one of the board's most intractable problems—Wingfield manor, a building under the custodianship of English Heritage, but owned and lived in by a working farmer. Mary, Queen of Scots was imprisoned three times in this dramatic ruin and the Babington plot to free her and overthrow Elizabeth I was hatched there.
  To sum up his visit, and after he had squared up to the farmer who lives in Wingfield manor, Sir Jocelyn Stevens, the chair of English Heritage, said it is a tragedy that English Heritage will be unable to deal properly with this wonderful romantic building which is owned and occupied by someone who does not like visitors. That is a serious problem. We looked at some of the equipment that the farmer has at Wingfield manor and it is clear that he is doing as much contracting as farming and he does not want to be there with the visitors.
  There are difficulties in respect of achieving public access to buildings of historical interest to the nation when there are these other problems. I am not sure whether English Heritage has the ability to solve this problem, and I may come to Ministers with it. We have achieved public access to the building, but there are only 5,000 visitors a year to somewhere that I am sure could attract 50,000 visitors. The situation is unhappy from all sides.
  I make a direct request to my hon. Friend the Minister on industrial heritage, which has not been referred to greatly in the debate. Industrial heritage visits are increasingly popular in my area and my local tourist information centre says that many people want to get involved with this.
  Derbyshire has some of the finest scenery in England. Historically, in the valleys and hills of the county were found rich veins of minerals and an abundant water supply, which provided fuel for the industrial revolution. In many ways, the Derwent valley was the cradle of the industrial revolution. Jedediah Strutt built the famous Belper North mill for framework knitting in the cotton industry, and we have the Arkwright mill at Cromford. Jedediah Strutt's apprentice, Samuel Slater, developed the same industry in Pantucket, Rhode Island in the United States and the strong links that we have developed with that part of the US are valuable in attracting tourists to our area, and vice versa.
  We have picked up the United States' concept of a heritage corridor. Amber Valley has trademarked the National Heritage Corridor, which has been created to try to preserve, protect and enhance the rich industrial heritage of the Derwent valley, based on the entrepreneurial skills in the area, particularly those of the Arkwrights and the Strutts. We were absolutely delighted that it was put on the tentative list of sites for consideration by UNESCO as world heritage sites. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to visit our area
  724
  with the Secretary of State and make sure that our application is put forward early for the final list of heritage sites. That would be extremely valuable in promoting what is already a valuable, much enjoyed and appreciated part of our heritage.
  Less reference has been made today than I would have liked to the value of our industrial heritage. The qualification conditions that UNESCO set for world heritage status reflected the fact that it wanted to celebrate industrial heritage as much as some of the buildings that had been recognised in previous years.
  I have raised a number of issues to which the Minister might like to respond. I live in the most fantastic area, which everybody must visit. May I make one final plug? I suggest that visitors leave from St. Pancras station, which is the most wonderful station there is. It is identical to Bombay station—both were primarily built by Butterley Engineering in Ripley in my constituency. There are now 31 trains a day to Derby, although they do not all leave at the right time. I like to claim the heritage and tourism at both ends of the railway line.
  This has been an interesting and useful debate, in which I have heard of other places that I shall now seek to visit. The more that we can do to promote our tourism industry—we must do so more than we have in the past—the more flourishing it will be. That will benefit our areas and those who seek jobs in our communities.
  1.47 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), whose speech I listened to with great interest. I was struck particularly forcefully by one of the points that she made, because I know the area that she represents a little. Notwithstanding the fact that we live on a crowded island with a great deal of industry, it is easy to find attractive places closely juxtaposed to areas that most people would never imagine were worth visiting.
  Before I came into the House, I had the unpleasant duty of prosecuting a company for serious pollution offences in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). When I visited one of the dirtiest plants that I had ever seen in the United Kingdom, I was struck by the fields, the patchwork of lanes and the attraction of the local villages. It was a hidden jewel.
  Tourism is about people going to places that they would not normally visit for pleasure. I hope that I will be forgiven if I was a little iconoclastic in my interventions earlier, but one cannot produce in this country whited sepulchres. Unless somewhere is attractive for people to visit, the economic benefits—and, indeed, the cultural benefits—that will flow from it simply will not occur. One or two of the speeches that have been made have expressed regret that certain places that may at one time have been attractive and popular no longer are. The first question that one must ask oneself before requesting state intervention is why that has come about.
  Further to my somewhat rude intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—for which I apologise—I happen to think that Lichfield is one of the loveliest places in the country. The remarkable cultural ensemble of the cathedral, the close and the high street, which I know well, should be very attractive, but I cannot escape the fact that, if Lichfield had been better

  725
  treated by the planners in the 1960s and 1970s, it would now be regarded as one of the jewels of the midlands and would have the potential to be as attractive as York is today. We would do well to look in our own back gardens when we consider tourism, because, if we do not, we will not produce anything worthy of attracting people to this country.
  The Minister is aware of my membership of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, which may shortly come to an end as I have been given other duties. How tourism fits with sustainable development is a material consideration, especially for the next millennium. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) tellingly said, we could kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is no doubt in my mind that, in areas such as the Lake district, which are saturated by tourism, the balance of retaining the environmental attractions that draw people there in the first place is proving increasingly difficult to sustain.
  In the past, because of the inevitable compartmentalisation within government, those put in charge of promoting tourism have seen themselves as an interest lobby on a single issue and have expected other areas of government to check them by saying, "You can't do that. You can't put this development here, because the environmental impact would be wholly negative." This is a non-partisan point, because that has been going on under successive Governments. Although things have improved slightly, there have still been problems. As a consequence, developments for tourism are extremely contentious.
  I have serious doubts about the Cairngorm railway north of the border, even though the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to assure me that the environmental impact assessment has been carefully taken into account. I have previously referred the Minister to the development in a forest outside Penrith, which was undertaken deliberately to promote tourism and attract tourists away from the Lake district. It has not been particularly successful commercially, but has implanted what is, in effect, an urban development in the middle of a deeply rural area with much biodiversity. I hope that the Minister will explain how tourism can be properly focused, so that, when carrying out their duties, those responsible for tourism will make environmental assessments to ensure sustainable development.
  I am conscious of the time, so I shall not take up more than another minute or two. I want to leave time for the Minister's reply. However, I want to stress that, when we promote tourism and encourage development, deregulation and "small is beautiful" are the two key issues that we should emphasise. Tourist projects in my constituency close to London have been low key, but because the area is environmentally attractive, even though it is developed, they have been successful. People can visit farms and Beaconskot in Beaconsfield, which has been there for years; successive generations come back year after year to see the miniature village. The amenity of the Thames is an example of the difficulty of reconciling environmental considerations with leisure and recreation interests. Nevertheless, the Environment Agency is succeeding in striking a compelling balance.
  I shall close my remarks because of time, but I ask the Minister to address those issues because they are of great importance to the promotion of tourism in the future. Many mistakes have been made, but they can be rectified.
  726
  The Government—to pay them a compliment—are showing signs of addressing them, and of that I am very glad.
  1.55 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I apologise to those on both Front Benches for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I have listened carefully to nearly all of it, and I consider it to have been very worth while.
  We are now discussing far more dimensions of tourism than we used to. It is traditional to think simply in terms of more being good: we need more tourists, more money coming in, more attractions and so forth. Today, however—and, increasingly, in general—we are also considering quality. Additional factors now need to be taken into account.
  The obvious requirement is for people to return to this country, enabling us to establish a sustainable tourism industry, which means maintaining the number of visitors and attractions over a period. There is, however, a new dimension of sustainability, about which we did not hear a great deal today until the speech of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We do not tend to take it into account very much: we hear more about troops of tourists going off in safari wagons and killing the very last Mexican staring frog as they unload their hampers. I commend the consultative document "Tourism—Towards Sustainability", produced last year, and the more recent document "Tomorrow's Tourism", which features an appendix containing an interesting set of responses.
  Nowadays, it seems to be fashionable to take ever-longer holidays abroad. As has been said today, our seaside resorts have suffered a decline. There are problems of accessibility. We must think carefully about what we want from sustainable tourism. If we are not careful, we will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in such places as the New Forest and the Peak district. We must have a clear policy for the management of resources, to ensure that tourists still visit those places.
  There have been encouraging developments. North Yorkshire national park, for instance, has made it possible for people to visit without having to drive their cars into the middle of the park. Moreover, natural attractions are being allied with the attractions of nearby towns and cities to remove some of the pressure.
  My city of Southampton, which is not regarded as a natural tourist destination, has gone a long way towards becoming one by hosting the round-the-world yacht race, a film festival and a balloon and flower festival. A number of other activities bring people back into cities and, indeed, bring cities back into people's purview as "short break" destinations where they can use public transport without basing themselves in areas where there is too much pressure on facilities. Such combination holidays, enabling the use of both natural and urban facilities, are important to sustainability.
  As has been said, the accessibility of tourist destinations is important. I am referring not just to dual carriageways, but to public transport. Can people go on holiday simply by using public transport? Increasingly, that is not possible in this country.
  I recently visited Tintern. I noticed posters dating from the 1890s on the wall of the former station at Tintern. They offered tourist packages of days out on the train

  727
  going up and down the Wye valley to Tintern. That, of course, is no longer possible; the railway was closed in 1995. If people want to go to the Wye valley, they will have to go by car. Being able to use public transport to get around tourist destinations is important. Investment in public transport that allows those destinations to work well is important too. We need cycle routes in the New Forest to allow people from Southampton to undertake their holidays in and around the forest without recourse to the car, if that is what they wish.
  I am conscious of the fact that time is pressing. I make the case for taking sustainable tourism seriously. Tourism should be part of the other policies on sustainability that the Government are developing and taking seriously. How can we bring people back to have holidays in our country, but, at the same time, ensure that the amenities of the country and, indeed, of the world are secure for the future? That is the challenge. I am delighted that the Government have taken it up in their consultative document and in their tourism document, which has just been published.
  2.1 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Sadly, lack of time prevents me from taking up the injunction of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) to promote London. I want to make one relatively obvious point and a second one. In the process, I want to celebrate the tourism potential of just one part of London: my constituency.
  The relatively obvious point is the need for grant-making bodies such as English Heritage and various lottery funds to be fully signed up to implementing the Government's tourism strategy. I am delighted that Headstone manor, a 13th century moated manor house, the only one of its kind left in Middlesex, and in my constituency, has received a lottery grant of £1 million to secure its restoration and refurbishment and to enable the oldest parts of the building to be opened to visitors. I am delighted that the heritage lottery fund saw the good sense of the representations by Harrow heritage trust and the local Labour council, as well as me.
  I am also delighted that English Heritage has started to shift its position in terms of how it allocates conservation area funding. In the Christmas Adjournment debate, I lamented its insistence that such funding should be directed primarily towards building repair, rather than, as is the need in Harrow on the Hill—an equally beautiful part of my constituency—the space between buildings, tackling the impact of traffic and improving the general street scene.
  English Heritage is supporting a pilot project in my constituency. It is contributing some £30,000 to £35,000, which will be matched by the local authority. The final details of the scheme to help to slow and deter traffic and to improve the street scene are being worked up. I look forward to helping to facilitate the scheme's implementation. Nevertheless, the annual tourism summit needs to include representatives of such grant-making bodies to ensure that they continue to sign up to, and help to implement, the Government's tourism strategy.
  The second key aspect of my comments is the need for the Government to recognise the importance of sport and event tourism. I mention in particular one of the lessons
  728
  that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport highlighted in its recent report on major events: the need for high-profile, active Government involvement in events. Obviously, the major event strategy and the new agency that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is chairing within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are welcome.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting will be able to say a little more about how the Government are working with the Manchester 2002 Games committee to ensure that the event is a huge success. I mention that point in the light of the bids to redevelop Wembley stadium and in the hope that, down the line, a redeveloped Wembley will be at the forefront of a world athletics championship—and, crucially, a British Olympic bid.
  2.5 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I thank the Secretary of State in absentia for his characteristic courtesy in noting the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and I are continuing in our present roles. When the dear and revered leader sits down with Alastair Campbell to plan the future of the Cabinet, I wish the right hon. Gentleman well for his future.
  It is interesting that, despite the remarks made about the English weather, we have a beautiful day today for the tourism debate. I wonder whether hon. Members have noticed that the sudden improvement in the weather in this country seemed to take place on Sunday evening. There is a definite correlation out there somewhere between approval of what happened on Sunday and the excellent weather that we have had this week.
  Before proceeding to the main part of my speech, may I ask the Minister about the quality assurance that the Secretary of State mentioned? It is our understanding that the harmonised rating system that will be applied with the help of both the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club will involve different systems in England, Scotland and Wales. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that that will be very confusing for overseas tourists, and I hope that she can shed some light on the situation.
  Despite the Minister's intervention, there is still some confusion about accommodation offset. Yesterday's reply by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) suggested that the minimum wage would be added to accommodation and food prices. That would be serious for activity holidays, and I hope that the hon. Lady will deal with that. The British Activity Holiday Association, in a letter to me, mentioned a monitoring period lasting until December, whereas I think that I heard the hon. Lady mention September. Will she be kind enough to introduce some clarity on that important point?
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) who, as chairman of the all-party tourism group, is a man of considerable distinction in the House. I entirely agree that the role of tourism and major sporting events is crucial, and that we ought to consider that role in the new millennium.
  I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), especially about the strength of the pound, which has also been mentioned

  729
  with concern by the British Tourist Authority. I share his welcome for the removal of the threat of a levy on small businesses to pay for the Food Standards Agency, which would have had a serious effect on tourism.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on a lively contribution to the debate. Many hon. Members will agree that our licensing laws are utterly anomalous and need reform. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) about the importance of getting tourists away from the three main tourist destinations and persuading them to see the attractions elsewhere. I especially endorse her references to seaside resorts.
  The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) mentioned the familiar problems of seaside resorts, and said that the facilities in her constituency were not adequate for the major political parties. I simply suggest to her that, in view of their recent results in both the local and the European elections, perhaps the Liberal Democrats could be invited to hold their annual conference in Morecambe bay.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West made a powerful point about activity holidays, and I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say in response. I agree with what the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) said about her city. I recently visited Lincoln, and it is one of the great jewels of European civilisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, referred to our anomalous licensing laws and the fact that the tourism industry in the United States is exempt from the national minimum wage. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) talked about the importance of seaside resorts. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) talked about holidays for the disabled and the burden of regulations. I agree with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) that Kedleston and Hardwick, which I have visited, are wonderful places. She was right to point out that the pressures on the Peak district are enormous.
  Several hon. Members have referred to sustainable tourism, including my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) who spoke eloquently about the pressures in different parts of the country. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) took up the point in respect of the Lake district. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) talked about the importance of sporting events and developments in his constituency.
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued a press release on 21 May headed "Government support for tourism pays dividends". It was yet another smoke and mirrors exercise by the Department, because it talked about the 5 per cent. increase in tourists from abroad making the total more than 5 million. That contrasts with the figures put out by the British Incoming Tour Operators Association, which show a decline in the past year.
  The Labour party's pre-election strategy document for tourism and hospitality, called "Breaking New Ground", implicitly criticised the previous Government for having a balance of payments deficit in tourism of £2.95 billion in 1996. The tragic truth is that, by the end of last year, that deficit had nearly doubled to more than £5.6 billion. That all-time record deficit is very regrettable. In the first
  730
  three months of this year, the deficit grew even more. There was a lot of talk before the election about closing the gap, but that is not happening. The gap is getting wider.
  We have heard a great deal about the tourism strategy during the debate. The tourism industry in this country is not winning the battle against the competition. I hope that the Minister will make some specific comments about that.
  Labour's pre-election document referred to encouraging investment in our infrastructure. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey and I know from our visits to places such as Eastbourne, Scarborough and Torbay, which are heavily dependent on tourism, the infrastructure problem is causing serious anxiety. The roads programme in rural areas is being slashed. Highways are being detrunked and the financing is being transferred to cash-starved county councils, which are already putting up council tax by more than three times the rate of inflation.
  The Labour strategy document also referred to an integrated approach. We await with interest to see whether that will come about in practice. The Minister for Sport has been unable to persuade his colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment to work with him on vital issues such as the role of sport in the primary school curriculum, the role of competitive sport in secondary schools, school playing fields and the declining number of physical education teachers. What hope is there for tourism?
  We have heard that the English tourist board is being replaced by the English Tourism Council. Its remit has been ill defined and we are anxious to hear more about it. When the BTA was established by the Development of Tourism Act 1969, it was envisaged that amendments to that Act would be necessary to set up a body such as the English Tourism Council. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? It is not clear, and we have heard conflicting evidence.
  Several hon. Members made the point about small businesses being swamped by a floodtide of regulations. It is true that we have seen a huge increase in the number of statutory instruments coming from Whitehall, and the European Commission has also played its part. Since the general election, the Government have imposed 2,400 new regulations on businesses, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants has calculated that the average small business, with 100 employees, will suffer to the tune of an additional £5,000 in costs. We need sunset clauses and an independent body to prepare and audit compliance cost assessments of the burdensome regulations. The reverse is happening, and that is why we are seeing an increase in bankruptcies in the small business sector. The tourism industry is made up of thousands of small businesses that are dependent on the reduction of the burden of regulation. They do not want the enormous increase in regulation that we have seen in the past two years.
  The Minister will be aware that Cornwall is one of the premier tourist destinations in this country. She will also know about the eclipse in August and of the anxiety and concern that has legitimately been expressed in Cornwall about the future of tourism because of the hysterical reports that tourists will be fleeced, that the transport infrastructure will break down and that there will be water

  731
  distribution problems. The result has been that bookings are down in Cornwall. In particular, farmers who have set aside areas for holiday camps are in real difficulties.
  It is important that the Secretary of State visits Cornwall soon to assure the people that the Government support them. We need a positive message from the Government, otherwise Cornish tourism will be in real difficulties. However, I am fully satisfied that the planning co-ordination in Cornwall is more than adequate, and I hope that the Minister agrees.
  Tourism has been hit by higher taxes, higher business rates, higher fuel bills and the strong pound. Tourism has been subjected to considerable pressure, including the floodtide of unwanted regulation. People in tourism earn their livelihoods in a practical way, and they need help. They do not believe that glossy documents will solve their problems and they do not want the ever-growing tide of taxation and regulation. They want a joined-up Government working in their interest, although the evidence from the Department on sport is so far disappointing.
  Tourism waited and waited for the tourism strategy, but the best that can be said for it is that it is a curate's egg. By contrast, the Opposition have looked carefully at the tourism strategy, and we are working determinedly within our tourism policy forum to address all the issues that have arisen and worsened in the past two years to come up with some constructive ideas to address the concerns, hopes and aspirations of the millions of people employed in tourism and to make Britain the world-beating tourism destination that it thoroughly deserves to be.
  2.19 pm
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson):I wish to apologise if I do not refer by name to every Member who has contributed to the debate, but I have very little time left. I do not intend to give way, because I wish to try to answer as many of the points that have been raised as possible. I thank all those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. The wide range of issues that has been raised shows how right the Government's strategy is and how important an industry tourism is.
  As many hon. Members on both sides of the House pointed out, tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) referred to a tourism deficit in this country. He is quite right, and we aim to ensure that the United Kingdom gets its fair share of the growing international cake. That is precisely the reason for the Government's strategy, which was produced in February. As to the hon. Gentleman's specific point about Cornwall, I assure him that I intend to visit Cornwall shortly to see the situation for myself.
  We decided to entitle this Government debate "Tourism in the new millennium" and the subtitle of the strategy document is "A growth industry for the new millennium". The millennium dome at Greenwich—which has been mentioned in this debate—the millennium experience and all the millennium projects going on around the country will put the United Kingdom at the front of the world stage as we enter the 21st century. It is clear that the dome is already an international symbol of the millennium, and the British Tourist Authority estimates that it will generate an additional 2 million to 3 million visitors to this country.
  732
  I hope the deal that the New Millennium Experience Company has entered into with National Express—whereby people around the country will be charged a flat rate of £29.95, which includes entry fee, to travel by the coach to the millennium dome—will resolve some of the potential transport problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) for his congratulations on the fact that we have reached our sponsorship target for the dome—in fact, we have exceeded it. We are glad of his support.
  The Government's strategy document, "Tomorrow's Tourism", contains a raft of initiatives, which I will not outline in detail. However, I shall briefly summarise its main points. The strategy seeks to promote improved career opportunities in tourism. This week is hospitality week and many hon. Members have participated in constituency events designed to encourage more young people to enter that industry. The document aims to increase access to tourism for those on low incomes, for families, the elderly and the disabled—to which the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) referred specifically. We know that 40 per cent. of people do not take a holiday of any kind, and one of the roles of the new English Tourism Council—to which I shall refer shortly—will be to conduct research in that area. It is important to discover why that is so.
  The strategy aims to provide better information about tourism. Several hon. Members have said that it is often easier to gather information about holidays abroad than about holidays in this country. The British Tourist Authority is establishing 36 new websites in an attempt to improve that record. The document also seeks to promote the sustainable development of tourism, which is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) pointed out that we are approaching the tourism issue differently. Of course we want more people to visit this country, but we are looking at what that means for the future development of the industry. We must ensure that future generations enjoy the benefits of tourism. The strategy also seeks to develop and promote quality tourism experiences—I shall give some specifics in a moment—and to provide a new and improved structure for the industry.
  The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) asked why tourism was the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and not of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is because my Department is the best Department to deal with that industry. Our portfolio comprises other sectors and activities that are directly linked with tourism. Many hon. Members have referred to museums and art galleries, sport and film. The Department and the BTA jointly produced the movie map this week, and we intend to look carefully at the link between sport and tourism. That link is important now and will be even more so in the future. The development such niche markets and products formed an important part of our strategy.
  I assure the hon. Member for West Suffolk that we are serious about the joined-up approach to tourism across Whitehall. Many of the issues raised today are the responsibility of other Government Departments and that, of itself, proves that our annual tourism summit—involving representatives from all Government Departments and industry in planning future action in tourism—will be absolutely crucial. The first summit will take place early next year.

  733
  Matters raised today include transport planning and licensing laws. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) knows that I share many of his views on licensing laws, and I am grateful to him and his colleagues in the parliamentary beer club for keeping up the pressure for a proper review of the licensing laws in the near future. I have been working very closely with my colleague in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. We are examining carefully charges for telephone calls in hotels and the use of single person supplements, which the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) mentioned.
  I was pleased to find out recently that the Office of Fair Trading is mounting an investigation into pricing at motorway service areas, where I know that many products are more expensive than those on the high street. That cannot be right.
  An hon. Member—I believe it was my hon. Friend the Member for Test—referred to the Lake district. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is working on a transport strategy for that area. Anyone who knows what it is like to sit in a traffic jam near Lake Windermere on a Sunday will welcome the Department's actions. We are working with the DETR to ensure that our tourism strategy links in with its transport strategy.
  I reassure the House that "Tomorrow's Tourism" is not a "here today, forgotten tomorrow" strategy, but a springboard to the future and a document to which we shall return regularly.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the abolition of the English tourist board. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) asked in a timely intervention, if Opposition Members thought so much of the English tourist board, why during their tenure in office did they so substantially reduce its funding, from about £25 million to less than £10 million? Preparations are under way for the establishment of the English Tourism Council. I reassure the hon. Member for West Suffolk that we are considering how it should properly be constituted. The council is intended to provide better leadership to the industry. I was asked where people would go for information about the availability of holidays. They will be able to get such information from the regional tourist boards, which, as a result of our measures, will be able to bid for extra funding.
  We want the English Tourism Council to concentrate on research, particularly on emerging markets and sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) pointed out that not enough information was available about the link between sport and tourism.
  734
  Perhaps the council will consider that. It will also concentrate on quality, including work on accommodation schemes, attractions and seaside resorts. It will oversee systems of data collection; it will have an important role in championing sustainable tourism, and it will disseminate best practice and innovative ideas. The tourism forum's work will continue under the leadership of the council and it will be responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  We believe that the new, voluntary, harmonised accommodation ratings scheme, which, as my right hon. Friend said, will be implemented in September, will allow rating of accommodation according to consistent standards. That scheme has our full support and we believe that it will work. We welcome the intention to streamline the inspection system. We have said that, because accommodation standards are so important, we shall consider introducing statutory measures if that voluntary approach does not work.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the role of regional tourist boards, which have often been critical of the funding arrangements with the English tourist board. In future, they will be able to bid for funds from the tourism council to support projects in their region which meet the aims of the strategy in "Tomorrow's Tourism". Regional development agencies will also play an important role, as will the regional cultural consortiums. One or two Conservative Members have implied that the regional cultural consortiums are not important, but I point out that the consortiums will have a very strong voice and are extremely important for tourism.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned seaside resorts, which are already benefiting from single regeneration budget money, and we are making a strong case for them to be given serious consideration in the deliberations on objective 2 areas and assisted areas.
  I have almost run out of time, and I have been unable to cover one or two of the points raised. Perhaps I could write to hon. Members—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 21st June, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Secretary Marjorie Mowlam relating to the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; and the said Motion may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Pre-school Education
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I am pleased to raise the crucial subject of pre-school education. Interest in it is reflected in approximately 180 parliamentary questions since the general election and in at least three Adjournment debates—notably on 25 June 1997, 18 May 1998 and 28 April 1999, initiated by my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) respectively. My only regret thus far is that we have not in this Parliament had a debate on this vital subject in Government time, but I feel sure that that omission will soon be remedied.
  In preparation for today's debate, I have visited the Grendon, Little Ashes, Marsworth and Tingewick pre-school playgroups in my constituency, and I have plans to visit the Bright Start, Oakley and Bourton Meadow groups in the very near future. In addition, I have of course spoken to key players in the debate about this vital area of public policy. I shall give two examples.
  I have spoken to Rob Checketts, the campaigns and parliamentary affairs officer of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, a leading educational charity which has 18,000 constituent member organisations and caters for about 850,000 young children. I have spoken also to Mrs. Fiona Humphreys, a senior development worker in the alliance, and to Ann McPhee, the head of early-years education and child care at Buckinghamshire county council, which I must emphasise runs a very good ship. Its early-years development partnership is to be congratulated. Nothing that I say should be taken as cavilling at that record. This is a critical subject and I have done my best to focus on what I consider to be its essential features. I shall talk about the benefits that pre-schools bring, the problems that they face and the challenges that they pose to the Government.
  The benefits are increasingly accepted and clear for all to see. There is the opportunity to acquire language and creative and social skills. Typically, there are very good adult-child ratios—ordinarily 1:10, sometimes 1:8 and not infrequently 1:6. There is parental involvement in the provision of early-years education and child care, and an opportunity for parents to acquire experience, training and qualifications better to equip them for their lives not only as parents but, potentially, in the job market. There is an expectation of better career prospects, less criminality and decreased dependence on the state among people who have taken part in early-years education. Those are real advantages.
  We know of innumerable case studies of people who have benefited from such education—and of those who have not benefited, or have suffered from, incarceration within a formal school environment at too early an age. I think of the four-year-old boy in Surrey who was miserable in such an environment, did not get on and went into a pre-school where he did much better. I think of the four-year-old girl in north-west London, whose case has been brought to my attention, who did so much better in the relatively relaxed but constructive environment of a pre-school, where she received greater attention than she had in a formal school environment.
  736
  Moreover, the benefits are not theoretical and the evidence is not merely anecdotal. There is detailed and compelling evidence, not only from this country but from others, of the merits of pre-school education, which in Britain has been going on for at least 40 years. The National Foundation for Educational Research, the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have all pointed to the advantages of pre-schools and, as I have emphasised, to the potential long-term as well as short-term damage that children can suffer from premature starts to a structured school environment. Evidence to that effect is also available from other parts of western Europe and from research conducted by leading academics in the United States.
  Pre-schools face problems—principally, an exponential increase in closures. In 1997 and 1998, 1,500 pre-schools closed in this country, and it is anticipated that, in 1999, up to 1,700 such pre-schools will close. That is in spite of the fact that, in the first Adjournment debate to which I alluded, on 25 June 1997, the then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), said:
  "we will not end up with a local authority-dominated programme."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 800.]
  A week short of two years on, it is precisely with such a programme that we have to contend.
  In the most recent Adjournment debate, on 28 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), took pride in what she described as the Government's planned partnership approach. I hope that she will accept that, having made that remark, it is for her today to explain whether the expected closure of 1,700 pre-schools in 1999 is part of that planned partnership approach or an accidental consequence of the inadequacy of Government policies. We need to know, and I eagerly await the answer to that question.
  The Government have undertaken a review of pre-school provision, recognising that there is a problem. Yet we are told that that review, which is to report to Ministers in August, will show—I paraphrase the Under-Secretary—not what is causing pre-schools to close, but simply how they can contribute to the expansion of early-years education and child care in the future. We cannot have the second without having the first; the two are conceptually and inextricably related. We need to know what is causing the problem so that we can effectively tailor the solution.
  What is the source of the problem? There are many factors. First, there is no regulation of four-year-olds in school reception classes. There is no limit to the number of people who can be admitted. We know that, typically, there are adult-child ratios in those pre-school reception classes of 1:15 and sometimes 1:20, and that 90,000 children are in classes of 30 or more. Most people believe that that is far too large a class.
  The second factor, which in a sense is the cause and explanation of the first, is that schools, buoyed by the offer of £1,130 a year for a four-year-old to join their ranks, are saying to parents, "Come, come now, or come never". If the parent agrees and the child goes, the money is provided, and the place in primary school subsequently is secure. The inference that we draw—and the inference drawn by thousands of parents throughout the country—

  737
  is that, if parents do not agree to send their children into school reception classes at four, they will not have a place thereafter. The evidence is so strong as to be undeniable that what is taking place is educational force feeding on a massive scale, which effectively amounts to a change in the starting age for education.
  If the Under-Secretary believes that people should start school earlier, let the Government make a proposal, let it be debated and let the House decide whether it wants this to happen. It is simply not acceptable that the change should occur by default.
  The third factor is the impact of the national minimum wage and the working time directive. Higher wage costs, increased national insurance contributions and the obligation of paid leave are a triple whammy which is doing massive damage to independent private and voluntary sector playgroups the length and breadth of the country. I say in all sincerity to the Under-Secretary that I am not making a party political point about the minimum wage or the working time directive; that is a different debate. I accept that many people in those groups, as a cross-section of the population, might well support the minimum wage and the working time directive. Some of them tell me that they do. They are simply making the point that the ham-fisted manner of their introduction is damaging to their cause and that that is a source of regret.
  In considering these factors, it is ironic to reflect upon the performance of the Minister when she was in opposition. I am sure that she will not mind that I have been into the cupboard and have retrieved a skeleton for the House to consider. On 13 February 1996, during consideration of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, the hon. Lady supported an amendment which, if agreed to, would have required the imposition of a statutory limit, of an adult-child ratio of 1:13. The hon. Lady is nodding vigorously from a sedentary position. She is not seeking to disavow her record but is evidently proud of it.
  The corollary of that is that the hon. Lady must explain why she is now so dilatory about seeking to change the admission arrangements of reception classes and to oblige them to operate on a similar basis to the pre-school playgroups. It is precisely because there is no regulation that they are, like a vacuum, sucking in children and causing such problems for the pre-school playgroups.
  On 16 June, only two days ago but more than a year after this matter was first subjected to review and consultation, the hon. Lady told me that the Government were considering whether to make changes in the arrangements. That is not good enough. The time for consideration is fast coming to a conclusion. The time for decision, action and remedy is approaching, if it is not with us now.
  I do not doubt that the hon. Lady will tell us of the increased funding that the Government are providing to expand provision for three-year-olds—£41.5 million for 50 areas throughout the country to provide new free places for three-year-olds. There are two problems with that. First, that funding is being provided exclusively in metropolitan areas, and in areas where already the supply is good. The related point is that there is no funding or provision for rural areas, even though provision in those areas is frequently patchy.
  Is there to be funding for some rural areas? If so, when will it be provided? Will the hon. Lady tell the House exactly how many more pre-schools will close in the
  738
  interim? She will recognise that the situation is not static; it is fluid, it is evolving and it is constantly worsening. How many pre-school playgroup closures are an acceptable price to pay during the period in which Ministers cogitate before they come to a decision?
  The hon. Lady's charm and persuasive powers are admired by many hon. Members throughout the House. However, I am sorry to have to tell her that her speech in May to the Pre-School Learning Alliance was not regarded as an unalloyed triumph. On that occasion, those present looked for reassurance. They were worried and they hoped that their worries would be assuaged. Yet, at the end of her contribution, they felt no better than they did at its start.
  The challenge to the Minister is clear. There is a problem and it needs to be tackled. While Ministers dither, pre-schools die. In the short term, pre-schools need the kiss of life. In the medium term, and certainly in the long term, they need a level playing field upon which they can compete. I hope that the hon. Lady can offer me that reassurance and that pledge. I shall resume my place in eager anticipation of what the Minister has to say by way of reply.
  2.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on securing this debate. I bumped into him yesterday in the Strangers Bar, where I was able to congratulate him outside the Chamber—I take the opportunity of doing so now within the Chamber—on his promotion to the Opposition Front Bench. I said to him then, and I say to him now, that I look forward to sparring with him in future. Anybody tutored by Jonathan Aitken must have learned a thing or two.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising an issue that is crucial to children and their families—a view that we share. My encounter with him yesterday was made doubly pleasurable because he introduced me to the person whom he was with, who was the representative of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, to whom he alluded earlier.
  As I hope to demonstrate, the Government support a vibrant voluntary sector infrastructure for the early years in our communities. It is an essential element of the third way philosophy to work in partnership with the private, voluntary and public sectors. I was therefore somewhat bemused to find that one of our partners seems to be rather busy inspiring debates—such as the one that has found its way into the Chamber today—which seek to challenge, criticise and undermine the Government's approach. I find that a rather strange way for the PLA to engage in dialogue with the Government. It is certainly not our third way. Perhaps it represents the emergence of a fourth way, in which the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the new Conservative Front-Bench team may be involved—a way that seems to lead nowhere fast.
  I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that our aim for early-years education is to provide the very best start for our young children. That is essential because, as he knows, it is the way that we create true equality of opportunity. In the British education system in particular, it is vital for us to do so if we are to deal with the long tail of underachievement that has been a factor in our education for far too long.

  739
  I share the hon. Gentleman's view that Buckinghamshire county council is doing a good job in developing a strong partnership locally and providing a good infrastructure in early-years education. I am delighted that the council has made good use of the substantial additional resources that we have given it. This year alone, there has been a 13.5 per cent. increase in the council's SSA for the early years. It now has a budget of £9.3 million from the Government to establish that infrastructure.
  In addressing early-years education, the hon. Gentleman dealt only with the Pre-School Learning Alliance. I regret that. As I said, for us it is the entire infrastructure and the offer, together with the diversity represented by the statutory sector, the private sector—to which the hon. Gentleman did not allude—and the voluntary sector, which provide the strength of the emerging early-years education offer that we are developing.

  Four out of five of our young children are getting their early-years education experience in nursery schools, nursery classes or reception classes. Those concerned with early-years education should consider what is happening there, what the offer is, how we can improve it, and what is going right or wrong, if they want to ensure the best start for all the children in their community.
  It does not matter where children receive their early-years education. The institution, whatever we call it, does not matter. What matters is the nature of the experience that children enjoy in the setting, whatever it is. It is important that that experience should be appropriate to the age of the child and to the stage in that child's development.
  Mr. Bercow: I agree with the hon. Lady that it is the nature of the experience within the setting that matters. However, does she accept that there is a relationship between the adult-child ratio, especially in the early years, and the nature of the experience? In other words, if the adult-child ratio in a school reception class is unfavourable, the experience suffers. Does she accept that a haemorrhage is taking place in the independent, voluntary and private sectors, and that the Government must address that?
  Ms Hodge: I accept that one of the factors that impacts on the nature of the experience that young children enjoy is the ratio of adults to children. That is why we have consulted on regulation, and why I hope to announce shortly some conclusions from that consultation process. However, other things matter, such as the training and qualifications of those who work with young children, the nature of children's play and learning in the setting, the curriculum, the desirable learning outcomes—on which we are consulting—and the inspection regime, which we have had in train for the part of early-years education that attracts the nursery education grant. Again, there is not a unified system.
  A range of issues matter, of which the ratio of adults to children is only one, although I am delighted that a Conservative Member has suddenly accepted that that ratio, which we believe matters for five, six and seven-year-olds as well, is important. It is a shame that that was not recognised somewhat earlier, when the hon. Gentleman's colleagues were in government.
  740
  We clearly value the role that the Pre-School Learning Alliance plays in the early-years education offer and, because of that, we set aside £500,000 last year to ensure that those pre-schools that were in difficulty could be sustained while they adjusted to a new arena. This year, we have set aside a further £500,000 for the same purpose. I have quite properly established a review to find out, but not in a negative way, why some pre-schools, as they existed in the past, closed. However, it will also examine, in a positive way, how, during the massive expansion in the funding of early-years education and as shown by the Pre-School Learning Alliance—the voluntary sector can contribute to that expansion.
  The hon. Gentleman must accept that, if we are spending over four years 30 per cent. above what his party spent in its last four years in government; if there is such massive expansion; and if the voluntary sector can participate in that expansion, we must find out what barriers are preventing expansion. He makes claims, which have been put to him by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, of extensive closures. He will know that our figures do not show that. The figures that we have published in the education statistics on children's day care facilities show a reduction of about only 100 pre-schools to the year ending March 1998. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am happy to ensure that he is sent the tables showing those figures. As he knows, we are in discussion with the Pre-School Learning Alliance to see whether and how we can reconcile our differing views.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Ms Hodge: I shall give way, but I will not be able to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. My question is simple: if, at the end of this year, the Pre-School Learning Alliance provides her with a list of the pre-school groups—named, area by area—that have closed, will she retract her remarks and admit that she was wrong and it was right?
  Ms Hodge: No, I will not, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. I do not distrust the figures that are being put together by officials on the basis of official data; the reality of what is happening is in the very nature of a voluntary pre-school movement.
  Pre-schools open and close. They open when a particularly active group of parents want to establish a pre-school, but those parents may not be replaced as they move on over time or the need for a pre-school in a particular area disappears. One school may close, but another may open. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example: in Cumbria last year, seven pre-schools closed, but nine new ones opened. The opening and closing of pre-schools is intrinsic and essential to the value and the nature of the pre-school movement. That is why I have some problem with the Pre-School Learning Alliance's figures and why I am delighted that we are engaging in a debate with it to determine whose figures are right.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, our guidelines speak about ensuring the health of the voluntary and private sectors in local partnership. When I approved all the early-years child care partnerships, I took particular care

  741
  to look at the health of the private and voluntary sector partnerships. We shall double the number of places available to three-year-olds in the coming period, so I have stressed in the guidance that, as this Government are in the driving seat for the first time, we expect to see diversity in the approach that is taken.
  There has been no sudden increase in the number of children going into statutory settings since we came to office. The figures show that, in January 1998, 79 per cent. of four-year-olds were in an LEA setting. That figure reflected the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government as a result of their ill-conceived nursery vouchers scheme. The most recent figures that we have, for January 1999, show that, a year after we came to office, the figure is exactly the same. There has been absolutely no change. Therefore, the suggestion that, since this Government came to power and started to expand early-years education, there has been a surge of children leaving the voluntary and private sector and going into the statutory sector is simply not borne out by the figures.
  The hon. Gentleman discussed a number of issues. The early experience of Ofsted inspections demonstrates that the diversity and quality of the voluntary and statutory sectors are influencing parental choice. The voluntary sector has made great strides in improving quality, but if we want to give parents a choice, showing them openly the results of those inspections is bound to influence that choice. I referred to regulation and ratios. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the time for consideration is fast coming to a conclusion, and I assure him that we are doing that.
  On the minimum wage, the hon. Gentleman and I simply disagree. One of his hon. Friends wrote to me recently about a pre-school in his constituency that was complaining about the impact of the minimum wage. He showed me the budget of that pre-school, which showed
  742
  that some of the people there, who were working with young children at a crucial period in their development, were being paid £1.80 an hour. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is appropriate, in an early-years setting, to have people paid at that very low rate, I have to disagree. I am all for voluntary support by parents, whether the setting is private, voluntary or statutory, but I cannot accept that young children should be cared for and educated, at a stage when they develop so quickly, by people who are paid that ridiculously low rate.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the expansion of nursery education for three-year-olds. As he knows, we are determined to extend our early-years offer. We have said that we will double the number of places available for three-year-olds during this Parliament. We started that expansion this year in the 57 most deprived areas; next year, all areas, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency, will be able to enjoy it.
  A debate that simply supports the Pre-School Learning Alliance is, at worst, muddled, illogical and ill-thought-out, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to think again. If it reflects the beginning of a change in Conservative party policy, it will lead to the destruction of parental choice at the behest of one specific producer interest. That should not be what we are about. It will curtail the independence of local authorities, partnerships and schools to determine, in a locally accountable way, their own policies and procedures. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) argued strongly against that when he was—
  The motion having been made at half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passports
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department gives to persons who(a) need a passport urgently and (b) have not received their passport and are due to travel in the immediate future. [86971]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Passport Agency is currently processing applications by customers' declared travel dates, and is meeting those dates for 99.99 per cent. of passports issued.

  In circumstances where a passport has not been received and an applicant is travelling within four days, the Agency's advice is to attend personally at the office to which the application was made. This should not be left to the last day in case there are problems with the application.

  Where the travel need is less pressing but still urgent my letter to hon. Members of 10 June gave contact telephone and fax numbers that should be used for urgent inquiries by passport applicants. Alternatively and as indicated in the Agency's any problems leaflet, applicants can write to Kevin Sheehan, the Agency's Director of Operations at Passport Agency Headquarters, Room 201, Clive House, Petty France, London SW1H 9HD.

  The Agency's policy is to reimburse applicants if unsatisfactory service causes them additional expense, for example through having to call personally at a passport office.

  Postal Votes
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the incidence of doctors(a) refusing to authenticate applications for postal votes on medical grounds and (b) charging a fee for signing postal votes; and if he will make a statement. [87463]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There is no way in which such an assessment could be made. The legal position is that, under paragraph 37 and Schedule 9 of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992, a doctor must issue certain certificates to his or her patients free of charge. These include attestations for absent votes, provided that they are required on grounds of physical incapacity. Anyone who has been charged a fee should in the first instance discuss the situation with the doctor concerned to determine if a refund is appropriate. If the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily in this way, the patient should contact the local Family Health Services Authority, which has powers to investigate such complaints.

  Ballot Papers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory requirements which require the Electoral Roll number to be written on the ballot paper at elections; and if he will make a statement. [87504]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The provisions of Rule 37 of the Parliamentary Elections Rules (Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983), which is also applied to European Parliamentary and local elections, requires a voter's electoral registration number to be written on the counterfoil of the ballot paper issued to that voter. Writing that number on the ballot paper would cause the voter to be identified. Under rule 47(1)(c), such a ballot paper would be liable to be declared void when the votes were counted.

  Deportation Orders
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders were enforced in May. [87011]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is not currently available from central data sources and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  British Nationality Act 1981
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the British Nationality Act 1981 to allow those born abroad to British women prior to 1 January 1983 to be deemed to have British nationality; and if he will make a statement.[87356]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since February 1979, minors born abroad to British mothers have been able to acquire British nationality on application. Those born after 1 January 1983 are automatically British citizens at birth. It was decided in 1981 not to make these changes retrospective. We have no plans to alter the position.

  Cycling (Fixed Penalty Offence)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to implement the fixed penalty offence of cycling on the pavement; and if he will make a statement. [87358]

  Mr. Boateng
  We intend that it will come into force in August this year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Robert Hamill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date investigators ordered a transcript of police radio messages in the Portadown area on the night of the attack on Mr. Robert Hamill; what measures have been taken to ensure the security of the original tape; if the transcript was made available to(a) prosecution lawyers and (b) defence lawyers, (c) the legal representatives of the Hamill family and (d) herself; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [86141]
  231
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 June 1999]The RUC have advised that the investigators obtained the original radio tape on 9 May 1997 and this was made available to the Director of Public Prosecutions as part of the RUC prosecution case. Transcripts were made available to the DPP and, under disclosure rules in criminal cases, to defence lawyers in the case R -v- Hobson. No transcripts have been made available to any other parties, including the Secretary of State's office. The original tape will be secured for future reference by the Chief Constable on its return to the RUC.

  Mrs. Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates US Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel have been in Northern Ireland in connection with the investigation of the death of Rosemary Nelson; and what has been their role in the investigation. [86142]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 June 1999]I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 16 June 1999,Official Report, column 140.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 5 June the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved(a) Loyalist and (b) Republican groups. [87161]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of security incidents during the period 30 May-5 June 1999 are shown:

  Number

  Deaths

  1

  shooting incidents

  2

  Bombing incidents

  7

  The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  2

  2

  Shootings

  0

  1

  Total

  2

  3

  Notes:

  1. The shooting and bombing incidents cannot as yet be firmly attributed to a grouping.

  2.Figures may be subject to minor amendment.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 29 May the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved(a) Loyalist and (b) Republican groups. [87163]
  232
  Mr. Ingram
  The number of security incidents during the period 23–29 May 1999 are shown:

  Number

  Deaths

  0

  Shooting incidents

  1

  Bombing incidents

  2

  The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  0

  0

  Shootings

  0

  1

  Total

  0

  1

  Notes:

  1.The shooting and bombing incidents cannot as yet be firmly attributed to a grouping.

  2.Figures may be subject to minor amendment.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 29 May the number of(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [87164]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of paramilitary attacks during the period 23–29 May are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  0

  0

  Shootings

  0

  1

  Total

  0

  1

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 5 June the number of(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups.[87162]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of paramilitary attacks during the period 30 May-5 June are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  2

  2

  Shootings

  0

  1

  Total

  2

  3

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to her Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day.[87317]
  233
  Marjorie Mowlam
  Between 15 April and 15 June my Department dealt with 58 named day questions of which 30, or 51.6 per cent., were given substantive answers on the day specified.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sites of special scientific interest there were in Northern Ireland on 31 March; and what was their total area in hectares. [87269]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service under their acting chief executive, Mr. J. R. Lamont. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. R. Lamont to Mr. John Randall, dated 17 June 1999:
  As Acting Chief Executive of the Environment and Heritage Service, I am responsible for operational aspects of protection of the natural heritage on behalf of the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland. I am responding to the Parliamentary Question you put down on 23 June 1999 about the number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in Northern Ireland as at 31 March and their total hectarage.
  In Northern Ireland SSSIs are known as Areas of Special Scientific Interest and at 31 March 1999 there were 159 covering a total area of 83441 hectares.
  I trust you will find this helpful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid Payments (Northern Ireland Solicitors)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the range of sums paid per hour to solicitors in Northern Ireland in respect of legal aid payments; and what is the average taxed rate. [87377]

  Mr. Vaz
  The hourly rate ranges from £24.25 in respect of travelling and waiting time for a Legal Advice and Assistance case to £64.50 in respect of advocacy by a senior solicitor in a Crown Court criminal case. The current hourly rate in civil cases is £66.50. Additionally for care and conduct these rates are subject to a percentage uplift which is normally in the range of 50 per cent. to 100 per cent.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Lindane
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the use of lindane as a pesticide. [87944]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have noted the concerns raised about this compound and the assessment made by the Austrian authorities under the EU review of agricultural pesticides. The Government therefore asked the independent experts of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides to examine all the issues which have been raised.
  234
  The Committee advised that lindane does not pose an unacceptable risk to consumers but that the exposure of operators using lindane to treat seed was above acceptable levels. Ministers have therefore decided that the use of lindane as a seed treatment should cease immediately and that further conditions should be applied to some other agricultural and non-agricultural uses. Companies have until 28 June to make representations on the action proposed.

  The Committee advised that more data are needed on the environmental effects of lindane. This point will be pursued as a priority.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [86994]

  Angela Eagle
  We are committed to making sure that policies are inclusive and take full account of the needs and experiences of all those affected by them. Guidelines on Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment, published in November 1998, commit policy makers to assessing how proposals affect different groups of people.

  We are making use of consultation, research projects and disaggregated statistics to identify the impact of policy on women. We routinely consult a wide variety of organisations on policy proposals. Within that process we are committed to including women's groups to ensure that the women's perspective is taken into consideration. As an example, a number of women's organisations, including the Women's National Commission, were consulted in connection with our proposals for ONE (formerly the Single Work-focused Gateway) and a summary of responses has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many ministerial cars there were for the use of his Department's Ministers in May 1997; and how many ministerial cars there currently are for the use of (i) his Department's Ministers and (ii) the Ministers of the new Scottish Executive; [86458]

  (2) how many cars have been purchased for the use of Ministers of the new Scottish Executive. [86394]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government Car Service in Scotland provides or arranges the provision of transport for Ministers of UK Government Departments when in Scotland, senior members of the Scottish judiciary, and the most senior Departmental officials. Following the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the appointment of Ministers of the Scottish Executive, the service has been made available
  235
  also to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, to Ministers of the Scottish Executive, and to Deputy Ministers.

  No cars have been purchased for the sole use of any users of the Government Car Service in Scotland. In May 1997 the Government Car Service in Scotland comprised 8 cars. However, to handle increased demand for services the fleet was expanded earlier this year by the addition of 3 cars, taking the total number to 11.

  From 1 July the provision of cars for the Scottish Executive by the Government Car Service in Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (i) written and (ii) oral questions were answered by his Department in 1998; and how many of them were on matters which will be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. [86360]

  Dr. Reid
  2,131 written and oral questions were answered by my Department in 1998. A breakdown in the format requested is not readily available and could be provided only by incurring disproportionate cost.

  My Department has indicated in written and oral replies to parliamentary questions answered after 26 January 1999 whether, following the transfer of functions, the issue will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

WALES

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his future role. [86341]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on 9 June 1999,Official Report, column 358.

  Correspondence
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will reply to the letter dated 30 March addressed to him and other Ministers by the hon. Member for Solihull. [86848]

  Mr. Michael
  After a thorough search, I regret that my Department could find no record of my having received a letter dated 30 March from the hon. Member.

  I have written to the hon. Member inviting him to send me a copy of the letter. I will then ensure that it is answered as quickly as possible.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87332]

  Mr. Michael
  Forty five, of which 87 per cent. received a substantive response on the named day.

  Inward Investment (American Companies)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the companies based in the USA which have a presence in Wales indicating in each case the location and number of workers employed. [87459]

  Mr. Hain
  I have asked for the information to be prepared. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Waterhouse Inquiry
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the findings of the Waterhouse Inquiry into Child Abuse in North Wales. [87457]

  Mr. Michael
  The Tribunal of Inquiry has not yet submitted its report. It will be presented to Parliament as quickly as possible as soon as it is received.

  Tourism
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in rank order by country the number of international overnight visits to Wales in each of the past 10 years. [87458]

  Mr. Hain
  The readily available information is for the years 1990 to 1997. The figures are estimates compiled by the Wales Tourist Board, based on sample survey results from the International Passenger Survey supplemented with estimates for the Irish Republic.

  Top 10 generating countries

  Number

  1990

  Total overseas visits to Wales

  680,000

  1. USA

  145,000

  2. West Germany

  96,000

  3. Australia

  75,000

  4. Canada

  51,000

  5. Republic of Ireland

  50,000

  6. France

  47,000

  7. Netherlands

  37,000

  8. New Zealand

  19,000

  9. Italy

  16,000

  10. Belgium/Luxembourg

  14,000

  1991

  Total overseas visits to Wales

  650,000

  1. USA

  122,000

  2. Germany

  101,000

  3. France

  54,000

  4. Republic of Ireland

  54,000

  5. Netherlands

  48,000

  6. Australia

  48,000

  7. Canada

  33,000

  8. Belgium/Luxembourg

  22,000

  9. Italy

  20,000

  10. New Zealand

  13,000

  1992

  Total overseas visits to Wales

  670,000

  1. USA

  131,000

  2. Germany

  103,000

  3. France

  69,000

  4. Republic of Ireland

  53,000

  5. Australia

  47,000

  6. Canada

  36,000

  7. Netherlands

  33,000

  8. Belgium/Luxembourg

  26,000

  9. Switzerland

  16,000

  10. Spain

  14,000

  237

  Top 10 generating countries

  Number

  1993

  Total overseas visits to Wales

  690,000

  1. USA

  131,000

  2. Germany

  107,000

  3. France

  78,000

  4. Republic of Ireland

  52,000

  5. Netherlands

  43,000

  6. Australia

  42,000

  7. Canada

  36,000

  8. Belgium/Luxembourg

  24,000

  9. Italy

  24,000

  10. Sweden

  17,000

  1994

  Total overseas visits to Wales

  680,000

  1. USA

  140,000

  2. Germany

  109,000

  3. France

  53,000

  4. Republic of Ireland

  53,000

  5. Australia

  48,000

  6. Canada

  40,000

  7. Netherlands

  35,000

  8. South Africa

  18,000

  9. Belgium/Luxembourg

  17,000

  10. Italy

  17,000

  1995

  Total overseas visits to Wales

  730,000

  1. USA

  143,000

  2. Germany

  101,000

  3. France

  66,000

  4. Republic of Ireland

  64,000

  5. Australia

  45,000

  6. Netherlands

  41,000

  7. Canada

  36,000

  8. Italy

  25,000

  9. Belgium/Luxembourg

  20,000

  10. Switzerland

  16,000

  1996

  Total overseas visits to Wales

  830,000

  1. USA

  141,000

  2. France

  87,000

  3. Germany

  79,000

  4. Australia

  67,000

  5. Republic of Ireland

  66,000

  6. Netherlands

  61,000

  7. Canada

  41,000

  8. Spain

  25,000

  9. Italy

  22,000

  10. New Zealand

  14,000

  1997

  Total overseas visits to Wales

  920,000

  1. USA

  154,000

  2. Germany

  145,000

  3. France

  84,000

  4. Republic of Ireland

  80,000

  5. Australia

  77,000

  6. Netherlands

  66,000

  7. Canada

  45,000

  8. Belgium/Luxembourg

  27,000

  9. Italy

  27,000

  10. Spain

  25,000

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Foreign Consulates
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the countries which have(a)established consulates in Wales and (b)made inquiries about establishing consulates in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [87460]
  238
  Mr. Hain
  The Republic of Ireland has recently established a Consulate in Cardiff. The following countries have established Honorary Consulates in Wales: Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Tunisia, and Turkey. I understand there are no requests at present from other countries to establish a Consulate in Wales.

  The establishment of a Consular presence in Wales by a particular country is a matter for the Government of that country. I can see that a Consular presence could bring many advantages to both countries. I would welcome any proposals to establish Consulate offices in Wales.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a participant on a European Social Fund course of training is covered by the Department's Analogous Industrial Injuries Compensation Scheme. [85755]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Unemployed people participating in DfEE funded work-based training schemes which are receiving ESF assistance are covered by the DfEE's Analogous Industrial Injuries Scheme. Unemployed people who are participating in Work Trials, or the new deal, programmes supported by the Employment Service, are also covered by the scheme.

  The Analogous Industrial Injuries Scheme applies only to ESF courses where the matched funding comes from DfEE funding for programmes for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already decided it may apply. People participating in other courses supported by ESF are not covered by the scheme.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the maximum number of hours per week that a trainee on a European Social Fund training course can undertake without affecting his entitlement to receive jobseeker's allowance. [85752]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A jobseeker may undertake a training course, whether or not part-funded by ESF, providing he is not a full-time student and he continues to meet the Jobseeker's Allowance entitlement conditions. An Employment Service Adjudication Officer will determine, in each case, whether the jobseeker is a full-time or a part-time student.

  Under the Jobseekers Act 1995, a person must be available for employment in order to be entitled to JSA, and under regulation 11 of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996, a part-time student may, in prescribed circumstances, be available for employment. The maximum number of hours of study a student can undertake and still be considered a 'part-time' student is not fixed by the Regulations in every case. Full-time student' is defined in regulation 1(3). Paragraph (b)(ii) of that definition specifies an FEFC funded course of more than 16 hours a week, but paragraph (b)(i) which deals with non-FEFC funded courses, does not specify a number of hours.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, by local authority,(a) the number of pupils in classes of more than 30, (b) the percentage of pupils in classes of 31 or more,

  Number and percentage of pupils in classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher and pupils on roll in maintained primary and secondary schools by Local Education Authority area in England January 1997

  Primary schools Pupils in class

  Secondary schools Pupils in class

  Pupils in classes of 31 or more

  (%)1

  Average size of class2

  Pupils on roll3

  Pupils in classes of 31 or more

  (%)1

  Average size of class2

  Pupils on roll3

  England

  1,344,231

  33

  27.5

  4,429,043

  245,420

  9

  21.7

  3,041,584

  North East

  68,173

  30

  27.2

  248,434

  14,665

  9

  22.0

  177,905

  Hartlepool

  2,833

  30

  28.0

  10.538

  413

  7

  22.0

  6,176

  Middlesbrough

  3,700

  24

  26.5

  17,267

  349

  4

  22.0

  8,608

  Redcar and Cleveland

  4,576

  31

  27.4

  16,680

  549

  6

  22.2

  10,161

  Stockton-on-Tees

  4,507

  24

  26.8

  20,531

  415

  3

  22.2

  12,517

  Durham

  21,429

  41

  28.5

  57,442

  3,398

  10

  22.5

  37,976

  Northumberland

  8,314

  43

  27.0

  21,839

  3,959

  15

  22.6

  30,052

  Gateshead

  2,112

  13

  25.8

  18,566

  662

  6

  20.4

  11,745

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6,904

  34

  27.6

  22,220

  1,569

  10

  21.5

  17,378

  North Tyneside

  4,779

  31

  27.1

  17.027

  1,419

  11

  21.9

  14,369

  South Tyneside

  3,996

  28

  27.0

  16,175

  758

  8

  22.7

  9,724

  Sunderland

  5,023

  18

  26.0

  30.149

  1,174

  7

  21.3

  19,199

  North West and Merseyside

  242,764

  39

  27.9

  686,676

  42,673

  10

  21.8

  437,763

  North West

  201,712

  41

  28.1

  539,526

  34,935

  11

  22.0

  341,745

  Cheshire

  33,630

  39

  27.5

  92,808

  7,140

  12

  21.3

  65,767

  Cumbria

  11,984

  29

  26.3

  44,895

  3,406

  11

  21.2

  32,372

  Bolton

  11,422

  49

  28.9

  28,512

  2,324

  14

  22.1

  17,798

  Bury

  7,178

  44

  28.3

  18,095

  1,510

  14

  23.1

  11,100

  Manchester

  10,615

  25

  27.2

  46,356

  1,801

  9

  22.4

  22,233

  Oldham

  10,645

  48

  29.3

  25,111

  1,048

  7

  22.2

  16,676

  Rochdale

  9,004

  45

  29.6

  22,354

  1,325

  11

  22.8

  13,168

  Salford

  7,043

  31

  27.3

  23,828

  501

  4

  22.1

  12,078

  Stockport

  9,446

  37

  27.8

  26,941

  947

  6

  23.1

  15,677

  Tameside

  11,566

  53

  29.3

  23,830

  1,195

  9

  23.0

  14,220

  Trafford

  9,693

  50

  28.9

  21,462

  609

  5

  21.7

  13,225

  Wigan

  11,098

  42

  28.5

  30,276

  1,311

  7

  21.5

  19,984

  Lancashire

  58,388

  47

  28.8

  135,058

  11,818

  14

  22.5

  87,447

  Merseyside

  41,052

  31

  27.1

  147,150

  7,738

  9

  20.9

  96,018

  Knowsley

  5,820

  33

  27.7

  19,788

  579

  6

  22.1

  9,670

  Liverpool

  12,581

  27

  26.8

  49,345

  2,936

  10

  21.1

  31,767

  St. Helens

  6,270

  41

  27.8

  18,027

  1,265

  11

  19.9

  11,873

  Sefton

  9,634

  38

  27.6

  28,115

  1,269

  7

  21.1

  19,630

  Wirral

  6,747

  23

  26.3

  31,875

  1,689

  8

  20.5

  23,078

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  159,744

  37

  27.9

  482,447

  27,167

  9

  21.9

  334,065

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  10,254

  40

  28.3

  27,126

  1,148

  6

  21.0

  20,789

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  10,164

  39

  28.8

  28,446

  1,345

  9

  24.3

  15,082

  North East Lincolnshire

  6,228

  40

  28.1

  17,265

  1,445

  14

  23.2

  11,185

  North Lincolnshire

  4,932

  36

  27.7

  14,972

  1,281

  13

  22.5

  10,398

  York

  4,961

  35

  27.6

  14,905

  670

  8

  21.6

  9,320

  North Yorkshire

  15,129

  34

  26.3

  47.927

  2,174

  6

  20.6

  37,039

  Barnsley

  9,082

  44

  28.9

  22,216

  726

  6

  23.2

  12,932

  Doncaster

  10,052

  35

  28.1

  31,343

  979

  5

  21.5

  20,734

  Rotherham

  8,094

  34

  27.7

  25,822

  1,276

  8

  21.6

  19,150

  Sheffield

  11,261

  28

  26.9

  46,380

  2,054

  8

  22.7

  27,447

  Bradford

  13,443

  39

  28.3

  42,327

  5,771

  14

  23.2

  46,179

  Calderdale

  6,185

  33

  28.0

  20.605

  884

  7

  20.9

  14,067

  Kirklees

  15,730

  48

  29.0

  38,649

  2,504

  11

  22.5

  25,564

  Leeds

  22,031

  35

  28.3

  71,508

  2,819

  7

  20.7

  44,423

  Wakefield

  12,198

  41

  28.2

  32,956

  2,091

  11

  22.2

  19,756

  East Midlands

  133,725

  39

  27.8

  377,257

  18,359

  7

  21.6

  272,020

  Derbyshire

  44,864

  55

  29.3

  89,507

  6,067

  11

  22.2

  58,890

  Leicestershire

  22,862

  30

  26.7

  83,027

  3,489

  6

  22.3

  61,800

  Lincolnshire

  14,644

  29

  26.9

  53,619

  1,525

  4

  20.2

  39,997

  Northamptonshire

  13,015

  26

  27.0

  54,701

  2,034

  5

  21.0

  45,934

  240
  (c) the average class size and (d) the total number of pupils in maintained (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in January 1997. [86975]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is shown in the following table:
  241

  Number and percentage of pupils in classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher and pupils on roll in maintained primary and secondary schools by Local Education Authority area in England January 1997

  Primary schools Pupils in class

  Secondary schools Pupils in class

  Pupils in classes of 31 or more

  (%)1

  Average size of class2

  Pupils on roll3

  Pupils in classes of 31 or more

  (%)1

  Average size of class2

  Pupils on roll3

  Nottinghamshire

  38,340

  44

  28.7

  96,403

  5,244

  9

  21.7

  65,399

  West Midlands

  152,230

  33

  27.4

  511,667

  37,160

  11

  22.0

  350,644

  Hereford and Worcester

  12,527

  25

  26.0

  52,887

  6,286

  14

  22.0

  47,636

  Shropshire

  13,545

  38

  27.4

  38,067

  2,778

  12

  21.9

  26,109

  Staffordshire

  31,492

  35

  27.5

  96,437

  9,818

  15

  22.2

  71,712

  Warwickshire

  17,493

  43

  28.5

  43,662

  2,397

  9

  22.2

  30,280

  Birmingham

  24,848

  26

  27.7

  109,673

  7,776

  13

  21.8

  66,867

  Coventry

  8,641

  31

  27.6

  30,478

  1,846

  10

  22.6

  19,738

  Dudley

  6,904

  27

  26.5

  30,884

  671

  4

  23.1

  18,912

  Sandwell

  12,606

  44

  28.9

  32,962

  1,343

  7

  21.7

  19,087

  Solihull

  8,478

  43

  27.9

  21,581

  1,141

  8

  21.9

  14,387

  Walsall

  7,527

  32

  26.2

  28,743

  1,813

  10

  20.7

  20,078

  Wolverhampton

  8,169

  38

  26.9

  26,293

  1,291

  9

  21.0

  15,838

  Eastern

  121,738

  29

  26.9

  448,359

  22,874

  7

  21.3

  348,217

  Bedfordshire

  12,890

  33

  27.4

  44,748

  3,330

  8

  22.5

  46,378

  Cambridgeshire

  20,831

  36

  28.2

  60,924

  3,793

  10

  22.1

  42,018

  Essex

  38,831

  30

  27.3

  136,385

  8,263

  9

  21.7

  97,649

  Hertfordshire

  27,264

  33

  27.1

  92,397

  5,291

  8

  20.3

  70,982

  Norfolk

  13,402

  22

  25.9

  66,666

  919

  2

  20.2

  41,583

  Suffolk

  8,520

  19

  25.0

  47,239

  1,278

  3

  21.1

  49,607

  London

  117,578

  22

  27.1

  624,655

  22,096

  7

  21.7

  375,145

  Inner London

  15,393

  8

  26.3

  226,370

  3,992

  4

  22.4

  117,536

  City of London

  0

  0

  26.0

  208

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Camden

  698

  8

  27.1

  11,294

  188

  2

  20.3

  10,932

  Hackney

  824

  6

  26.1

  18,141

  312

  5

  22.3

  7,347

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,106

  14

  25.3

  9,465

  511

  10

  22.6

  6,040

  Haringey

  851

  5

  26.9

  21,610

  290

  3

  21.6

  10,069

  Islington

  702

  5

  26.6

  16,232

  270

  4

  24.0

  7,580

  Kensington and Chelsea

  219

  4

  25.3

  6,568

  161

  6

  20.2

  3,313

  Lambeth

  1,192

  8

  25.2

  19,193

  252

  4

  21.9

  6,589

  Lewisham

  1,207

  7

  26.1

  21,984

  0

  0

  20.7

  10,857

  Newham

  3,021

  13

  27.9

  28,543

  313

  2

  24.5

  15,655

  Southwark

  1,748

  9

  26.4

  23,182

  639

  8

  24.4

  9,157

  Tower Hamlets

  1,047

  6

  26.2

  22,472

  197

  2

  24.0

  13,060

  Wandsworth

  2,299

  15

  25.8

  17,874

  691

  9

  22.0

  9,280

  Westminster

  479

  7

  24.2

  9,604

  168

  3

  21.5

  7,657

  Outer London

  102,185

  30

  27.5

  398,285

  18,104

  8

  21.4

  257,609

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,022

  13

  27.0

  17,883

  840

  9

  20.8

  10,143

  Barnet

  2,456

  11

  26.2

  25,981

  689

  4

  19.8

  19,783

  Bexley

  9,314

  45

  28.8

  22,223

  1,982

  14

  21.8

  15,317

  Brent

  2,383

  13

  26.5

  22,478

  353

  3

  20.5

  13,565

  Bromley

  13,110

  55

  28.5

  24,292

  1,844

  11

  20.4

  18,648

  Croydon

  7,042

  26

  28.3

  30,432

  1,339

  9

  22.2

  15,481

  Ealing

  5,258

  22

  27.1

  27,213

  894

  7

  22.4

  14,182

  Enfield

  9,965

  46

  29.1

  26,028

  1,751

  10

  20.7

  18,959

  Greenwich

  2,126

  12

  26.0

  21,608

  469

  4

  22.5

  13,644

  Harrow

  3,663

  22

  27.5

  19,971

  98

  1

  22.9

  8,304

  Havering

  5,763

  29

  27.9

  21,001

  981

  7

  21.7

  14,703

  Hillingdon

  5,212

  28

  27.2

  22,440

  1,457

  10

  21.1

  15,010

  Hounslow

  4,907

  29

  26.8

  19,828

  1,052

  8

  21.0

  15,286

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  6,682

  66

  29.4

  11,530

  912

  12

  20.2

  8,184

  Merton

  3,676

  29

  27.3

  16,159

  542

  8

  22.7

  7,619

  Redbridge

  8,074

  46

  28.4

  21,103

  1,415

  10

  21.0

  16,842

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2,671

  25

  27.2

  12,074

  194

  3

  24.0

  7,688

  Sutton

  5,222

  40

  28.1

  14,630

  791

  7

  20.7

  12,416

  Waltham Forest

  2,639

  15

  26.6

  21,411

  501

  5

  23.6

  11,835

  South East

  205,178

  33

  27.5

  653,419

  32,106

  8

  21.3

  454,813

  Berkshire

  18,680

  32

  27.5

  64,851

  3,846

  8

  20.7

  49,652

  Buckinghamshire

  23,085

  38

  27.9

  66,291

  3,453

  10

  21.3

  38,312

  East Sussex

  23,330

  46

  28.2

  55,821

  2,093

  6

  21.4

  36,281

  Hampshire

  47,671

  36

  27.9

  139,425

  5,211

  6

  22.2

  86,211

  Isle of Wight

  1,639

  23

  25.9

  7,387

  853

  8

  22.3

  10,969

  Kent

  47,339

  36

  28.0

  137,962

  4,523

  5

  20.3

  104,812

  Oxfordshire

  13,090

  31

  27.2

  44,733

  3,975

  12

  22.2

  36,531

  Surrey

  15,007

  20

  26.2

  78,781

  4,846

  10

  21.7

  51,703

  West Sussex

  15,337

  27

  26.8

  58,168

  3,306

  9

  21.6

  40,342

  242

  243

  Number and percentage of pupils in classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher and pupils on roll in maintained primary and secondary schools by Local Education Authority area in England January 1997

  Primary schools Pupils in class

  Secondary schools Pupils in class

  Pupils in classes of 31 or more

  (%)1

  Average size of class2

  Pupils on roll3

  Pupils in classes of 31 or more

  (%)1

  Average size of class2

  Pupils on roll3

  South West

  143,101

  38

  27.5

  396,129

  28,320

  10

  21.7

  291,012

  Bath and NE Somerset

  3,579

  29

  27.0

  13,111

  766

  7

  20.7

  11,483

  City of Bristol

  9,905

  32

  27.2

  33,642

  672

  4

  21.1

  16,518

  North Somerset

  4,675

  33

  27.8

  14,775

  816

  8

  20.4

  11,882

  South Gloucestershire

  9,563

  45

  28.5

  22,596

  1,599

  12

  21.5

  15,216

  Cornwall

  16,082

  40

  27.3

  41,862

  2,756

  10

  22.0

  29,815

  Isles of Scilly

  33

  21

  17.3

  160

  0

  0

  21.0

  108

  Devon

  31,181

  38

  27.4

  84,938

  6,039

  11

  21.4

  62,047

  Dorset

  22,462

  50

  28.2

  48,479

  4,544

  11

  21.8

  43,583

  Gloucestershire

  15,280

  34

  27.4

  46,248

  3,677

  11

  21.5

  34,961

  Somerset

  14,096

  38

  27.6

  38,509

  3,840

  14

  23.2

  28,854

  Wiltshire

  16,245

  32

  27.2

  51,809

  3,611

  11

  21.7

  36,545

  1 Pupils in classes of size 31 or more expressed as a percentage of all pupils in classes taught by one teacher

  2 All classes taught by one teacher

  3 Includes pupils in classes taught by more than one teacher and pupils not in class

  4 Not applicable (no schools of this type)

  Departmental Expenditure
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals there are to amend the departmental expenditure limit and gross running costs limit for 1999–2000. [86982]

  Mr. Mudie
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class 1, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services and Vote 4 (Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools), the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 (excluding Welfare to Work) will be decreased by £30,800,000 from £15,702,326,000 to £15,671,526,000.

  The decrease is the result of a transfer of £30,800,000 to Class XIV, Vote 1 (the Welsh Office) to take account of the change to student support arrangements following the Dearing Review.

  The voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit (excluding Welfare to Work) will be increased by £46,200,000 from £14,350,774,000 to £14,396,974,000 as a result of the transfer mentioned above and a switch of £77,000,000 from credit approvals to Class 1, Vote 1 in connection with the provision of schools capital. The increase of £77,000,000 will be offset by a matching reduction in the non-voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit from £1,351,552,000 to £1,274,552,000.

  The Supplementary Estimates also include a transfer of £500,000 from Vote 1 to Vote 4 in connection with the inspection of nursery education for three-year olds. This transfer has no effect on the Departmental Expenditure Limit.

  The Departmental running costs limit (excluding Welfare to Work) will be reduced by £200,000 from £1,042,410,000 to £1,042,210,000 as a result of a switch of that amount into the Youth Advocates programme.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87329]

  Mr. Mudie
  Between 15 April and 15 June, 132 parliamentary questions have been tabled to the Department for written answer on a named day; 81 per cent. received a substantive reply on that day.

  Higher Education (International Students)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans there are to promote overseas the quality of further and higher education in the United Kingdom and ease arrangements for international students to enter the United Kingdom and support themselves while studying. [87667]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My Department has been co-ordinating the Prime Minister's initiative to attract more international students to the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have joined with me to develop a strategy that will help our institutions to compete in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, enhance the image of the UK overseas and help position the UK as a knowledge-driven economy.

  The strategy includes four main components. The first is the development of a "UK Education Brand" and marketing materials to promote the high quality of UK education. A world-wide marketing campaign will begin early in 2000. Second, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs aims to expand the Chevening Scholarship Scheme, increasing by at least 500 the number of scholarships awarded each year. Third, we will ease procedures on permission for students to work part-time and in vacations. With effect from 21 June 1999 international students will no longer be required to seek permission from Jobcentres to work

  245
  part-time and in vacations, and sandwich course students will no longer require a work permit from my Department for their placement year. Fourth, updated guidance notes, designed to make entry requirements clearer, will be available for students and posted on the Internet. The British Council will work with entry clearance posts in a number of countries to streamline the visa application process for students who qualify to come here for study.

  Through this package of measures the Government will help UK education institutions to increase their marketing capability overseas and thereby increase international student enrolments. For international students from outside the European Union, the Government hope that these measures will allow institutions to increase the UK's market share of higher education students in relation to the major competitors of USA, Australia and Canada from 17 per cent. in 1996–97 to 25 per cent. in 2005 and to increase the number of further education students by 100 per cent. from some 25,000 in 1996–97 to 50,000 by 2005.

  Consultants (Teacher Appraisal)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the consultants employed over the past 18 months in connection with the Government's plans for teacher pay and teacher appraisal, indicating the terms of reference in each case and the total sum of consultancy fees paid; and how many of the consultants were paid over £50,000 for carrying out a research project. [87596]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Two consultancy contracts have been let in the last 18 months. The first was let to PricewaterhouseCooper. I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 25 May 1999,Official Report, columns 101–02. The cost of this work is commercial in confidence.

  We have subsequently issued a letter of intent to Hay McBer in respect of research into teacher effectiveness pending finalisation of the contract. This sets out the work to be undertaken. I have arranged for an extract from the letter to be lodged in the Library.

  The cost is commercial in confidence.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  River Access
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to increase access to non-tidal navigable rivers by non-motor-powered river craft. [86863]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government sponsored Environment Agency and British Waterways, which between them are responsible for the majority of the country's navigable rivers and canals, continue to manage their waterways with all users in mind, as do other navigation authorities.

  The Environment Agency has successfully acted as honest broker on a number of rivers in England and Wales to help secure access agreements. The Agency continues to encourage the development of access agreements and
  246
  currently chairs the Angling and Canoeing Liaison Group, which is developing a guide to the negotiation of access agreements. The guide will provide information for all likely parties who are seeking to achieve new access for canoeists, and other water sports and activities, to private waters. The Liaison Group expects to publish the guide in July.

  The Countryside Agency, Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission have been asked to consider access to other categories of open countryside, including river and canal banks, as part of the Government's commitment to introducing a statutory right of access on foot to the countryside. Their reports are expected to focus on the case for an extension of access on foot, but may also take into account access for other types of recreational users in the countryside, such as people using boats, cycles or horses.

  London Economics
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will name the non-governmental consultees and advisers engaged by his Department to advise on the conduct of the research by London Economics into the Environmental Costs and Benefits of Aggregate Supply; and what his Department has paid to each for their services. [87098]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following the recommendation of an independent review of the initial work by London Economics, the Phase 2 research was assisted by an international group of experts on those aspects of research design involving contingent valuation techniques.

  The group comprised: Ian Bateman of the University of East Anglia; Nick Hanley of the University of Edinburgh; Michael Hanemann of the University of California at Berkeley; Susana Mourato of Imperial College; Richard Ready of the University of Oslo; Toby Taper of MORI; and Ken Willis of Newcastle University.

  The total amount paid to members of the group was £41,898 including fees and travel expenses. Their contracts do not provide for publication of their individual remuneration without consent.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he received the final report by London Economics on the Environmental Costs and Benefits of Aggregates Supply. [87097]

  Mr. Caborn
  Copies of the final report were submitted to the Department on 26 May 1999.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many contracts were awarded to London Economics for their study of the environmental effect of mineral extraction; and what has been the total sum of money, including expenses, paid by his Department to London Economics for each of the contracts. [87195]

  Mr. Caborn
  London Economics was paid £107,815 under a contract to carry out the study of the Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Supply of Aggregates published in April 1998. Further research, Phase 2 to be published in July 1999, has been undertaken under two contracts. £108,495 was paid under the first of
  247
  these and £301,665 under the second contract. The latter includes over £200,000 paid to sub-contractors for survey work. The contract sums exclude VAT.

  Airbags
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of cars sold in Britain in each of the past five years have been fitted with(a) airbags in the driver's seat only, (b) airbags in the driver's and front passenger seats, (c) airbags for rear passengers and (d) side-impact air bags. [86999]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Vehicle registration statistics do not yield this information. I understand that the majority of new cars sold in the UK now have drivers airbags fitted as standard equipment.

  Tele-conferencing
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the need to amend the law to provide for the validity of meetings of public bodies, and their subsequent decisions, conducted by tele-conferencing and related technology. [87134]

  Mr. Meale
  I am not aware of any problems in this area at present, but I will keep the position under review.

  Recycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to increase the recycled content in soft tissue paper products. [87253]

  Mr. Meale
  In July 1998, the Government established a Market Development Group to consider the measures that could be taken to enhance the markets for recycled materials, including paper, and to develop proposals to help overcome any barriers. The Group considered a range of measures, including the use of economic instruments, quality standards and specifications for recycled goods and materials, and whether it is desirable to set mandatory levels of recycled content for specified goods.

  The Group has now finished its work and its report and recommendations for action will be published for consultation at the same time as the draft waste strategy.

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the new membership of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment; and if he will make a statement. [87766]

  Mr. Meacher
  The new Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has been appointed today. The committee consists of highly regarded scientists and technical experts (listed). Together they will form a well-balanced committee with the necessary range of expertise and views to provide sound advice on the risks to the environment and human health from the release of genetically modified organisms.
  248
  I announced my intention to review the membership and remit of ACRE in a statement to the House of Lords on 21 October 1998. The remit of the committee was subsequently widened—5 November 1998, Official Report, column 638—and the new committee now has an extended range of expertise. This has strengthened ACRE in areas such as ecology, wildlife/biodiversity and farming practice. These extensions to ACRE's competence will allow it to advise in greater depth on the possible impacts of widespread cultivation of GM crops on our countryside and wildlife. In addition, I will also be including for the first time on ACRE a place for the Chair of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes in an ex-officio capacity. This is in recognition of the importance of close communication between our key advisory committees.

  The selection of the new Chair of ACRE is being conducted as a separate appointment and will be announced in the Autumn. Additional members will be appointed in due course and details published in line with guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  I have placed further details of the new Members in the House of Commons Library and the information is also published on the DETR Website (www.environment.detr.gov.uk/acre/wildlife/index.htm).

  I would like to take this opportunity to thank the outgoing members of ACRE for their hard work and sound advice. My fellow Ministers and I are very grateful.
  New Members of ACRE

  Dr. Mark Bailey
  Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology
  Expertise: Molecular biology, Microbiology
  Principle Scientist and Leader of the Molecular Microbial Ecology Group at the NERC1 Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology. Dr. Bailey is a member of the BBSRC2 Microbial Genetics Working Party, and until recently served as a member of the NERC Terrestrial Sciences Peer Review Committee and the Society for General Microbiology's Environmental Microbiology Group. He has been an adviser for HSE3 and the former DOE4 as well as working for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Edward Cross
  Farmer, Abbey Farm, Norfolk
  Expertise: Farming practice
  Mr. Cross currently jointly manages a substantial farming concern in the East of England. He has a strong commitment to farming and the Environment and is Director of the Farmer's Link Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Development Working Group.

  Professor Alan Gray (acting ACRE Chairman)
  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology—Furzebrook
  Expertise: Farmland ecology
  Head of ITE Furzebrook and, from next year, of the combined Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and the Institute of Freshwater Ecology's Laboratory in Dorset, Professor Gray has been a highly regarded and productive member of ACRE for five years. He has more than 30 years' research experience in pure and applied ecology and genetics. He is a past Vice-President of the British Ecological Society and holds a Visiting Professorship at Southampton University.

  Dr. Susan Hartley
  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology—Banchory
  Expertise: Ecology, Entomology
  Principle Scientific Officer and Head of the Community Ecology Section at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology's Banchory Research Station. Dr. Hartley is a leading plant ecologist specialising in herbivory and is on the Science Advisory Board

  249
  for Scottish Natural Heritage, the Steering Committee of the Heather Trust and an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the Department of Plant and Soil Science at the University of Aberdeen.

  Dr. Penelope Hirsch
  Institute of Arable Crop Research, Rothamsted
  Expertise: Molecular Biology, Microbiology
  Principal Research Scientist at the Institute of Arable Crop Research, Rothamsted. Dr. Hirsch is recognised as an outstanding molecular biologist whose current area of research concentrates on soil microbial ecology. Dr. Hirsch is a member of the Technical Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Manipulation.

  Dr. Mike Mayo
  Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee
  Expertise: Plant virology
  Senior Principal Scientist at the Scottish Crop Research Institute. Dr. Mayo is a leading research scientist working on the molecular biology of plant viruses. He is a member of the Executive Committee of International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.

  Professor Christopher Pollock
  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Aberystwyth
  Expertise: Plant breeding, Molecular biology
  Research Director at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research. He is a member of the BBSRC's Strategy board and Chair of the Plants and Microbial Sciences Committee. In 1996 he was a member of DOE's Climate Change Impacts Review Group. Professor Pollock is currently Chair of the steering committee for the programme of farm-scale evaluations.

  Mr. Jules Pretty
  University of Essex
  Expertise: Sustainable development
  Director of the Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex. Mr. Pretty is an acknowledged expert on sustainable agricultural systems and farming practice. He is a Consultant for DfID5 projects and the US Agency for International Development. He is also a Member of the advisory committee for DfID on Biodiversity Policy and Practice Project.

  Dr. Mark Rees
  University of London
  Expertise: Weed ecology, Plant biology
  Lecturer at Imperial College, University of London. Dr. Rees has an excellent international reputation for his research on plant population dynamics and its application to the biological control of weeds. Dr. Rees was awarded the Founders Prize of the British Ecological Society in 1997.

  Dr. Christopher Spray
  Northumbrian Water
  Expertise: Biodiversity and Conservation
  Environmental Manager at Northumbrian Water responsible for conservation and Biodiversity issues. Dr. Spray has produced Northumbrian Water's environmental strategy and Biodiversity Action Plan. He is a member of DETR's Conservation, Access and Recreation in the Water Industry committee, a member of the England Local Issues Subgroup (of the England Biodiversity Group) and Chairman of Water UK's Network on Conservation, Access and Recreation in the Water Industry.

  Professor Ingrid Williams
  Institute of Arable Crop Research-Rothamsted
  Expertise: Entomology
  Principle Research Scientist at the Institute of Arable Crops Research at Rothamsted. Professor Williams is currently the entomology expert on ACRE, Chair of the International Commission for Plant-Bee Relationships and Council member of the International Bee Research Association.
  Chair of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ex-officio seat)

  Professor Janet Bainbridge
  University of Teesside
  Professor Bainbridge is the Director of Science and Technology at the University of Teesside. She is Chair of Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes (ACNFP) and their sub group on
  250
  Long Term Monitoring. Professor Bainbridge has many years experience of committee work and is a leading authority on GM Food Safety.

  1 National Environmental Research Council

  2 Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  3 Health and Safety Executive

  4 Department of the Environment

  5 Department for International Development

  Planning Regulations (Telecommunications Development)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend planning regulations for telecommunications development. [87776]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have today laid before Parliament an Order to make the amendments to the telecommunications permitted development rights granted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO), which I announced on 16 November 1998,Official Report, column 343, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis). These include a new 42-day prior approval procedure for ground based masts and strengthened planning controls in Sites of Special Interest. Subject to Parliamentary procedures, the Order will enter into force on 9 July 1999.

  A Departmental circular, "Planning for Telecommunications", is being issued to accompany the changes made to the GPDO. The circular sets a clear policy framework for planning for telecommunications development to keep environmental intrusion to a minimum. We look to both local planning authorities and the industry to adopt a proactive approach to identifying the best environmental solutions for telecommunications development. Pre-application discussions between the parties will allow a constructive examination of different siting and design solutions for accommodating telecommunications development at the least environmental cost. The guidance also explains the scope of telecommunications permitted development rights and the operation of the revised procedures.

  Copies of the Order, the accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment and the circular have been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways Quality Protects management action plans will improve the quality of services for children with disabilities in England and Wales. [86377]

  Mr. Hutton
  Last September, we announced new Government objectives for children's social services, one of which addressed the needs of disabled children. In their Quality Protects Management Action Plans (MAPS), local authorities were required to set out how they would address these national objectives and to set their own local objectives. All MAPs have now been evaluated by
  251
  regional social services inspectorate. We shall shortly be publishing a National Overview Report setting out the key messages from this evaluation.

  We also consulted on the detailed sub-objectives supporting the main Government objectives, and I am grateful to those parents, voluntary and strategy organisations that responded. We plan to publish revised sub-objectives, including more addressing the needs of disabled children, later in the summer.

  The Department has commissioned the Council for Disabled Children to analyse this year's MAPS from the perspective of services for disabled children with a view to recommending further work to enable local authorities to achieve their Quality Protects targets. We are determined to raise standards in the provision of services for disabled children under the Quality Protects Programme. This is an important means of achieving the successful implementation of the Carers National Strategy as it affects parents and carers of disabled children.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance indicators his Department has developed to quantify improvements in services for disabled children. [86382]

  Mr. Hutton
  Later this year, the Department will publish sub-objectives for children's services as part of the implementation of Quality Protects. These will include sub-objectives for disabled children. Performance indicators for disabled children will be developed in partnership with all those with an interest, as improved statistical information becomes available. The Department is introducing a new data collection around children in need from February 2000, which could provide the basis for such indicators.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's homes accommodating fewer than four children there are in(a) the Somerton and Frome constituency and (b) Somerset. [87047]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 June 1999]Statistics are collected once every three years on the numbers of children's homes. At 31 March 1997, the most recent date that statistics were collected, there were no children's homes accommodating fewer than four children in the former shire county of Somerset. We do not have more recent information on voluntary children's homes in this category. Our latest information is that there are seven homes in Somerset, two of which are in the town of Somerton.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the arrangements are for the inspection and registration of children's homes accommodating fewer than four children; to whom the reports of routine and unannounced inspections are made available; how many unresolved concerns have arisen in such reports since May 1997; and what steps are taken to notify home authorities of concerns arising from such inspections which would affect children who are the legal responsibility of the home authority. [87048]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 June 1999]Children's homes accommodating fewer than four children are not registered and inspected if they are run 252
  for profit by private organisations. Homes which are run on a not-for-profit basis by voluntary organisations are registered and inspected by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Voluntary children's homes are inspected by the social services inspectorate at least twice a year. One visit is announced in advance. The report of the announced inspection is published annually and the letter to the home reporting on the last unannounced visit is included in this publication. If there are any concerns about a home, additional inspections may be made.

  Statistical records are not kept of the unresolved concerns that have arisen in the reports of individual inspections of voluntary children's homes. The social services inspectorate follows up any unresolved concerns with the home concerned. Social services inspectors may inform the local authority which is looking after the child of any concerns which subsequently remain outstanding.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions at a children's home accommodating fewer than four persons powers under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 have been used so that a child has been returned to the care of the home authority or to another institution. [87049]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 June 1999]The Department is not aware of any such occasions. A child that is looked after by a local authority and is placed in a children's home remains the responsibility of that local authority, irrespective of whether the child is placed in a children's home within or outside that local authority. The local authority may move a child without the need to refer to these powers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Fishing (Southern Oceans)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's letter of 6 January, what action has been taken to prevent illegal and unregulated fishing in the Southern Oceans by means of(a) direct action through management of the fisheries around South Georgia and (b) the United Kingdom's involvement in the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources with particular reference to the South Atlantic tooth-fish. [87182]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI) continue to enforce rigorously the fisheries licensing regime in the waters of its maritime zone, through a variety of means, including the presence of Fisheries Protection Vessels and aerial surveillance. The GSGSSI incorporates into its fishing licence conditions regulatory measures agreed under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).

  New measures adopted in November 1998 at CCAMLR XVII, to address illegal and unregulated fishing, came into effect in time for the current fishing season in South Georgia. CCAMLR Parties are negotiating a catch documentation scheme to track international trade in tooth-fish and prevent imports of fish taken illegally. This scheme, plus additional measures, will be discussed

  253
  further at CCAMLR XVIII in October. The UK has been actively involved in these negotiations. We will press for an early introduction of such a scheme.

  Sudan
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Sudan about separatism in south Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [87505]

  Mr. Hoon
  Although we do not currently have British staff permanently in Khartoum, we maintain a regular dialogue with the Government of Sudan on a wide range of issues. The peace process in the Sudan is a priority for us and the issue of separatism arises in that context.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on reported bombing raids in southern Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [87117]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have recently received reports by NGOs of aerial bombing in southern Sudan by Government of Sudan aircraft.

  In Oslo on 25–26 May, the Government of Sudan and the SPLA both confirmed their commitment to maintain the current humanitarian ceasefire in Bahr el Ghazal. We shall continue to press the case for peace in Sudan.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning raids by Arab militia in southern Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [87116]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have had a number of reports from UN agencies and other NGOs working in the field, of raids conducted by Arab militia groups in southern Sudan.

  In Oslo on 25–26 May, the Government of Sudan and the SPLA both confirmed their commitment to the basic humanitarian principles of Operation Lifeline Sudan as well as the need to maintain the current humanitarian ceasefire in Bahr el Ghazal. We shall continue to press the case for peace in Sudan.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees of British Nuclear Fuels plc are employed by, or attached to, the British Embassy in the United States. [86959]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No employees of British Nuclear Fuels plc are employed by, or attached to, the British Embassy in Washington.

  Iran (Human Rights)
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Iran concerning the arrest of thirteen rabbis, teachers and other members of the Jewish community of Shiraz. [87126]

  Mr. Hoon
  We and our EU partners are concerned at reports of the arrest of 13 Iranian Jews. We have made our concerns known to the Iranian authorities and have stressed that we expect the detainees to be treated fairly 254
  under Iranian law. We and our EU partners will continue to watch developments closely and will take further action if necessary.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make improved relations with Iran dependent on the release of the group of thirteen Jews from Shiraz arrested by the Iranian Government. [87133]

  Mr. Hoon
  We and our EU partners regularly raise human rights issues with the Iranian authorities. We have made our concerns about the recent arrest of 13 Iranian Jews known to the Iranian government and sought assurances that they will be treated fairly under Iranian law. We will continue to use our improved relationship with Iran to press for improvements in Iranian policies, on human rights and other issues, which cause us concern.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the actions he has taken since March to secure the release of the group of thirteen Jews from Shiraz who have been arrested. [87127]

  Mr. Hoon
  We first heard some weeks ago that a number of Jews had been detained without charge in Iran. We have been in regular contact with the Agudas Israel Organisation, both here in the UK and in the US through our mission in New York, and with other agencies involved. The more reliable accounts now agree that 13 people have been detained. Last week it became apparent, first through media reports from Iran and then officially, that they had been accused of espionage.

  Before this news broke on 7 June, the German EU Presidency on a visit to Tehran on 20 May had already expressed the concern of EU member states at these detentions. This was followed up with an EU demarche on 16 June. We have also told the Iranians of our concern bilaterally and pressed for the detainees to be treated fairly under Iranian law, as have many of our EU partners. We and our EU partners continue to monitor the situation, and will take further action as necessary.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of human rights abuses in Iran. [87131]

  Mr. Hoon
  We and our EU partners continue to have serious concerns over certain human rights issues in Iran. We continue to raise these concerns with the Iranian authorities both bilaterally and multilaterally.

  We remain particularly concerned over the continued use of torture and the lack of transparency in the judicial system; both are at odds with the stated aim of the Iranian government to establish a civil society based upon the rule of law. We shall continue to engage the Iranian authorities on these issues with the intention of securing further improvements.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitments he received from the Iranian Government concerning human rights prior to the exchange of ambassadors between the United Kingdom and Iran. [87125]
  255
  Mr. Hoon
  The exchange of ambassadors with Iran was agreed in principle during my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Kharrazi, at the United Nations on 24 September last year, when Dr. Kharrazi gave important assurances that the Iranian government would take no action to threaten the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie, or encourage or assist anyone else to do so.

  We and our EU partners remain concerned over certain human rights policies in Iran. We shall continue to raise these concerns with the Iranian authorities.

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [87188]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The FCO has not introduced any new legislation during this session.

  EC Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of the European Community's working groups, stating in each case the number of times each group has met, the nature of the UK delegation, the documents submitted to the Council and the working group's purpose. [86761]

  Ms Quin
  A full list of European Community's working groups will be placed in the Library once it has been received from the Council Secretariat.

  There is no centrally held record of the number of times that working groups have met. The UK is usually represented in working groups by officials from the relevant government department or the UK's Permanent Representation.

  Working groups make reports and recommendations on legislative proposals from the Commission. These are then passed to the Council of Ministers for a final decision. The working group reports are not normally published, but the legislation, once enacted, is published in the Official Journal and is also available on the CELEX database.

  Stability Pact
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the draft Stability Pact for South-East Europe. [86721]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A copy of the Stability Pact for South-East Europe is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Supervision of Children (USA)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the guidance given to British families when visiting the USA, relating to the supervision of children. [86679]
  256
  Mr. Hoon
  FCO Travel Advice warns British nationals of the risks to their personal safety when travelling overseas. The situation in each country is monitored closely and the advice revised when necessary. However, FCO Travel Advice is not intended to reflect all the laws and customs of a country and travellers should not rely exclusively upon it.

  British Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the previous chairmen of the British Council and their salaries since 1969; [87264]

  (2) what salary has been agreed for the current chairman of the British Council. [87265]

  Mr. Hoon
  The position of the chair of the British Council has never been salaried, though an honorarium has been paid in the past. The honorariums paid to the last Chairman, Sir Martin Jacomb, have been declared in the British Council's annual report and accounts since 1995–96 and amounted to:1997–98: £10,850
  1996–97: £10,560
  1995–96: £10,250

  I understand that an honorarium for the current chair is under discussion, but not yet agreed.

DEFENCE

  Health Trusts
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid by his Department to each of the health trusts in which MDHUs operate for the treatment of military personnel in each of the last three years. [80572]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 April 1999, c. 718–19]In respect of the amounts paid to health trusts for the treatment of military personnel, I regret that some of the information given was incorrect. For the year 1997–98 the amount my Department paid to Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust (Derriford) was £1.558 million not £1.381 million.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of departmental personnel treated at NHS hospitals; how many operations were carried out on them; and what was the cost to his Department in each of the last five years. [65780]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 February 1999, c. 732]In respect of the cost of treating departmental personnel at NHS hospitals, I regret that some of the information given was incorrect. Treatment costs for 1996–97 were £10.304 million not £12.050 million, and for 1997–98 treatment costs were £9.297 million not £8.622 million.

  Duke of York's Headquarters
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Duke of York's Headquarters, Chelsea. [87836]
  257
  Mr. Spellar
  On 8 July 1998, in connection with the publication of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) we announced that the Duke of York's HQ in Chelsea would be sold and that its occupants, primarily the Territorial, Auxiliary & Volunteer Reserve Association for Greater London and Territorial Army units, would be re-accommodated as necessary. Since then, my Department has been considering how it might secure the optimum receipt for this prestigious site.

  Following negotiations, and supported by advice from independent consultants, we have decided to proceed with a private treaty sale of the freehold of the site to Cadogan Estates, who own the principal adjoining site and are a special purchaser. The sale contract will be subject to Cadogan Estates achieving planning consent for an agreed planning application.

  The agreed terms specify vacation of a considerable part of the site by March 2000. We require a longer period to finalise and prepare alternative locations for the affected units and we will vacate a further part of the site over the three years to 2003. Under the deal we have negotiated with Cadogan Estates, MOD retains an option for TA and cadet occupation in a small enclave within the site beyond 2003. However, we have not come to a decision yet on whether or not to exercise this option.

  Military Deployment
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current proportion of(a) the Army and (b) Land Command (i) committed and (ii) warned to deploy for operations. [85913]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]As at 11 June, some 47 per cent. of the Army and some 72 per cent. of Land Command personnel were committed to operations. These figures include those preparing for and recovering from operations.

  Figures for those "warned to deploy" do not meaningfully reflect the current level of operational commitment because the notice given to units depends on the circumstances of the individual unit and the commitment involved. They are a reflection of the current state of the administrative planning process used to identify suitable units to replace those currently on operations and some would be included in the figures for those committed to operations. However, if calculated on the same basis as my Answer of 22 April 1999, Official Report, column 633, the figures for those warned to deploy on operations would be some 24 per cent. of the Army and some 37 per cent. of Land Command.

  Gaps by branch

  HM Ship

  Complement

  Total Warfare

  Engineering

  Supply

  Ship's company

  Alderney

  38

  2

  —

  —

  36

  Atherstone

  42

  1

  —

  —

  41

  Bicester

  41

  1

  —

  —

  40

  Birmingham

  241

  9

  1

  —

  231

  Boxer

  238

  7

  —

  1

  230

  Bridport

  33

  3

  —

  —

  30

  Campbeltown

  226

  7

  1

  —

  218

  Cardiff

  241

  6

  2

  —

  233

  Chiddingfold

  44

  —

  1

  —

  43

  Cottesmore

  38

  1

  —

  —

  37

  Coventry

  229

  8

  —

  —

  221

  Cromer

  36

  2

  —

  —

  34

  Women (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy on (i) retention and (ii) deployment of women in the armed forces. [86368]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  All three Services are wholly committed to maximising employment opportunities for women in the armed forces, except where it is assessed that this could undermine combat effectiveness. 73 per cent. of posts in the Naval Service, 70 per cent. of posts in the Army and 96 per cent. of posts in the Royal Air Force are open to women.

  The Secretary of State commissioned a review into those posts closed to women on the ground of combat effectiveness; that is, the Royal Marines General Service, the Infantry, the Royal Armoured Corps and the RAF Regiment. Following the review it was decided that 1,300 specialist posts in the Royal Marines filled by Royal Navy and Army personnel would be opened to women. The results of the review were set out in the report of the Strategic Defence Review (Comd 2999) published in July last year.

  Studies are also being undertaken to assess the impact on combat effectiveness of increasing, to 70 per cent. the number of posts open to women in the Army and of allowing women to serve in "attached billets" in the Royal Marines. This work is due to complete in 2001.

  As I said on 24 February 1999, Official Report, columns 300–01, we have decided that, following a review into the employment of women in submarines and in mine clearance diving branches, posts in these areas should remain closed on medical grounds.

  Servicewomen currently represent around 7.7 per cent. of the total strength of the armed forces. In the 12 months to 1 April 1999, 12 per cent. of all new recruits were women; exit rates for women have remained relatively stable at 10 per cent.

  Navy Crews
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships currently at sea or operational have a shortfall in crew size broken down by (i) ship and (ii) discipline; and if he will make a statement. [86380]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The shortfalls for the Royal Navy Surface Flotilla ships currently at sea or operational as at 11 June 1999 are:
  259

  Gaps by branch

  HM Ship

  Complement

  Total Warfare

  Engineering

  Supply

  Ship's company

  Dasher

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Dumbarton Castle

  53

  1

  —

  —

  52

  Exeter

  232

  8

  1

  —

  223

  Fearless

  535

  13

  5

  6

  511

  Glasgow

  239

  3

  3

  —

  233

  Gloucester

  244

  9

  1

  —

  234

  Grafton

  163

  5

  —

  —

  158

  Grimsby

  35

  1

  —

  —

  34

  Guernsey

  40

  3

  —

  —

  37

  Hurworth

  40

  1

  —

  —

  39

  Illustrious

  643

  13

  6

  2

  622

  Inverness

  36

  —

  1

  —

  35

  Invincible

  670

  7

  4

  1

  658

  Iron Duke

  165

  1

  1

  —

  163

  Leeds Castle

  40

  4

  1

  —

  35

  Lindisfarne

  39

  —

  —

  1

  38

  Marlborough

  166

  3

  —

  —

  163

  Middleton

  43

  1

  —

  —

  42

  Monmouth

  166

  3

  —

  —

  163

  Montrose

  166

  4

  1

  —

  161

  Newcastle

  226

  11

  —

  —

  215

  Norfolk

  165

  3

  —

  —

  162

  Northumberland

  165

  6

  —

  —

  159

  Orwell

  26

  2

  —

  1

  23

  Pembroke

  35

  —

  —

  1

  34

  Penzance

  36

  1

  1

  —

  34

  Quorn

  40

  4

  —

  —

  36

  Richmond

  165

  2

  1

  —

  162

  Sandown

  37

  1

  —

  —

  36

  Sheffield

  229

  16

  3

  1

  209

  Shetland

  39

  1

  —

  —

  38

  Sutherland

  163

  6

  —

  1

  156

  Walney

  37

  1

  —

  —

  36

  Westminster

  165

  2

  1

  —

  162

  There are no submarines operating below their full crew complement.

  Royal Navy Ships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy ships have been deployed for more than six months in the last two years and in each case for how long they were deployed; and if he will make a statement. [86383]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Royal Navy ships deployed for more than six months in the period 31 May 1997 to 31 May 1999 are as follows:

  Ship

  Day deployed

  HMS Brave

  220

  HMS Coventry

  217

  HMS Liverpool

  195

  HMS Newcastle

  196

  HMS Nottingham

  214

  HMS Westminster

  198

  HMS London

  194

  HMS Northumberland

  199

  HMS Leeds Castle

  284

  HMS Alderney

  188

  HMS Guernsey

  199

  HMS Shetland

  188

  HMS Cumberland

  234

  HMS Grafton

  204

  HMS Sheffield

  203

  HMS Sutherland

  204

  HMS Dumbarton Castle

  365

  HMS Scott

  219

  HMS Orkney

  188

  260
  These figures represent the total number of days that the various ships were deployed, but in a number of cases the crews were changed during the course of the deployment.

  Army Complement
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, by regiment and other section headings(a) the official complement and (b) the actual numbers in post in the Army. [87005]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Different Service Arms attach the term "Regiment" to varying sizes of formation, and not all of them further divide their "official complement" (referred to internally as the Liability, or the "Manpower Planning Target"). The following information is provided in terms of Arm/Service.

  The following table provides details of each Service Arm's Strength and Liability, and the difference between the two, as at 1 April 1999. In line with our normal practice, the figures provided include the UK Trained Adult Personnel and Gurkhas, but exclude the Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment and officers and soldiers under training. The figures shown for the Gurkhas include some three hundred men who form the Gurkha reinforcement companies which are attached to three infantry regiments, and a number of Gurkhas held over Liability to fill key posts elsewhere. I should also point out that the figures do not include 98 officers and 485 soldiers from the Reserves who are mobilised in Bosnia, or 226 Full Time Reservist Service personnel.
  261

  The liability and trained strength, by Arm/Service, of the Army

  Arm/Service

  Liability1

  Strength

  +/-

  Staff Officers

  689

  725

  Household Cavalry/Royal Armoured Corps

  5,949

  5,492

  -457

  Royal Artillery

  8,621

  7,869

  -752

  Royal Engineers

  8,336

  8,653

  ?

  Royal Signals

  9,045

  8,174

  -871

  Infantry

  27,321

  24,972

  -2,349

  Army Air Corps

  1,706

  1,540

  -166

  Royal Army Chaplain's Department

  137

  135

  -2

  Royal Logistic Corps

  15,860

  15,224

  -636

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  2,720

  2,720

  -328

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  10,069

  9,560

  -509

  Adjutant General's Corps

  6,954

  7,034

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps

  165

  132

  -33

  Small Arms School Corps

  140

  149

  Royal Army Dental Corps

  428

  350

  -78

  Intelligence Corps

  1,216

  1,095

  -121

  Army Physical Training Corps

  393

  386

  -7

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  882

  667

  -215

  Corps of Army Musicians

  1,161

  1,051

  -110

  General List

  0

  2

  Unallocated

  0

  125

  ?

  Long Service List

  597

  573

  -24

  Gurkhas

  2,882

  3,374

  ?

  Total

  105,271

  99,674

  -5,597

  1 To implement the Post-SDR force structure the Army's Manpower Requirement (Liability) for Regular Forces (including Gurkhas, but excluding R IRISH (HS) Full Time, Territorial Army and Full Time Reserve Personnel) will increase to 108,439 by 1 April 2005.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the shortfall in the official complement of the Army on 1 May(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [87035]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The shortfall of UK Trained Army Personnel as at 1 May 1997 and 1 May 1998 was 5,406 and 5,438 respectively, and for Gurkha Trained Personnel, a surplus of 473 existed on both dates. These figures exclude Royal Irish (Home Service), and reserve personnel mobilised for duties associated with Bosnia, Full Time Reserve Personnel and Locally Employed Personnel.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the potential cost savings from co-operation between the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and Government-funded defence research and development organisations based in NATO member states. [86332]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is involved in programmes with agencies of NATO Governments which provide access to complementary research which, if carried out unilaterally, could be unaffordable. These programmes may also provide access to novel technology and techniques, scientific peer review of UK activities, and access to broader technology-based relationships.

  International collaboration in defence research brings substantial benefit to MOD financially, technically and operationally.
  262
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what brief the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has been given for joint defence research and development with organisations from other member states of NATO. [86333]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, is encouraged to seek opportunities for research collaboration with other nations, and for specified activities in support of Memoranda of Understanding between UK Government and other nations.

  Army Cadets (Safety)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements will be in place for the safety of cadets at the army cadets' annual camp in July. [86355]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Cadet safety is of paramount importance to my Department. Cadet training activities are strictly governed by rules and regulations, which are in line with Health and Safety at Work practice, and which stress the need for supervision by adults suitably qualified or authorised to plan, organise and conduct the activity concerned. Detailed instructions are distributed to every Combined Cadet Force (CCF) Contingent, each Army Cadet Force (ACF) Detachment, and personally to every cadet officer, Staff Sergeant Instructor and Adult Instructor in the CCF and ACF. These instructions are to be carried at all times during training and this will remain the case for all Cadet Camps in 1999.

  Colchester Garrison
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the name of the preferred bidder for the Colchester Garrison PFI project. [87006]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The detailed evaluation of the bids from the three shortlisted consortia, competing for the Colchester Garrison PFI project, is now complete. A recommendation for the preferred bidder is currently being considered by my Department and I hope to be in a position to make a formal announcement sometime later in the summer.

  Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West of 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 482, if he will list the countries from which buyers will be invited to the Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition being held in Chertsey and London Docklands from 14 to 17 September. [87136]

  Mr. Spellar
  The full list of official invitees is still being completed. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it has been finalised and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the women's organisations which
  263
  have been consulted over proposed legislation by his Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [87276]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No women's organisations have been consulted so far this session on any legislative proposals.

  Regimental Insignia
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules and guidelines govern the use of Army regimental insignia; in what circumstances regimental insignia may be used for commercial and political advertising; and what penalties may be incurred by use of insignia for such purposes without permission. [87158]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 16 June 1999]The Badges, Crests and Insignia of Her Majesty's Armed Forces are subject to Crown Copyright. The rights associated with Crown Copyright are vested by Royal Letters Patent in the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office personally. Specific nominees in individual Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, have authority to act on behalf of the Controller to give or withhold permission to reproduce certain categories of Crown Copyright material, and to collect fees levied according to a scale of charges set by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The infringement of all Crown Copyright is investigated fully, and should legal action be pursued, penalties could include the seizure of all infringed goods, patterns and designs, payment of Royalties due and damages.

  Dublin and Monaghan Bombings
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will release documents and records covered by the Official Secrets Acts in order to assist an investigation of allegations of British and Irish military intelligence involvement in the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings. [87462]
  264
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We would give consideration to a request for assistance from the appropriate authorities.

  Political and Security Committee
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature, formation and activities of the Political and Security Committee established at the Cologne Council. [87304]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The proposal for a Political and Security Committee was made in a Presidency report on strengthening of the common European policy on security and defence to the Cologne European Council. The European Council approved and adopted the report. The report notes that for the EU to decide and conduct effectively the so-called "Petersberg tasks", it may require a permanent body in Brussels (Political and Security Committee) consisting of representatives of member states with political/military expertise. No decisions have yet been taken on the nature, formation and activities of such a Committee.

  EU Institute for Security Studies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy towards the proposed establishment of an EU Institute for Security Studies. [87299]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The proposal for an Institute for Security Studies was made in a Presidency report on strengthening of the common European policy on security and defence to the Cologne European Council. The European Council approved and adopted the report. The report notes that for the EU to decide and conduct effectively the so-called "Petersberg tasks", it may require an Institute for Security Studies. There is, at present, an Institute for Security Studies established in the WEU. This might be taken over by the EU as appropriate.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

Genetically Modified Crops Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a second time.
The Bill is short and simple. Its effect is also short and simple, although I am afraid that the explanation of its background and the reasons for introducing it are a little longer. I hope that your Lordships will not feel that they are too long.
The Bill amends the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and incorporates a definition taken from the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. I stress those two dates—1990 and 1985. On 16th February, the Parliamentary Secretary for MAFF repeated to this House the Statement which had just been made in the other place. At that time I had the temerity to complain about the Government's failure to stick their head above the parapet, and give what I described as unequivocal guidance to manufacturers, retailers and consumers. In his response, the Minister accused me of having what he called, "some chutzpah", for daring to question the Government on that subject. He then launched into the usual tirade against the previous administration, whom he accused of having done practically nothing.
The two substantial Acts that I have just mentioned are part of the considerable "something' undertaken by the previous administration to protect the environment, as distinct from the mere 160 words of waffle contained in the Labour Party's manifesto. That states:
"No responsible government can afford to take risks with the future; the cost is too high. So it is our duty to act now".
This modest small Bill will oblige the Government to put their fine words into practice. At the same time it will provide them with the necessary legislative power.
Before I turn to the substance of the Bill itself, there is something else that I wish to clear up. This Bill is not about genetically modified foods. The production and incorporation of only three varieties into every-day products has been subject to stringent testing and licensing. There has been much authoritative scientific comment on the matter, not least from this House. The Bill does not deal with those products, nor does it interfere with their sale.
There is now certainly a demand for more specific labelling, so that members of the public do not have those products literally crammed down their throats without their knowledge. The fact that parts of the public wish to be able to make an informed choice is also beyond doubt. I am sure that appropriate labelling regulations, together with a voluntary code of practice among manufacturers and retailers, will receive universal support. The emotive language used by some
546
sections of the press is no basis for an informed debate. The major supermarket chains and other food retailers, in response to what they see as their customers' demands, say that they are temporarily withdrawing genetically modified foods from their shelves. By that, they mean products containing genetically modified soya, tomato and maize. Here, "temporary" means, until they are sure beyond all doubt that those products are safe.
That brings me to the subject of this Bill. It concerns genetically modified crops, especially those in the current course of development and experiment. Every mouthful of food that your Lordships have ever eaten or will ever eat is derived from genetically modified crops or animals. Ever since the first nomadic caveman poked a hole in the ground with a stick and dropped a seed into it at least 9000 years ago, possibly even earlier, both deliberate and accidental cross-pollination, in addition to that occurring naturally, has taken place. Farmers have gradually improved their crops, meat and the milk-producing capability of their animals. Those of your Lordships who follow horseracing are well aware how the breeding and ancestry of each horse can make a tremendous difference to its value.
Then something happened to speed up the whole process of plant and animal breeding; something to reduce the time it takes to cross one plant with a relative, or to graft a plant with one desirable property onto another. In both cases, the growing time that this rather hit-and-miss method takes to produce a result was reduced. What happened was the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953. Their discovery answered one of nature's greatest puzzles; that is, how genetic information is passed from generation to generation. Watson and Crick deservedly received the Nobel prize for their work. The advances in biology generated by that discovery cannot be exaggerated; for example, our understanding of cancer, of genetic and infectious diseases. It has enabled scientists to design plants and animals; to eliminate undesirable traits; or to introduce desirable ones. That is where the need for careful regulation comes in.
Let us suppose a plant is designed which is resistant to a particular type of herbicide. It can then be sprayed without harm to it. But let us suppose that the resistant characteristic is passed to different plants in an adjacent. field. We are then in danger of unwittingly creating a breed of "superweeds". For the purposes of testing and experimenting, a sanitary cordon is supposed to be created around the experimental crop. The controversy that has now arisen is over whether the current requirements are adequate or whether a wider sanitary cordon is required. The Government have received a certain amount of contradictory advice from various credible sources. That is perhaps a manifestation of Duggan's law.
To every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. English Nature, the Government's own specialised think tank, recommended considerable caution in the methodology of experiments in biotechnology arid the licensing of the ultimate products. The Government's own Advisory Committee on Releases into the Atmosphere (ACRE), for example, recommends a gap

547
of 200 metres around a particular type of maize. The National Pollen Research Unit in a report, admittedly commissioned by one of the environmental pressure groups, challenges that distance as being inadequate. It wants a cordon of five or six miles on the grounds that pollen can be carried that distance by birds, the wind or even by bees.
Your Lordships may have observed or even suffered themselves from this phenomenon in the past few days. Anybody travelling around what we call the "West End" will have seen dozens of people with streaming eyes and noses caused by hay fever. The West End is almost solid brick, concrete and asphalt, so where does the pollen that causes the hay fever come from in Central London? The nearest sources in the West End are Hyde Park and Regent's Park. So, maybe it even travels further, but it certainly appears to travel a lot further than a derisory 200 metres.
The Soil Association calls for a five to six-mile cordon, but my noble friend Lord Reay, in his excellent and instructive presentation of the Report of the EC Committee on 27th May told your Lordships that these demands
"are so impractical as to appear to be tantamount to an attempt to prevent the introduction of the new technology".—[Official Report, 27/5/99; col. 1064.]
Frankly, and as a layman, I find the arguments about whether the sanitary cordon should be 200 metres or seven miles totally baffling.
For these experiments we need to use the widest appropriate cordon. In what I freely admit is Nimbyism, I ask why these field trials cannot be carried out in the middle of Kansas, let us say, or some other wide open space where there will be no danger to an intensely farmed and populated environment, or to butterflies or whatever, if, contrary to expectations, the GM crops cause problems.
The Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, made certain recommendations in its comprehensive report presented last December. I do not wish to be accused of selective quotations, but I do not want to take too long. The Select Committee confirms that genetic modification can offer great benefit to agriculture, industry and the environment. But the committee drew attention to the need to assess the risks, including possible delayed risks, as well as the potential benefits, simultaneously.
The report stated that the risks can be controlled by a strict management process and that any novel crop should be subject to an oversight system. It considered that the only way that knowledge of how such crops would interact with the environment can only be acquired by large-scale trials, but unequivocally stated that it considered that an outright moratorium would be inappropriate.
Finally, the committee welcomed the ability to set specific conditions for commercial release and said that conditions and regulations should only be imposed where necessary, which of course comes back to the controversial question. In paragraph 182 the committee states—and this is worth stressing—that monitoring is
548
not a substitute for risk assessment. The committee also calls for a regime of reports of unexpected events and the occurrence of predicted ones. That is what my Bill calls for.
The Royal Society, in its comprehensive and incredibly interesting report published last year, made 13 strong recommendations and asked for further research on four major topics. It is sufficient to say that the Royal Society recognises the importance of biotechnology on the quality of food and the development of crops as well as the need for clarity in labelling of the ultimate products. But it also recognises the concerns about the new and developing technology and calls for collaboration between industrialists, public sector scientists, the regulatory authorities and environmental organisations.
This Bill is no Luddite attempt to prevent what is undoubtedly considerable scientific progress which can be of substantial benefit to mankind. It is also no rejection of developments which will be of considerable commercial benefit to farmers as well as to the bio-technology industry.
I recognise that companies such as Monsanto or Diatech, who have both been denigrated in some parts of the press as though they were villains, or Zeneca, are entitled to exploit their considerable investment in research. However, on the other hand, I do not think it did their cause any good when a spokesman for Monsanto made the incredibly arrogant remark:
"Consumer response is dictating the agenda when it should be science".
Last Monday I attended a presentation by SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops). It says that it represents the entire farm supply chain from initial seed stock to harvested crop, and that its members are the British Society of Plant Breeders, the British Agrochemicals Association, the National Farmers Union, the UK Agricultural Supply Trade Association and the British Sugar Beet Seed Producers Association. I have troubled your Lordships with the impressive list of members of this group, which I shall not call a pressure group, even though it is not exactly independent or impartial in the present debate, because it has also produced two important codes of practice which I have no doubt the Minister will refer to when he replies.
I assume that the Government have been briefed on these in the extraordinarily huge number of meetings that they are reported to have had with the industry since they came to power. I believe that there have been 104 with MAFF, plus many more with officials and Ministers of other departments, quite apart from those conducted with the Prime Minister.
One of the codes of practice is on,
"the introduction of genetically modified crops",
and the other is called Guidelines for growing newly developed herbicide tolerant crops. The two codes, which SCIMAC calls "self-regulation for the industry", are as impressive as the presentation was seductive.

549
However, the effect was slightly marred by the statement on one of the slides that,
"there is no scientific basis for GM crop moratorium and that the first GM crops will be available for planting in the year 2000".
The year 2000 is less than 200 days away. The spokesman did say, when pressed, that they had no intention of providing the seed for commercial planting so soon. But I feel that unchallenged and without strict regulation, somebody may be tempted to jump the commercial gun.
I do not denigrate the efforts that the industry is making to ensure safety. On the contrary, its self-imposed regulations are, if I may say so without sounding patronising, entirely commendable. However, it does have commercial interests and what it offers by way of self-regulation is at least in part self-serving.
In a case where public health is at stake, and where there are grave environmental and ecological dangers, it is not for the industry itself to tell us what is right and what is wrong; or what is and is not needed. It is not for the industry to tell us what it will and will not do by way of precautions. It is the Government's responsibility and indeed their duty to take control and to place the public interest over commercial interest. It is not for the Government to accept without question the industry's assurances. It may be right and there may be no real dangers. But the Government have to pay regard to the public anxieties and the public suspicions. They may turn out to be ill-founded and even what the Prime Minister in an intervention called "hysterical", but the Government cannot simply dismiss them out of hand.
The Government have received a great deal of persuasive advice and unfortunately that advice goes in both directions. Until those differences are resolved—not absolutely because I admit that that is not possible, but beyond reasonable doubt—the Government must err on the side of caution; on the side of ultra-caution. The sum total of the scientific advice and pressure group statements, often, as I have said, conflicting in their conclusions about the need for or the desirability of GM crops, all seem to have one factor in common; that is, that there is a need for careful evaluation and even more for careful monitoring.
As the Government said in the passage in their manifesto that I have already quoted,
"no Government can afford to take risks with the future".
I find it difficult to understand how the Government, who rushed into banning beef-on-the-bone on the basis of an ultra-cautious statement that there was the remotest possibility, almost impossible to measure, of there being a problem, can selectively ignore the pieces of advice they are receiving in this public debate.
Statements by the Prime Minister seem to indicate that the Government are ready to go ahead with larger-scale field trials almost immediately. As I have said, almost daily there are articles and reports arguing one side or another of the debate. The Government themselves have commissioned yet another new report.
550
The research from what the Independent yesterday called the,
"highly respected John Innes Centre",
provided convincing conclusions based on its research that genetically modified plants can cross-pollinate. I understand that as a result of that the Government are going to reopen consultations with the industry and with farmers, including organic farmers and I hope with environmental bodies to reassess the guidelines.
Perhaps we can look at a few other developments that have taken place in the past few days. It has been revealed that 309 trials of various sizes that were taking place last year are now reduced to 148 this year. Most of them were cancelled quietly, but one farm trial was cancelled last week in a great blaze of publicity. But before that another seven farm-size trials had been cancelled. In Norfolk alone the trials are down from 40 to 17. I have to ask, with this vastly reduced level of trials, what is the validity of any current research and what reliance can be placed on it? Are we now nearly back to the drawing board?
The unanswered question about the tests is this. Suppose they reveal that some crops cause some form of ecological damage, contaminate the surrounding area and wildlife and produce undesirable mutations in nearby fauna. How is anybody going to redress that? We cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. Suppose the trials are successful. With all the public disquiet that has been caused and with the major supermarkets displaying notices saying how they are removing GM crops from the shelves, how will the public be persuaded to buy the stuff?
I say the "stuff' as a direct quote from the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who was interviewed on the 'Today" programme on the radio on 9th June. He was being asked about the decision of the company he chairs—Northern Foods—to cease using GM products and supplying them, as "own brands" to various supermarkets. He said he wished he had never heard of the "stuff".
Only yesterday, in a written reply to the honourable Member for Lewisham Deptford, the Minister said,
"The Government welcomes the European Commission's plan to develop harmonised guidelines for GMO risk assessments for cosmetic products and will push in Europe for their adoption".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/6/99; col. WA 200.]
That included some of the issues about which we have been talking. Can the Minister assure us, first, that no consents will be given in the United Kingdom until that agreement is made in Europe? Secondly, will he confirm that the European regulations will be no less stringent than those which we want here? The Government and the producers threaten us that if we do not press forward with research, we will fall behind the rest of Europe and lose our place in a great, new, profitable industry. That assumes that the Germans and the French—two great agricultural economies—are prepared to take bigger risks with their environment than we are. Do we believe that?

551
My Bill does not call for a ban, just more research; more tests; the laying down of guidelines in which the public can be confident; and the chance for Parliament to make an informed decision on behalf of the public. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
11.27 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for introducing this debate on a matter which is constantly in the forefront of public concern. Your Lordships will remember that it is only three weeks since we had an important and wide-ranging debate on the EEC Report on EC Regulation of Genetic Modification in Agriculture, during which we touched on some profound ethical and philosophical as well as scientific and technical aspects of genetic modification. I do not want to go over that ground again. I believe that this debate should be more limited in its scope to the practical provisions outlined in the Bill for the amendment of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in ways which will enshrine in law the broad principles with which the Government have already expressed sympathy.
Since the debate of 27th May I have had the opportunity of reading, like I am sure many of your Lordships, the conclusions of the Nuffield Council inquiry into the ethical and social issues raised by genetically modified crops—a report published on the day of the last debate. I warmly welcome that report, which in many of its recommendations points to the need for the sort of provisions contained in this modest Bill. The Nuffield Council report rightly emphasises the importance of the potential cumulative impact of genetically modified crops which could lead to unacceptable developments not apparent from their specific impact in individual cases. So it calls for,
"a broadly-based environmental audit of the likely cumulative impact of GM crops on agricultural practices and the environment",
and for,
"a powerful public policy framework to guide and regulate the way in which this technology is applied".
With that I am entirely happy, but I am less happy with the over-confident statement in the same council report that,
"There are such powerful utilitarian and welfare-based arguments for treating the environment carefully that no purpose is served by straying into philosophically contentious territory to bolster this case".
Would that that were so: alas, the utilitarian and welfare-based arguments have not done very much to protect the environment—in particular, biodiversity—in the face of the depredations of intensive farming, especially over the past 30 years.
My own childhood memories go back much further than that; in fact, 60 years. Like many of your Lordships, I know that the landscape in those days was full of birds, butterflies, dragonflies, grasshoppers, frogs, toads, newts and all those other delights of biodiversity which are now so rare, even at a time when
552
the nation was straining every muscle to increase food production and was bringing back into cultivation many areas which had fallen derelict during the great Depression. Now such rich biodiversity is very limited indeed. In many places it is exceptional. In some places it is only to be found in specially protected areas, such as, for example, Wicken Fen in East Anglia, near Ely, in otherwise largely environmentally sterile, arable landscape.
I believe that it matters very much indeed that we preserve what is left of our biodiversity. In fact, we need to enhance it. We have a biodiversity action plan, but its benefits are potentially threatened by the possible consequences of the introduction of genetically modified crops with their presently unknown impact on the environment. That is why we so urgently need the research referred to in this Bill. Its wording is brief, perhaps inadequate, for no time-scale is spelt out, nor is there any indication of conditions which must be met before research on any particular GM crop may be deemed to have yielded satisfactory results.
In replying to the debate on 27th May, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, gave an assurance that research would, if necessary, continue beyond the year 2002, which was the date quoted in the course of the debate. It would be good to have that assurance renewed today by the Minister in the context of this Bill.
It would also be good if the Minister could give some indication of how the Government view the matter of the interface between experimental GM crop areas and organic farms; and not only organic farms but also environmentally sensitive areas and Countryside Stewardship areas where extensive farming is practised. This matter was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in the last debate. Although a written response was promised, the Minister was not able to give an answer in the course of the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned the John Innes research, which has confirmed that some degree of contamination may be unavoidable. But that simply underlines the good sense of the request of the Soil Association for a six-mile separation zone. I do not believe that that is entirely impractical.
This leads on to a further point about the shape of this modest Bill. I fully understand that research must come first and that it must be thorough, vigorous and sustained before guidelines can be drawn up for the possible commercial release of GM crops. But guidelines are needed urgently for the research itself. I fear that this Bill may, implicitly at least, place too much reliance on the SCIMAC voluntary code of practice—a principle which, yet again, takes an unrealistically optimistic view of how self-interested individuals and organisations sometimes behave. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about the risks of that approach.
The report of the Nuffield Council was influenced by three main principles—those of general human welfare, of the maintenance of people's rights and of justice. They are admirable principles in so far as they go, but behind all our dealings with this difficult, uncertain and complex matter must lie the precautionary principle: we do nothing unless we are certain that it is safe to do it.

553
My best endeavours to find out expert advice from genuinely disinterested sources have revealed again and again that the answer to some of the most frequently asked questions is, "We do not know". For example: how long should this research continue? We do not know. Is the six-mile radius round GM crops adequate? We do not know. Should there be baseline data against which to measure the findings of research? Well, it depends. I asked that question in the last debate and I was told that expert advice had been taken to the effect that a baseline survey was not necessary. I still want to challenge that answer. If the question is simply about cross-pollination of GM crops, then that may well be so because we are dealing with a new threat from newly-planted crops, but if we are talking about the impact of GM crops on biodiversity, then the answer must be that a baseline survey is essential so that change can be measured and losses and gains accurately recorded.
We are in new territory here. The precautionary principle must be paramount. There are other enormously significant areas which this modest Bill does not attempt to touch. The Nuffield Council report has some very wise and helpful things to say about the huge area of intellectual property rights and developing countries. I hope that in due course we shall be debating those issues and that the Government will be bringing forth legislation to tackle some of the points made very well indeed in this report. In the meantime, I welcome this modest Bill but I suspect that it may well need to be amplified and strengthened in its subsequent stages through your Lordships' House, or in another place.
11.35 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for the way in which she introduced her Bill. It seems to be a Bill to which there is no great objection. I am not absolutely certain that it is needed, or that it will place further obstacles in the way of research. But that is something on which I very much welcome the attitude of the Government.
I am very sorry that I was abroad at the time of the debate in this House on the report of the Select Committee, so I want to make some general remarks about the subject now. However, perhaps I may begin by making it absolutely clear that I do not speak for my party. I have no axe to grind and no connection with any of the biotechnology companies. I am a passionate environmentalist and I believe that the threat to our environment is one of the most important problems of our time. But having examined the evidence over many years, including the two recent reports from the Royal Society by some of the leading authorities in this country, the excellent report from the Nuffield Council on bio-ethics and the two excellent reports from the Select Committee of this House and the Select Committee of the House of Commons, I do not share the current discomfort or the hostility to GM foods and crops.
It seems clear that the GM foods now on sale are at least as safe as conventional foods. One can never prove absolute safety, but they have been rigorously tested and, indeed, some strains of unmodified potato, for example,
554
would fail similar tests. Moreover, while we should certainly be very cautious about the potential effects of GM crops on the environment, I believe that the risks of these crops have been overstated and I do not altogether share the view of the noble Baroness that they represent a grave danger. It is right that they should be tested in the laboratory, in small field tests and then in large field trials, and that is happening anyway. But there is no particular reason to consider them a special risk.
The Royal Society's report of last February suggested that our control systems are really effective and that the risk of gene transfers to wild plants are slight. The society said that the likelihood of gene transfer to wild relatives depends on the species of crop and the location in which the crop will be grown. It is noticeable that the scientists are very specific, particular and cautious, whereas the condemnation of these crops tends to be very general and dogmatic. The report states:
"It is inevitable that some gene transfer will occur from certain crops, but the level of gene transfer to wild relatives front GM crops is likely to be exactly the same as from non-GM crops".
The report then observes that, in general, cultivated crop species or "escapees" will not be competitive in the wild and that:
"It is also notable that disease and pest resistant crops have been available for many years as a result of conventional breeding techniques, and we are not aware of any reported problems as a result of transfer of such traits".
Further, I think it is important to stress that genetic modification has a great advantage over the traditional biotechnology that has been in use for centuries because it is targeted and selective and not random. I quote from an article in Nature which cites Mr Mike Gale who is the director of the John Innes Centre and who makes the following important observation,
"Surely putting in one gene is better than shuffling around tens of thousands at random"—
that we have been doing for centuries.
Finally, it should be noted that GM crops have now been grown commercially for some time on a large scale in the United States with no apparent adverse effects on people or on the environment. I believe there is no reason to think that the US system of control is weak or ineffective or that there are any relevant geographical differences between the United States and Europe. However, what I am most concerned about is the real danger that the present panic could prejudice the enormous benefits which GM crops can bring. They can hugely reduce the use of chemicals in farming and thereby have a beneficial effect on biodiversity. It is the present intensive farming methods which have been responsible for the decrease in biodiversity.
The House of Commons Select Committee was told that the introduction of GM cotton in the United States had reduced the use of chemicals in growing cotton by 80 to 90 per cent. English Nature gave evidence to the House of Commons Committee. It stated that GM crops,
"have the potential to solve the environmental problems of intensive agriculture".
As the Government Chief Scientist pointed out, modern intensive agricultural practices are unsustainable. Again, as the Nuffield Council reminded us—and indeed as the work of Professor Gordon Conway has shown—

555
Vitamin A can be engineered into rice plants. This could save the lives of millions of children who now die from Vitamin A deficiency. I could multiply the examples. But this kind of evidence has been largely ignored, suppressed or distorted by the press, by some of the broadsheets as well as tabloids. The "Today" programme is one of the worst offenders. Some of the interviews by Mr John Humphries, who has a personal interest in organic farming, are a disgrace to fair and objective journalism.
Perhaps I am personally most disappointed by Friends of the Earth, whom I strongly supported until they became anti-science. By their concern with headlines rather than evidence they are now probably doing more harm to the cause of the environment than good. They were the ones who started the recent panic by building up Dr Pusztai as a leading expert. It is worth quoting the House of Commons report, whose contents the press ignored. The House of Commons said the following about Dr Pusztai. It mentioned of course that his assertions on the "Granada" programme attracted massive and unquestioning media interest. The House of Commons report stated,
"It transpired that Dr Pusztai's experiments involving GM material were incomplete and … that the experiments referred to had not been carried out. … Moreover, Dr Pusztai's interpretation of his research data was disputed, not only by the Rowett Institute, but also by an independent statistical analysis, commissioned by Dr Pusztai himself … Dr Pusztai told us that in his 110 day feeding trials, 'no differences between parent and GM potatoes could be found'. This directly contradicts his statement on 'World in Action'. Dr Pusztai's appearance before us attracted far more press interest than did some of our more credible witnesses. The press continues to give credibility to Dr Pusztai's claim despite it being contradicted by his own evidence".
The press has largely ignored evidence in the pursuit of sensation. The contents of the reports of the Select Committee of this House and of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, of the Royal Society and of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, to which I have already referred, have hardly been mentioned. It almost seems a handicap in the eyes of the press that these bodies have carefully considered the evidence and tried to be objective and what is more, that the last two include some of the leading authorities in this country.
However, the most surprising intervention has been that of the Prince of Wales. His general views are well known. He is not impressed by scientific evidence or the scientific method and he prefers a more mystical approach. When the Nuffield Council, which includes a number of distinguished environmentalists as well as scientists, argued in a carefully documented case that GM crops are needed to feed the world, he described that as "emotional blackmail". Was he wise to enter the present controversy so publicly? He is of course entitled to pursue his interests in organic farming and to hold the views he holds on genetic engineering but he has now actively and publicly engaged in campaigning against government policy; namely, the field testing of some GM crops. He should perhaps carefully consider his position. It would be intolerable for a constitutional monarch to engage in political controversy. This is something the Queen has impeccably avoided throughout her reign.
556
My last point concerns the role of the biotechnology companies. A kind of latter day Marxism now prevails which argues that government must not talk to companies and that the public must ignore the findings of company scientists because companies make profits. Of course the companies have a special interest; so, incidentally, do the environmental lobbyists whose membership depends on publicity and is boosted by scare stories. The companies' products should be independently tested and carefully regulated, and they are. It is in the interests of companies to have effective regulation, but it is also crucially in their own self-interest that their products are safe. If they are not, the companies face ruin.
Further, I think it is also fair to say that most people who work for these companies believe that they are doing good as well as earning a profit. Where would we be without the contribution of drug companies to the fight against disease? The pharmaceutical industry has been a great benefactor of mankind. If they are given the chance, I am sure the same will be true of genetic engineering and those who apply it to the growing of food.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I hope that I may put a question to him. I have listened to his spirited speech with the greatest interest. My question concerns the so-called precautionary principle, which is something we all agree to on all sides of the argument but there does not happen to be any agreed version of what that principle is. Does the noble Lord accept the following version; namely, that the precautionary principle will be observed if one admits that absence of evidence of harm is not the same as evidence of absence of harm?
Lord Taverne: My Lords, unfortunately that is part of the principle on which some are proceeding; namely, that one has to prove a negative, one has to prove that food is safe. There is no way in which one can prove that it is safe. If that was a test applied, we would not be able to eat anything.
11.48 a.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, first of all I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Miller. Secondly, I might want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, after his spirited speech and say that perhaps over five years in Northern Ireland I was practising what I preached and overate to such an extent that I needed new clothes!
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Miller. I call her "hard work" Miller as I have been present in the Chamber most of this week. I have had the honour to sit on the Woolsack on four days and I am about to sit on it a fifth day. On those occasions the noble Baroness has spoken on employment, genetically modified foods, and I do not know what else. Certainly I think she has earned the title, similar to one that was awarded to me 22 years ago, of a multi-role combat Baroness; in other words five, 10, 15 minutes on any subject. Her speech this morning was a worthy lead in to her Bill.

557
I am one of the least expert of the speakers in this debate today. I declare an interest in that I carry out fanning operations in Angus in Scotland, both arable and stock. However, I am certainly no scientist as regards arable farming. Over the past year or so your Lordships and the public have been bombarded with information on genetically modified foods and with some incredible stories that even I could not have made up in my deepest imagination.
If I am in doubt, I tend to ask for good advice; I am no scientist. Some 45 years ago, the decision was taken at Eton College that I should not take science; instead I should learn German. That did not go down well with some German people; they thought "They all cannot be that dim". But at least I know where to look for advice; the Scottish Crop and Research Institute at Dundee—which is just down the road from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill; I am pleased that he is with us today—and Dr Pusztai of the Royal Institute in Aberdeen, which is an equally famous scientific institute. I took the very best advice I could from the very best experts in Scotland—and I suspect in the United Kingdom—about this line of scientific inquiry, and particularly about crops. They have given me some very valuable advice.
Some of the information I have been given—which is relevant to my own neck of the woods and my own operation—concerns one particular kind of barley. We have been planting this barley for the past 32 years. This morning, an hour and a half ago, I spoke to my farm manager. He advised me that this kind of barley was planted in the north-east of Scotland before he started working for me in 1969 and that there is plenty of it around Angus and Kirriemuir. In 1986 it was mentioned to me by maltsters that the barley was particularly suitable for a certain kind of malting. Last week, distillers said to me "For goodness sake, please go on producing this kind of barley". Apparently it is considered in agricultural circles to be somewhat out of kilter and more or less mediaeval. Nevertheless, apparently distillers approve of this particular transgenic, mutated kind of barley—which only came to notice 40 years ago—as being of particular relevance to the making and distilling industry. I should stress that what you see is what you drink.
As has been said by previous speakers, we must trust experts in the field of biotechnology to carry on their experiments and research and we must take their advice. So far as concerns the plant breeding aspect of biotechnology, the science of biotechnology has assisted considerably in the quantity of crops produced. My noble friend Lady Miller pointed out that yields have improved and continue to do so. I agree with the right reverend Prelate. He recalled his childhood. I remember the war years in Kirriemuir in Angus when everything was done with a horse and cart. I also remember that there were ration books and a great shortage of food. I hope that the right reverend Prelate and your Lordships will accept that not everything about biotechnology is totally evil.
Scientists working in biotechnology have also improved the quality of crops, and created novel, new crops which have been found to be environmentally helpful for the United Kingdom. The continuation of
558
biotechnological research is of particular importance in achieving the environmental benefits of reducing the use of agrochemicals and disease. Both aims are widely approved and are something that plant breeders and farmers wish to pursue.
I have had some very helpful comments from the British Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. It has produced a very eminent paper in which it said that "science cannot provide all the answers". I am afraid I was lost by the third line of the page, but at least I know where to look. I believe that lay people such as ourselves know where to look for such advice.
I have with me a copy of the Sunday Post, the biggest selling organ of the press in Scotland—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, may know of it—which is read throughout Scotland. The noble Baroness, who is not in her place, said to me, "We do not get the Sunday Post". I do not think she meant to be rude; she is probably heavily involved with the broadsheets in Scotland. However, I can tell her what she is missing. It does not consist of lurid stories and coloured pictures of pneumatic young ladies. What she and others who do not read the Sunday Post are missing is good, competent advice and helpful comment—what we in Scot land call "couthy" advice—from quiet, competent and mostly Scottish experts.
I have a copy dated 23rd May 1999 which says that, after a week of controversy and confusion, the "Prof"— a typical Scottish term for professor—will answer questions; and eight or nine questions are answered in a very down-to-earth and understandable way. That did not surprise me. Professor Howard Davies is one of the professors and experts currently working in biotechnology and plant research at the Scottish Crops Research Institute in Invergowrie. As I live only 17 miles from there, I salute and take my hat off to it.
I have also received through the Scottish Crops Research Institute a most valuable document called An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. It consists of five pages; however, I must confess that I was lost after the first paragraph. It contained, however, a fascinating headline—which I am sure will interest my noble friend Lady Miller—which read "Ballistic impregnation". When I discovered that it dealt with wheat and barley, I tried to read the paragraph. That term may be of relevance to plant breeders but it is also of considerable relevance to those of us seeking to produce first-rate grain crops in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, referred to the Royal Society report. I tend to be somewhat idle; I turn to the end and work backwards. I counted 17 recommendations. They were not all easy-going recommendations that the science and research should continue untrammelled; it contained considerable advice, caution and what I would term a braking effect. I believe that with advice of caution and good sense from the Royal Society, your Lordships and the public can he reassured. We can be reassured by following the recommendations; by following my noble friend and her Bill today; and by following the scientific and biotechnological industry, which seeks a proper and accepted regulation of this vital science.

559
I thank my noble friend for bringing the Bill before us today. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
11.59 a.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, a great deal of the wind was taken out of my sails by the admirable and well-balanced way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, introduced her Bill. I congratulate her on it. I was pleased, too, that she drew our attention to the fact that for centuries men have been genetically modifying things, such as our grafts on apple trees and on vines. Wisely in your Lordships' House, she also mentioned horse-racing. The way in which we have carried on is well known. The fantastic success after the war of the use of new varieties in India and the Far East—which saved the world from major famines—is an example of the genetic work that has taken place.
I am a little distressed that the noble Baroness ended on an ultra cautious note. I ask myself what Clause 4(a) of the Bill means. Research into the effect of the use of such organisms is open-ended; it never ends. One could deduce from the clause that because one can never be sure of the ultimate results of research there should be a ban on such tests for ever.
I also much agree with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. Most of the wind that I had in my sails left after the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, had spoken, and it was totally evaporated by his speech. I agreed with every word that he said. He gave an extremely good exposition of the scientific problems facing us.
The media hype has been intolerable, and I hope that we do not give way to it. Every vegetable that we eat has carcinogens. The question is how many carcinogens. In this respect, I am reminded of the great French physiologist at the end of the 19th century, Claude Bernard, who said:
"Tout est poison. Rien n'est poison".
Everything depends on the dosage. That is the issue. How dangerous is it? I am glad that we have the Royal Society's evidence before us. Unless opponents of genetically modified plants can prove that they contain a dangerous level of poisonous material, they should be legalised.
12.1 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I welcome this debate, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for introducing the Bill. Normally debates clarify a subject but this morning's debate has served only to mystify us further. It shows why the public are so mystified and why the popular press—which could perhaps be berated for not acting responsibly all the time—has been right to point out some of the difficulties, secrecy and hypocrisy that have been involved.
I wonder how much this Bill is a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted. There are four steps along the road to planting genetically modified crops.
560
The first was taken under the Conservative government in 1993. It seems strange that a Bill like this was not introduced then and that we did not have such a debate then. Most of the public were not even aware of what was happening. At that time restricted field trials were allowed. The full extent was certainly not realised by the public. On 15th June 1999, the shadow spokesman for the Labour Party, Michael Meacher, said:
"Over several years, there have been several hundred - I think 600 to 700 - small trial plantings of GM crops in this country".— [Official Report, Commons, 15/6/93; col. 147.]
The second step was barely restricted trial planting. As table three of the report published yesterday by the John Innes Foundation, commissioned by MAFF, makes clear, various plants have been subject to trials since 1993, from poplars to eucalyptus, apples, barley and tomatoes. Where did we find any information from the previous government about that or about how those trials went?
Today's Bill makes us think that this is something new, but it is clearly not. That may be why the public are so concerned. They feel that weasel words are being used. I am thinking of phrases such as "releases into the environment". Ever since experiments have been conducted on genetically modified crops, there have been releases into the environment. Even at agricultural shows, trial patches are available.
I accept that there is a point in conducting trials and in considering the outcomes. There is also a point in knowing what the dangers are for the environment, but any possible benefits have not been well served by the sort of hypocrisy that has recently been apparent. The public are unhappy with progress by stealth. There has still not been any clarification of whether this is a natural process. Several noble Lords have commented that genetic modification, in one form or another, has been going on for thousands of years. I agree with that, but today's technology is different.
I am not a scientist, and I am not qualified to explain the exact differences, but even someone with A-level biology would understand the difference between natural breeding and crossing a fish, say, with a plant. Until the dangers of what I would term unnatural crossing have been made clear, those who do not understand the technology, including me, will continue to question whether it is safe.
Do we need to grow these crops? On 15th June, the reply given by Mr. Meacher was again informative. He said:
"The honest answer is that we do not need GM foods".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/1999; col. 148.]
He added that companies like genetically modified foods because they can extend shelf life and withstand saline or dry conditions.
After the war we needed increased yields, but we now have vast areas of set-aside. Thus the argument that these crops can produce vastly increased yields in this country is a bit thin. The argument in the case of the developing world has also yet to be proved.
What will trialling crops in this country tell the industry? Will it say anything about how those crops will react when grown in Africa? Perhaps we could

561
learn from the experience of the United States in growing these crops. How has biodiversity been affected there? Unfortunately, the United States' experience will not tell us much about how biodiversity in our country will be affected. First, biodiversity in the agricultural swathes of the United States of America is virtually non-existent. Secondly, we are as a country very different. We have a much richer biodiversity than the United States even though our biodiversity has been affected in recent years by very intensive farming.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was right to say that we need to operate the precautionary principle carefully. We have environmentally sensitive areas and sites of special scientific interest. We are still pretty rich in biodiversity, and we do not know how much that will be threatened by genetically modified crops.
This debate is particularly timely because until now the Government have denied organic growers' fears that genetically modified crops pose a threat to their produce. Yesterday's report from the John Innes Foundation, commissioned by MAFF, gives much useful and detailed information on pollen distances. Its conclusions are pretty chilling for the organic sector. Paragraph 8.11 points out that the need for acceptable levels of contamination of organic crops should be decided, along with the need for easy and reliable methods of identifying and quantifying genetically modified contamination, which is in practice very difficult to achieve.
The report concludes that initially the releases of genetically modified crops will involve a limited range of modifications which will make testing for contamination and consideration of the consequences easier. But if the technology takes off in the United Kingdom, as it is already doing in other countries such as North America. Argentina and China, the range of modifications could increase dramatically. We may have to make a choice between growing genetically modified food and having a pure organic system. I would not to stray far into the area of the Prince of Wales's opinion on this matter or whether he should have had an opinion, but he is in the vanguard of organic food production. As an organic food producer and one who has consistently promoted that area, he is entitled to an opinion.
We should not stumble from one intensive agricultural system, which has done so much harm to our wildlife and biodiversity, possibly into another that has not been proved to be either more beneficial or to offer benefits to this country as a whole until that research has been carried out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, there are only 200 days before more widespread planting will be allowed. On these Benches we have consistently called for a moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically modified crops until at least 2003, in line with English Nature's recommendations to the Government. We particularly hope that the research will tell us more about the effects on the soil and on non-GM and organic crops, and what levels of pesticides may be used compared with non-genetically modified crops. There is a misconception that using genetically modified crops
562
will enable much less herbicide to be used. In fact, as they are herbicide tolerant, the fact that much less needs to be used has not been finally proved.
Finally, I feel that the most important point is the cumulative and long-lasting environmental impact of growing GM crops on all wildlife, including birds, insects and invertebrates. In a previous debate I mentioned the fact that it took people a long time to learn the lessons of DDT and that effects on the food chain take years to show up. To think that by the year 2003 we will have learnt all the effects of planting a wide range of GM crops over vast tracts of this country is fairly optimistic.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon said, this is a short and simple Bill. It seeks to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and incorporates a definition taken from the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. It does not concern GM foods but GM crops. The object off the Bill is to ensure that the Government have the proper legislative power to restrain the marketing of genetically modified seeds and plants until all possible research has been done to ascertain the safety of these organisms and their effect on the environment.
We on these Benches have been clear in our response to these matters. We believe that the Government should proceed slowly and cautiously. Food safety is paramount and that must always be the first consideration. However, today we are dealing with the effect of these experiments on the environment. Whatever happens to the various experiments which are being carried out, at the end of the day the Government have to exercise judgment, common sense and caution in their approach. As several noble Lords have said today, nothing will ever be absolutely certainly safe, as in life as a whole.
It is clear that a great deal more research is required. That is happening at the moment, and as far as possible we believe that the research should be carried out by independent bodies if at the end of the day the general public is to be convinced. After all, the use of genetic modification in medicine is becoming commonplace. The general public has not needed to be reassured as to the safety of that. It is just assumed to be safe.
Environmental considerations must centre on whether genetic modification is likely to spread naturally to other species, and perhaps cause the balance of nature to be upset. While the case of the butterflies in the United States, which received so much publicity, may not be apposite, it is possible that something similar could occur here. It is to be hoped that if in the course of experiments which are being carried out such a disaster were to occur involving one of our native species, it would be recognised.
As my noble friend has shown, there are wide discrepancies in the various expert views as to the amount of barrier needed to prevent such natural spreading. In fact I like my noble friend's idea that all testing should be done in, presumably, the deserts of Kansas. It occurred to me that the desert is a good place because it is difficult to get anything to grow there.

563
However, I seem to remember that sandstorms have brought sand all the way from Morocco to this country, so again the barriers might have to be rather wide. One cannot be absolutely certain of the course of the wind and how it may pick up pollen and transport it a great distance, and of course there are the peripatetic bees, which can travel great distances.
As I have said, depending on the tests all proving negative, at the end of the day the Government must take decisions and exercise judgment in the national interest. The object of this Bill is that such decisions should be made only after all possible tests have been carried out, and after a report has been brought to Parliament. Full exploration of any possible risks to the environment must be made before any commercial planting is allowed to proceed.
The fears of organic farmers, one of the fastest growing sections of British agriculture, must be fully taken into account and any trials which take place within effective reach—whether by bees, wind and so on—should also be especially closely monitored. A report in The Times recently suggested that contamination of some organic crops had already taken place. That is worrying if it is true. Research may prove new doubts and problems and show that at least five years may be needed before commercial planting might take place. Analysis of the results of research should be on a continuous basis, keeping the public informed and making policy at appropriate moments on the basis of sound science.
The main concern on these Benches is that commercial planting of herbicide tolerant and insect resistant crops might be permitted before research into the environmental consequences had been properly completed, evaluated and reported on. This Bill effectively and succinctly sets out to ensure that this extremely exciting new technology is introduced gradually and with all due caution. After all, at the end of the day it may turn out to be one of the most important developments of the 21st century. It is vital that we get it right. The Bill seeks to ensure that it will be approached in the best possible way and the general public's legitimate and natural worries are assuaged. We support the Bill.
12.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, on her stamina and versatility during the course of the past few days. It makes us shudder a little on the Government Benches when we see on what new piece of legislation she is leading for the Opposition. I congratulate her also on the way in which she introduced the Bill today and all noble Lords on the tone in which they have conducted the debate, which has been rather better than some of the discussion outside this place.
As the right reverend Prelate indicated, this issue has raised a wide range of concerns, has led to deep scientific and moral divisions, and has raised
564
understandable concerns among the public and those who comment. We are dealing with an issue that is complex and emotive, and it is difficult to resolve entirely the differences between the various sides. That said, I must indicate that I shall not deal with all those great issues today. I shall attempt to concentrate on the Bill that is before the House and take up one or two of the points that were made towards the end of the debate.
To respond generally, although we accept many of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Lord, Lord Luke and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and although we would be considerably more cautious at the other end of the argument than the noble Lords, Lord Taverne and Lord Annan, indicated themselves to be in approaching this whole subject, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that the Bill is not necessary in terms of the regulatory framework. The Government are absolutely committed to operating a safe and transparent regulatory system. However, we believe that the current regulations achieve that. We therefore do not believe that the Bill adds anything to the transparency or safety of the current regime.
It is important that we get a feel for the scale of what is currently going on in this country as regards different genetically modified crops. The current regulations came into force in February 1993. Since that date there have been 166 research applications to release genetically modified organisms. Some of those cover different locations, but that is the total number. In the vast majority of those cases, the research is finished. We are talking about 54 small-scale research activities which are currently allowed and are on-going. In none of those has there been any incidence of damage to the environment. That in itself is a strong testimony to the effectiveness of the safety regime.
At present we are moving on to larger-scale tests, because we have to understand the wider environmental and biodiversity effects of these crops. Therefore, as of today, six farm-scale trials are already under way and we envisage next year moving to a total of 60 such sites, 20 of each of the main crops, autumn and spring rape and maize. Those will all be carefully controlled farm-scale trials to test the effect of biodiversity about which a large number of concerns have been expressed both in this debate and more widely. After the planting of those crops, the normal rotation of the fields will need to be reverted to, so that a proper assessment can be made over the subsequent two years of the full effects. That is what is presently in the pipeline. I thought it important to set the context so that people understand that we are dealing with a relatively small number, even next year, of carefully controlled experiments. They are experiments about which there are a large number of uncertainties, and we are proceeding with extreme caution.
It is also necessary to explain to the House how the current regulatory system operates. The regulatory process is governed by EC Directive 90/220, which is given effect in the UK by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Consents for release for research or any other

565
purpose are issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in England; the Scottish executive; and now the Welsh Assembly.
For cases encompassing environmental and agricultural matters, the Secretary of State acts jointly with the Minister of Agriculture. Separate legislation applies in Northern Ireland, but the effect is the same. Applications to market GMO products would pass through the same procedure; but they must also be submitted through the competent authority of the EC member state where the product is intended first to be marketed, and then be cleared at Community level before a consent is granted.
The purpose of those controls at UK and EU level is to prevent or minimise any potential damage to human health and to the environment that may arise from the release of GMOs. The release regulations require any person wishing to release or market GMOs to conduct an environmental risk assessment and to provide comprehensive information on the planned release. The consent holder must be constantly aware of any risk or damage to the environment and must notify the Secretary of State if there is any information that would indicate a change in the level of risk. Requirements are now being introduced in the context of the revision of the EC directive which establishes the principle for risk assessment and post-marketing monitoring provisions. That is intended further to reinforce the safety of the regime.
The Secretary of State relies on independent scientific evidence that has been provided by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. There has been much comment on that committee. I am pleased to inform the House that my colleague, Michael Meacher, will later today announce the future membership of that ACRE committee.
Directive 92/220 is currently being amended. The noble Baroness asked for an indication of our attitude within the European negotiations. Those amendments will give us the opportunity to clarify and extend a number of key provisions. The objective of the directive, which the Government fully support, is that of protecting human health and the environment. The Government wish the scope of the directive to be more clearly defined than at present and the risk assessment to cover direct and indirect, immediate and delayed effects. We must make sure that the conclusions of the risk assessment are confirmed through effective monitoring by competent authorities. We want to make sure that the regime is transparent and that the public are given information about the activities governed by the directive. Of key importance is a change in the committee procedures for resolving objections lodged by one or more member states. We want to see a greater and fairer weighting of the views in these procedures. We believe that our attitude as regards that will be successful at the European level and indicates that we are constantly striving to improve the regulatory regime at that level. That is the background against which this Bill is proposed.
I respect the views of the noble Baroness in bringing the Bill forward. However, it does not seem to add anything either to the exhaustive scientific study of
566
every dossier which is carried out by the DETR, advised by its scientific experts on ACRE, or to the overarching framework of bio-safety which exists in the UK and the EU.
There are four key points in the Bill. The first proposes an amendment calling for,
"research on the effect of the use of",
GMOs before any release may take place. The term "use" presumably refers to use in the research programme; at a further stage it would be covered by other regulations.
Such an assessment is already carried out under the current regime before any consent is issued. Such amendment is therefore unnecessary. The environmental risk assessment required by the current regulations must consider in detail the effects of the use of a GMO, including direct and indirect, immediate and delayed effects.
ACRE's remit was recently extended to take account of the indirect and cumulative effects of GMO releases on biodiversity in particular. It has been further strengthened by the agreement reached by Environment Ministers in December. While the revision of the directive continues, new principles for risk assessment and monitoring will be introduced. The UK is therefore asking applicants for consent to release or market GMOs to apply a modified procedure of risk assessment. Although it is quite similar to the current regime, it will be better. Holders of consents to market GMOs will also be required to monitor the performance of their product and verify that the assumptions in the risk assessment supporting the application are borne out in practice. Therefore, I do not think that the first main provision of the Bill is necessary.
The Bill's second point concerns the preparation of guidelines for each GMO release. Each individual consent now lays down very clear conditions on which the GMO may be released. That includes a requirement of post-release monitoring. On top of that, crops grown in the farm-scale evaluations will be subject to the SCIMAC guidelines. Those lay down strict requirements, for example, to ensure traceability, separation distances and good agricultural practice. The guidelines will now be enforced by legally binding contracts, penalties for non-compliance and independent audit. This shows that the proposed requirement for guidelines is already covered by the existing regime which lays down clear conditions.
The two remaining central points in the Bill relate to parliamentary approval. This would take us into new territory for parliamentary activity in such fields. The Government do not believe that it would be appropriate for Parliament to consider each individual application for the release of GMOs. Once the regulations that govern the release and the criteria for applying the rules have been set, the grant of consents must be an operational matter for the relevant Secretary of State. The Government believe that the regulatory framework secures protection of human health and the environment.. and Parliament has been extensively involved in scrutinising and approving the legislation.

567
This House in particular has had a number of debates on the whole area, and no doubt will continue to do so in terms of broad policy. It does not seem to the Government that to bring individual applications for consent to Parliament is the appropriate way to deal with this very difficult, and often highly technical, issue. That is, therefore, our view on the Bill. While we commend the noble Baroness on a number of the concerns that she has expressed, some of which we are taking on board in our efforts to improve the regulations at EU and UK level, I am afraid that we cannot support the necessity for the Bill.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford raised the question of the need for baseline surveys and ecological studies. The baselines for these studies are paired comparisons between GM crops and non-GM crops. That is how we establish any difference that GM crops may make to the wider environment. English Nature, the RSPB and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology are all involved in those assessments. The right reverend Prelate also questioned whether voluntary guidelines were enough. The SCIMAC guidelines go over and above the existing EU legislation that I have outlined. We are backing that up by the measures that I have outlined. While they are industry-based voluntary guidelines, they are rigorous and the back-up in the regulatory mechanism is there.
Much concern has been expressed here and elsewhere about the implications for organic farming. The Government take this seriously and recognise the concern about evidence of long-distance pollen transfer which comes from government-funded work. Pollen can travel long distances, but in normal agriculture it is also true that most plants are pollinated by those near them. The frequency of cross-pollination decreases rapidly with distance. The SCIMAC guidelines include separation distances based on those which already successfully protect the integrity of ordinary commercial agricultural crops. Nevertheless, we recognise that there are concerns in this area. For example, we shall consider the John Innes report to which reference has already been made. In particular, we recognise that the organic sector has a serious concern about avoiding contamination of air produced by GMOs. MAFF is in discussion with representatives of organic farming and will carefully take their views into account, together with further scientific information, in any further measures that are needed.
Today, we have been debating a regulatory framework which deals with living genetically modified crops rather than the food end. Reference has also been made to cosmetics and medicines, but I shall not deal with those matters today. The Government have indicated their desire to ensure that there is a safe regulatory framework. I refute the allegation that the Government have been driven by particular commercial concerns. We shall continue to attempt to achieve, and will achieve, a balanced view of the considerations. Since the noble Baroness mentioned it, I refer to the furore reflected in the "Today" programme yesterday about the alleged hundreds of meetings between Ministers and representatives of GM companies. That is
568
grossly exaggerated. I can speak in detail only about my own department. My colleague Michael Meacher has had precisely three meetings with representatives of GM companies and probably a dozen or so meetings to deal with industry bodies and international aspects of this problem. Ministers and officials have also had a significant number of meetings with the environmental groups that take a different view.
I do not believe that the fact that we have some contacts with GM companies should be regarded as in any sense sinister. We need to have such meetings. I hope that government, the scientific community and those who draw up regulations and enforce them will continue to recognise the need to work closely with industry but also the deep concerns in the agricultural community, among consumers and public opinion generally in this area. However, we believe that the present regulatory framework and the improvements in the pipeline make this Bill unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will take that into account.
12.35 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this morning's debate. Most noble Lords, with slight reservations, have supported the Bill, even though the Government do not believe that it is necessary. In thanking the Minister for his very good reply, I am sorry to learn that when Ministers see me opposite them—I shall carefully read Hansard tomorrow in case I did not correctly understand him—they have a slight shudder. That bothers me immensely. I always try to be extraordinarily helpful to the Government.
I also thank all noble Lords and my noble friend for their kinds remarks. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who spoke in the gap, for recognising that my Bill and my speech sought to be well balanced. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, generally welcomed the Bill, although he wanted to ensure that it was well balanced. He said that I had made reference to "grave concerns" and so forth. I went on to say that the assurances of industry might turn out to be right and there are no real dangers, but the point is that we do not know for sure.
The Bill does not discuss whether or not GM crops are safe; it is much more to do with public perception and concern and to try to settle their fears once and for all. The Bill is about not being bounced into full field trials. The Minister will understand that many of the smaller farm trials have been abandoned. Some of them have been abandoned noisily and some we have not heard about at all. The Bill is also about not being bounced into commercial exploitation of these products until agreement has been reached that the individuals products, one by one, are safe beyond reasonable doubt. I certainly do not suggest that it should be proved 100 per cent beyond doubt, which we cannot have. Therefore, when the Government give a product a licence all the facts will have been openly debated and transparent. Those facts will be put before Parliament, which will give its approval on behalf of the people. However, I understand the Minister's comment that that would entail going into a new area.

569
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and I share the same name and sometimes tend to be confused. However, I believe that on this issue we are very much at one. If one went back just a year, hardly anyone was concerned about this matter. This is a new matter with which the public have a problem. Anything that we can do to help in that process will be good in the long run and will deal with all the matters that we want to deal with.
I make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I do not believe that this is a political matter at all. I said that this was a matter for government because it will be the responsibility of government to take whatever action is necessary to calm people's fears.
I shall not return to what the Prince of Wales did or did not say. I am certain that he did not make a comment in a political way. The comments made about it being constitutionally improper are inappropriate. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, state that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches did not feel that anything he said was out of order.
In thanking noble Lords again, I express the hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

European Community Legislation (Impact) Bill [H.L.]
12.40 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
It will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that today is Waterloo Day. It seems particularly appropriate that the Bill I present is heavily influenced by the playing fields of Brussels. The purpose of the Bill is to require the relevant Minister to report to Parliament on the impact on British business of specific EU legislation that has been put into law either by a directive or which has become law automatically through secondary legislation and regulations.
It will be no news to the Government that businesses in this country, large and small, feel that their competitiveness is being seriously eroded by the never-ending tide of legislation which has been coming their way; most comes directly or indirectly from Brussels.
I should like to give your Lordships a few examples of some of those directives and regulations. There is the parental leave directive; the acquired rights directive; the working time directive; and the VAT directives in all their glorious variety. I think that we are now on the sixth VAT directive. The urban waste directive will add massively to the costs of fish processing plants. As one example, a firm of fish processors sent me information which indicates that their charges are likely to rise from £40,000 to over £1 million a year. We have the landfill directive. The dangerous goods safety adviser directive requires the use of a certified safety adviser during
570
loading, transport and unloading of dangerous goods—and I am informed that dangerous goods under this directive will include Tipp-Ex and aerosols. The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce has estimated the cost of that directive at £580 million with a benefit to industry of only £30 million.
Then we have the multiplicity of regulations. I give two examples. The Dairy Products Hygiene Regulations run to 165 pages and require a PhD in microbiology and a law degree to understand them. Then we have the impending disaster to the rural economy caused by MAFF's current interpretation of the Meat Hygiene Service Regulations whereby small abattoirs, meat processors and their suppliers will be forced out of business by having entirely disproportionate costs forced upon them.
Then there are the fire regulations, the health and safety regulation and environmental regulations. I do not need to continue. Your Lordships get the general picture.
I wish to run briefly through the Bill. Clause 1 defines the purpose of the Bill and at subsection (4) states what the report shall include. Subsection (4)(c) requires the Secretary of State to assess what could or should be done to reduce the cost and burden on business. Paragraph (d) requires that the report contain separate chapters on the impact on business in Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland. Subsection (5) requires that the impact assessment be laid before the UK Parliament by the end of May following the financial year to which the report relates. This gives the Government about seven weeks in which to prepare the report. This should ensure that the impact report is relevant and can be acted upon.
Clause 2 requires that the Secretary of State consult widely with all those affected and that arrangements be made and advertised to enable individuals and organisations who may have missed that consultation to make their own case to the Minister and his representatives.
Clause 3 requires the Minister of the Crown to state at Second Reading of a Bill what provisions, if any, the Bill contains to give effect to Community legislation, and what that legislation is. This is similar to the present statement on the face of a Bill which indicates compliance or non-compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Clause 4 defines the Community legislation which is within the scope of the Bill, and the meaning of "impact" for the purposes of the Bill.
The Minister will probably say that there is already adequate scrutiny of EU legislation in our two Houses, and that in any case regulatory compliance costs assessments are issued whenever a new law or regulation is enacted. I do not agree that that is adequate. Nor, I believe, does the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, or the Employers Forum on EU Social Policy, all of which I have consulted on this matter. The EU Scrutiny Committees report on selected EU legislation. As a Member of your Lordships" Select Committee I can testify to how much hard work goes into making those reports both thorough and balanced. But

571
I can also testify to the fact that legislation and draft legislation pour out of Brussels at such a rate that proper scrutiny has become impossible, never mind the fact that the Commission bureaucracy seems to have major problems in getting the papers out within a time-scale which will allow for proper scrutiny. This has been the object of complaint by the Select Committee on several occasions, with little or no effect to date as far as I can see. In any case, scrutiny is no substitute for proper legislation.
The compliance costs assessments are inevitably imprecise. They come before the true costs can be properly assessed. I ask the Minister how widely these compliance costs assessments are distributed. Do the businesses which will be affected by them receive them as of right; or do they and their representative organisations have to find out what is in the legislative pipeline and then ask for them? That is the only question I shall ask the Minister. I hope that he will give me some comfort on that. I do not deny the usefulness of these preliminary assessments; and my Bill does not seek to replace them. It requires the Government to report on past costs annually.
If the costs for the year are roughly the same or less than the preliminary assessment, then all well and good. If, however, the costs are greater, the Government will have to explain how and why these costs have increased; how they got it wrong; and what they propose to do to put it right.
One obvious example is the effect of EU legislation on employment. Has a measure been job positive or job negative? If positive, fine; if negative, then Parliament should know that its enactments have damaged employment. On 12th May the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who is in charge of the Better Regulation Task Force, made a most encouraging speech—it was his maiden speech—in an excellent debate on small firms. He said that,
"bigger businesses have the resources to comply with complex regulations. Small ones do not".— [Official Report, 12/5/99; col. 1238.]
I shall now present your Lordships with an astonishing statistic. Microcompanies—that is, companies with up to 10 employees or fewer—make up nearly 95 per cent of all businesses in this country, and they employ over 10 million people. They are the creators of new jobs. By contrast, big companies seem to cut jobs when the bottom line looks rocky. One has only to look at the headlines:
"Barclays announced that 6,000 jobs are to go";
and—
"Invensys shedding 5,000 jobs";
and this morning in The Times—
"Prudential to cut 4,000 jobs".
Small companies could replace those jobs, but they need support, not strangulation by regulation. They need directives to be applied flexibly, as they are in other countries of the EU, and not gold-plated by overzealous bureaucrats as all too often they are in this country. We need to take more advantage of derogations where they are available and need to interpret the spirit of the directive rather than its strict letter.
572
For example, the preamble to the Social Chapter on Parental Leave—it is giving small business quite a headache—states:
"This agreement takes into consideration the need to enhance the competitiveness of the community economy and to avoid imposing financial administrative and legal constraints in a way that would impede the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings".
Therefore, there are such provisions, even in some of the more radical EC legislation, which ought to be taken on board.
This Bill is not anti-government. Indeed, it seeks to work with the grain of government policy in its endeavours to reform the European Union labour market. It is not anti-European; it is not xenophobic; and it will not cause us to miss the various trains, planes, boats and bicycles which are now so vital to our future well-being. However, it is anti the unnecessary legislation still flowing from an arrogant and discredited Commission and it is anti gold-plating. By the way, am I alone in wondering what this discredited Commission, which resigned en bloc and in disgrace only four months ago, is doing still turning out these regulations?
This Bill is pro employment and pro business, particularly pro small businesses, which are the lifeblood of this country's economy. During the debate on small firms, I was interested to note that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick, whom I have never met or spoken to, asked at col. 253 of Hansard for an annual statement to Parliament on the costs of regulation and the Government's plan to reduce that cost in the following year. This Bill would do exactly that and would be welcomed by business and I hope by government. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.]
12.50 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on reading through the Bill which has been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, my first reaction was one of sympathy. Any information that is helpful to the business community and to the citizens at large is most welcome. Indeed, it may be within the recollection of your Lordships that for the past quarter of a century I have made repeated requests—I shall not say "demands"—for such information, and not always with adequate response.
Therefore, my first observation is that we are dealing with information about the past. It has no bearing on what is going to happen in the future, aside from the presentation of a report. Although it may be rumoured to the contrary, that I have little sympathy with Ministers, I have a great deal of sympathy with them. I know the time which they have at their disposal after they have dealt with the ordinary administrative affairs of their departments and carried out the tasks in their original brief and those added to it by the Prime Minister; and I must say that the requirements relating to the compilation of a report on the impact costs of EC legislation—on what happened in the past and after the event—are formidable indeed. I doubt whether any Minister working full-time on the preparation of a report on what happened last year would be able to spend a couple of hours a day going through the stuff before it finally reached its reform.

573
Let us see what the Bill requires of the report. It is to be:
"a summary of the views of the individuals and bodies consulted",
and the consultative requirements are extensive. It is:
"a summary of representations … where the impact identified by the Secretary of State or by any individual consulted or from whom he has received representations … should be taken to reduce or offset that impact".
In addition to general assessments affecting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly of Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, not later than May after the financial year to which it relates the Secretary of State has to provide all those bodies with a report, but before he does so in relation to the year that has passed he must consult,
"organisations representing business and industry, including small businesses … trade unions … organisations representing companies providing financial services … registered charities … organisations representing the legal and accountancy professions".
I am glad to see that last provision and I look forward to any consultations which the noble Lord may care to have.
All that represents not only time that must be spent by the Minister and his senior and semi-senior civil servants, but time that must be taken by the people who are interviewed. There will be an additional cost on business to provide that time after the event, without being able to influence in any way what has happened. I do not believe that that is the right way of going about it.
Incidentally, I observe that one of the Ministers pre-empted today's debate by providing a Parliamentary Answer to a Written Question tabled in another place yesterday. Mr Brady asked the Secretary of State:
"What estimates his Department had made of the cost of … the social chapter's parental leave directive … the works council directive … and part-time work directive to British business".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/99; col. 204.]
In reply, the Minister indicated that he would issue a statement and that a regulatory impact assessment will accompany the draft regulations. Therefore, the noble Lord on the Front Bench can already claim that in part he has pre-empted what is required by the noble Lord.
It must not be assumed from this that I am not in sympathy with the broad drift of the proposals. Indeed, I am very much in sympathy. But it seems to me that the effort to impart information should be made before the regulation is approved and not afterwards. I have already indicated that even the production of the report ex post facto would take a long time. It might therefore be complained that providing the information before the regulation is approved will also take some time. But what does that matter?
I do not discern, and many of your Lordships will not discern, a demand by the electorate of Europe last week to be provided with more regulations. In fact, there was no demand for any regulations at all. Therefore, I ask myself whether the European population—made citizens of Europe at Maastricht—are loud with complaints that they have not been provided with any regulations for at least a year. On the assumption that the Commission stopped issuing regulations, on the assumption that the
574
Council decided that the small amount of time it devoted to considering anything was worth while sacrificing, Europe might have a whole year without any regulations whatever and without raising the slightest complaint. Of course, the agricultural community would complain if from time to time agricultural prices were not amended in order to conform with exchange rate variations and so forth. But there would be no complaint.
Moreover, I regret to say that it is also the case that there is no realisation either in government or outside of the origins of the great majority of these regulations. I shall be dealing with that matter later today, time constraints permitting. As I shall endeavour to show at a later stage in our proceedings today, regulations emanate from hundreds of committees without any intervention of Ministers at all. Some of the regulations have a very great impact indeed on the lives of businessmen.
Unfortunately, I have not time to read examples of regulations made without any intervention from Parliament whatsoever and probably without any consideration even by Ministers. They have had considerable ill-effects on our business community. I can cite case after case, quoting the regulation concerned, where it has been sought to enforce it by the enforcement authorities in our own country on behalf of the Commission and ostensibly on behalf of the Community. Many of them have ruined individual businessmen. It has involved firms going into liquidation on account of the interpretation of measures that subsequently, through legal action—too late, of course—proved to be wrong.
Firms have gone into liquidation in this country and incurred vast legal costs because of an interpretation of Community regulations, all of which are covered in this Bill. Therefore, I urge Her Majesty's Government in reply to this debate, while legitimately rejecting it, that they should nevertheless take on board the lesson that is involved: that is, that all legislation brought from the Community to this country, before it goes on to the statute book or becomes enforceable, should be subject to an impact assessment. That would be done by the Government themselves and by business. The regulations certainly would not be missed in the country. There will be no clamour; no processions down Whitehall or assemblies in Trafalgar Square, or even in the country towns, protesting that people have had no regulations for a year. It would not even be noticed, in the same way as the public did not notice the European elections which took place last week.
Therefore, while disagreeing with the noble Lord's Bill on the ground that it deals with the past, on behalf of myself and I believe many others, I would like to thank him very much indeed for bringing forward this Bill, enabling ourselves and I hope others to learn from it and to make quite sure that any regulation from the Commission, from wherever it emanates, is subject to proper scrutiny and estimates by the Government of the impact costs before it reaches the statute book and is enforced. On those grounds alone I shall certainly give a fair wind to the Second Reading of the noble Lord's Bill so that it will enable further and profitable discussions of the real issues involved.
1.3 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, of course I support this excellent Bill and congratulate my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on his initiative in introducing it. However, I am not entirely sure whether my noble friend intends that his Bill should apply only to Euro legislation which will have been forced down our throats in any preceding year or whether the Government would be required to report annually on the result of all Community legislation with which we have been saddled since our tragic decision to join the European Economic Community, or Common Market as it then was, in 1972.
I feel sure that the latter requirement, if not already included in Clause 1, is essential if only to bring home to the Government and to the people of this country the full extent of the calamity which our adherence to the Treaty of Rome has brought us. If that means that the complaint made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is extended to legislation which is even older than the legislation that he has in mind, then I suggest that Ministers and their civil servants could spend very much more time doing that and not pursuing new legislation in Brussels.
The people of this country have been assured by all three of our political parties and by our political media for at least 25 years that our membership of what is now the EU is a good thing. There is no serious debate about what life for this country might be like if we left the Treaty of Rome or the EU and maintained our present trading position with it. Both the previous government and this one steadfastly refuse an objective cost-benefit analysis.
So it is a great credit to the common sense of the British people that recent polls show that some 40 per cent of them want to leave the EU despite all the lies that they have been told by the aforementioned parties for 25 years and that a much higher percentage of them are certainly not going to be fooled into signing up to European economic and monetary union, that final prison door of full political subservience to Brussels, as the election last week clearly demonstrates.
This Bill goes to the heart of why the British people remain so staunchly and wisely Euro-sceptic. That means that they dislike the Treaty of Rome and everything which it allows the bureaucracy in Brussels to force on us. Euro-scepticism does not mean that most British people dislike the Continent of different European nations, each with its own glorious history and culture, which they admire and respect. We Euro-sceptics love that real Europe: we hate the Treaty of Rome and all its works.
We have only to consider a short list of those British interests which have already felt the dread hand of the crazy Bureaucrats in Brussels—and which I suggest that this Bill should cover—to see why that is so. Apart from our currency, those interests include our food, water, fisheries, agriculture, waste disposal, art market, slaughter-houses, Eurobond market, working week, herbal medicines, bridges, sparkling cider, lorries, take-overs, dairy farmers, towbars, whisky distillers, pheasant shooting, market gardeners, Civil Service, egg
576
producers, taxis, cheese makers, paper rounds, boat builders, legal system, hallmarks, oak trees, duty-free shopping, ponies, condoms, the roast beef of olde England, the London bus and the excellent lavatory designed by Thomas Crapper.
Behind every one of those damaged or threatened interests lies an almost incredible saga of bureaucratic excess and ineptitude in Brussels, which has often been gleefully made even more damaging by our bloated bureaucracy and pusillanimous government Ministers here.
Of course, I do not have time to go through each one now, but if any noble Lord wants to challenge me on any one of the interests that I have mentioned, I will be delighted to give him the full, ghastly, unexpurgated story of how Brussels came—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I listened to the long list of things coming out of Brussels. I sympathise with the noble Lord and understand. He mentioned a directive on condoms. I believe that the general public would consider that quite way out. Could he, perhaps, elaborate on that? What has the European Union to do with condoms?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. By coincidence I was looking at it this morning just to make sure. I have here, in a plain brown envelope, the European Union directive on condoms. We are often told that the European Union has ceased interfering in the nooks and crannies of British life. But I can tell noble Lords that these 50 pages prove the opposite. There was nothing wrong with the UK condom manufacturing industry when this directive was introduced in 1996.
I am happy to take the noble Lord and your Lordships through some of the unbelievable detail of this piece of interfering nonsense which, as I say, runs to 50 pages. For example, on page 6, we come to the definitions of a condom. Such definitions are all legally binding in a directive. It states:
"For the purposes of this European standard, the following definitions apply".
There is quite a lot that I shall spare your Lordships in the interests of propriety, but we then come to Article 3.5 where we are told how to recognise a visible hole in the condom:
"A hole in the condom that is visible under normal or corrected vision".
But our friends in Brussels are not going to leave us with that. They want to describe in law what a non-visible hole is at Article 3.6. It is:
"a hole in the condom that is not visible under normal or corrected vision and is defined as a defect through which a quantity of water can be forced by rolling a condom containing 300 millilitres of water (or",
your Lordships will be pleased to hear,
"electrolyte) on coloured absorbent paper such that all parts of the surface of the condom are brought into contact with the absorbent paper, the quantity of water being such that it can be detected visually as a wet mark on the paper".

577
We go into design:
"Condoms may be of the designs given in the following list",
but I shall spare your Lordships that because it is not intended to be exhaustive. However, I imagine that some of your Lordships would find that list quite informative.
We come to bursting volume and pressure and we are told that a defective condom is defined as,
"a condom which fails the requirement for volume or the requirement for pressure or both requirements; ie, a condom failing both requirements is counted as I defective condom".
I cannot go through all 56 pages. We have a page and a half on how we decide the length of a condom. You are not allowed to say, "Just measure it". There are some amazing diagrams. We have two and a half pages on the method for the determination of bursting volume and pressure of a condom. We have another two and a half pages, starting on page 24, for the method of the determination of force and elongation of break of test pieces of condoms.
There is a new offence here at F.3.1, I think:
"Preparation of test specimen. Move the condom inside the package such that it is away from the area where the package is to he torn. Tear the package and remove the condom".
Then the offence:
"Under no circumstances use scissors or other sharp instruments to open the package".
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my noble friend is going into great, perhaps excessive, detail. Is there anything about recycling in the directive?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I think there is. I am very happy to send my noble friend a copy of the document so that he can study it at his leisure.
On page 25, we get to F.5.2:
"Calculate elongation at break",
that is Eh, in brackets,
"as a percentage of each test piece by using the following expression",
so this is the formula,
"K + 2d - p x 100 / p
where:
K is the length of the test piece in millimetres, rounded to the nearest millimetre",
and so on. That incredible document is now being pursued by the EU on a worldwide basis. It demonstrates what I was saying before; that this is the kind of detail which British manufacturers have to put up with. As far as I know, they were making perfectly adequate condoms before. Indeed, they were world leaders in condoms before this nonsense came out. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention.
Taken together, the damage done to those British interests and the costs incurred in following the relevant diktats from Brussels all add up to a colossal drain on the British economy. But this cost is hidden from the British people because if there is one aim that our three political parties share in their attitude towards the Treaty of Rome, it is a determination to keep its results from the British electorate.
578
One can talk privately now to former Conservative Ministers who confess that much of their time as Ministers, and even more of the time of their civil servants, was taken up in disguising the fact that legislation they were introducing was in fact imposed upon this country by Brussels. This certainly applies to the Ministry of Agriculture and I suspect it runs across the board.
Another fairly big example would be the water directives, especially the urban waste water directives, the drinking water directives and the bathing water directives, the latter of which, when I sat on your Lordships' Select Committee, was described as a complete waste of money by no less than our own Department of Health.
No one seems to have the faintest idea how much those cost or what their benefit has really been, and certainly no one has dared to look at what the cost and benefit of cleaning up our water on our own initiative would have been without the massive additional and often superfluous cost imposed by Brussels.
For example, I remember that in 1996, the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart of Swindon, elicited from the Government the fascinating statistic that we had by then, since 1972, spent some £14,000 million on water purity dictated by Brussels and only £1,000 million on infrastructure and supply. I do not know what the current figures are and would be grateful if the Minister could supply them when he comes to wind up. However, when I was on your Lordships' Select Committee three years ago, it looked as though spending on infrastructure and supply, which is not dictated by Brussels, would be rising to around £10,000 million by 2002, but the spending on Brussels directives has spiralled up to around the £40,000 million mark since 1972. Will the Minister clarify this and would he also be good enough to confirm that the usual bureaucratic stupidity is observable in the fact that the massively expensive drinking water directive does not require the lead pipes in people's houses to be changed, which are what cause much of the supposed damage to health? Will he confirm also that the United Kingdom had some of the purest drinking water in Europe before this nonsense started? Can he estimate what proportion of our vastly increased water charges are due to European water directives as opposed to additional expenditure on infrastructure and supply?
Finally, and I think importantly, can he tell us what all the other European countries are doing about these directives, not just some of them but all of them? I had a Written Question on this recently and the Government said that one or two countries were following them, but we have not the faintest idea what most of them are doing.
As I have indicated, this Bill, if drafted sufficiently widely, would expose the true effect of our adherence to the Treaty of Rome, which is why the Government will not want it. That is the real reason that they will not want it.
After all, this Government continue to mislead the British people about the European Union just as assiduously as did the previous Conservative

579
government. I have only time to give your Lordships two examples of that. First, let us look at the example of the Prime Minister himself in Questions in the House of Commons last week on 9th June, at cols. 639 to 643, when he repeated twice one of the most inaccurate and misleading slogans which is constantly uttered by those who favour handing over the last shreds of our national sovereignty to the emerging corporatist superstate in Brussels.
At col. 639, the Prime Minister was putting the Government's well-worn position that they would join EMU if it proved to be successful and if the Government judge it to be in the national economic interest. The Prime Minister went on:
"That is because more than 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and more than 3 million jobs are dependent on Europe".
Then at col. 641, the Prime Minister was teasing the Conservatives by suggesting that the logic of their position of wanting to renegotiate some aspects of the Treaty of Rome meant that they would have to take the UK out of the EU. He want on to say:
"Given that more than 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, that would be a mistake for Britain".
But it is simply not true to say that 50 per cent of our trade is with Europe. What is true is that perhaps as much as 42 per cent of our exports go to the EU, quite a chunk of which merely pass through Rotterdam and Antwerp to destinations outside the EU.
But that 42 per cent represents only some 14 per cent of UK gross domestic product, which is surely a fairer yardstick of our overall trade than exports alone. To confirm those figures, your Lordships could look at a Written Answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on 18th January.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will stop using this grossly misleading figure of 50 per cent when they promote the need for our membership of the European Union; nor does the Prime Minister's figure of 3 million jobs depending on our trade with the EU appear to have any basis whatever in fact. As evidence of that I would refer to a Written Answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, on 30th March 1999 in response to my Question as to the effect of the European single market upon net UK job creation figures between 1993 and 1997. The Answer he was obliged to give was:
"There are no meaningful figures on the effect of European single market legislation upon net UK job creation between 1993 and 1997".—[Official Report, 30/3/97; col. WA32.]
We are, of course, powerless in the European Union, thanks to the terms of the treaty. I shall not remind your Lordships again of the terms of qualified majority voting which make that inevitable. Certainly in all areas covered by the single market, all of our industry, commerce and environment, that is so.
It will not come as a surprise to your Lordships that my solution to the problems covered by the Bill would quite simply be to leave the Treaty of Rome. There is really nothing at all frightening about that. We are the fourth largest economy in the world, with which we trade in surplus, while we trade in deficit with the European Union.
580
Leaving the European Union would be a thoroughly positive thing for the United Kingdom and for the British people. We could adopt the Swiss model, which is highly successful. We could, perhaps, look at a new North Atlantic free trade area. It is, in that respect, gratifying that the existing NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area) is already negotiating with Norway and Iceland; or, we could simply opt for complete independence under the World Trade Organisation, which has, in any case, brought international tariff barriers down to below 4 per cent. That means that the EU is redundant, if we leave out its sinister aim of political unification, which is also denied by this Government as it was by the Conservatives.
I know that leaving the European Union is a little way off and this is not the time to consider the sunlit uplands of the United Kingdom unburdened by the shackles of the incompetent, fraudulent and hopeless European Union. So, in the meantime, I support this excellent Bill. I hope that it can be drawn widely enough to show the British people the true nature of the quicksand into which their political leaders have so blindly led them, and which I hope, before long, they will have the clarity and the courage to leave.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, before the next speaker, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we have two further debates this afternoon. The Companion suggests that your Lordships might wish to keep within a 15-minute limit for your speeches.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I apologise to the House if I went three minutes over that time. I think it was occasioned by my diversion into the detail of the directive, for which I was asked.
1.25 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on bringing the Bill forward. It deserves support and I sincerely hope it will get a Second Reading today. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for his explanation of the condoms directive, which shows quite clearly how officials, and indeed presumably Ministers, are engaged extensively with such ridiculously small items. As far as I know, condoms have been produced satisfactorily and safely in this country and throughout Europe over a very long period of time, long before the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957. So, a great deal of money is wasted.
I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in believing that we would be far better out of the European Union than we are in it. As one who opposed our entry into the Common Market, as chairman of the Campaign for Independent Britain and as one who still believes we should come out—and the sooner the better—I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that he and I are in unison.
I appreciate the comments about the Bill made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. We really should have the assessments before things happen. However, that is not the way of the world at present. I believe that the provisions of the Bill will help to concentrate the

581
minds of Ministers and civil servants, who will have to produce this information before they start making regulations and directives, especially as they will be required to report to Parliament and the various devolved assemblies. One flaw in the Bill is that it does not require the Government to find time to debate the reports in Parliament. Of course, they can just report but they never provide government time for those reports to be debated. So, we shall have to consider that in Committee.
The Government may say that there is adequate scrutiny at present. Clearly there is not because so many absurdities—some of which we have heard this afternoon—which often destroy businesses and cost jobs get through the net. A flood of regulations goes through Parliament, as has been mentioned, without any debate, and many important directives receive only a cursory glance by Parliament, both in the House of Commons and in this place.
Community legislation tends to have a greater and more serious impact on smaller businesses. They are not properly consulted about Euro-measures even though they are the ones the hardest hit by such measures. A recent publication entitled Inspector at the Door, issued by the Federation of Small Businesses, is well worth reading. It was published this year. I hope that my noble friend will obtain a copy. He will then perhaps realise just exactly how the system impinges so badly on the work of small businesses. They are plagued by a big raft of inspectorates, including some from the European Community. That distracts them from the real job of running those businesses and adds to their cost. I believe that that is recommended reading not only for Ministers but for civil servants.
It is not only small businesses that are worried. Even the New Labour-friendly CBI is worried by the seemingly unstoppable flow of regulations and legislation from the European Union. On pages 18 to 20 of the June issue of CBI News, an article warns firms to watch out for the "next wave" referring to a new raft of labour law in prospect. So even big business, as well as small businesses, is now becoming worried about what is happening in the European Union.
The horror story of European legislation and intrusion is told in stark detail by Christopher Booker and Richard North in their excellent book, The Castle of Lies. It was first published in 1996 but it is still relevant today. That, too, should be compulsory reading for Ministers. It shows how the bureaucrats have undermined democracy by bamboozling Ministers and sidelining Parliament.
Only yesterday an article appeared in the Daily Telegraph, written by Anthony Jay, whom we all know as the creator of "Yes Minister", which blew the gaffe on how government is carried on in this country. I cannot go into detail and quote from his article at length, but I believe that it should be read in full by Ministers, MPs and Members of your Lordships' House.
Mr. Jay said that all bureaucracies are bad, but the EC is a federal behemoth—I like that phrase. He also said,
"If Brussels bureaucrats succeed in getting every country to join a single currency, they will be unstoppable".
582
How I agree with that. How I have noted over the years that power after power has been ratcheted away from Parliament and from our own elected government to the unelected bureaucrats sitting in Brussels. So, good for Mr. Jay. Let him write more about that because I am sure his views will be welcomed.
The Maastricht Treaty was supposed to stop the flow of measures from Brussels through subsidiarity. But what happened? As many in this House predicted when we fought the Maastricht Treaty and the official Opposition refused to fight the Maastricht Treaty, the Commission treats subsidiarity as a joke. It continues to interfere in the nooks and crannies of our national life, which the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, when he was Foreign Secretary, deplored in such trenchant tones.
Just to illustrate how the tide of such legislation is still flowing in, Christopher Booker's column in last week's Sunday Telegraph tells how the rebirth of some of our great steam railway engines, like the Flying Scotsman, which have been lovingly rebuilt at great cost. could be at risk. They may not be able to operate in the future due to the imposition of expensive testing regimes for vital components built on a one-off basis. So even our steam engines, so loved by the British people and used by them when they are on holiday, are now at risk.
Christopher Booker referred also to some of the foreign vets working in our abattoirs, but I do not have time to go into that. Indeed, one could spend the rest of the day quoting cases of bureaucratic interference and misbehaviour, including the fraud about which we heard this year.
I will not detain the House any longer, except to reiterate my support for the Bill, which I hope will receive a Second Reading today and indeed be passed in its entirety by this House and another place.
1.33 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on introducing this Bill, which should command support from all sides of the House.
The flood of legislation from Brussels continues to increase and, as your Lordships are well aware, much of it receives at best inadequate scrutiny here at Westminster. Members of your Lordships Select Committee on the European Communities and of the European Legislation Committee in another place have repeatedly complained about this. Even directives are rarely debated and are often introduced as statutory instruments. It is often unclear how many Orders in Council will be required to put a Bill fully into effect, as your Lordships may well have noted in the case of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill and the Employment Relations Bill.
It is clear that small and medium-sized businesses are particularly ill-equipped to understand, let alone implement, much of the vast myriad of detailed regulations emanating from the Commission. As a director of a company operating a small country house hotel in Devon, I am well aware of the enormous

583
unwarranted costs we were required to incur in the refurbishment of the kitchens, re-siting the ovens, replacing the fine old wooden cupboards and shelves with stainless steel ones, and so forth. I understand that many small hotels have had to close because they are unable to bear the costs of implementing regulations of this kind.
The Working Time Directive is another case in point. As the Institute of Directors stated in its European manifesto,
"Rogue employers will continue to thrive in the informal economy whilst their law-abiding counterparts struggle with the voluminous (but not quite 'definitive') guidance from the DTI on, for example, the Working Time Directive".
This measure will, according to the DTI, cost British business some £1.9 million. It seems that we in this country are much more conscientious in implementing EU regulations than are our continental neighbours. I would certainly not advocate that we should compromise our standards of observation of the law; indeed, rather the reverse. We should exhort the other European countries to raise their standards to ours. If they did, their governments would surely be more likely to join us in calling on Brussels for much more restraint in the introduction of new legislation. A law that is unenforceable is a bad law. A law which imposes obligations or restrictions on businesses or citizens which are disproportionate to the benefits it provides is a bad law.
In spite of the excellent work undertaken by noble Lords serving on the European Select Committee and its sub-committees, the achievements of which are rightly recognised in the country at large and which do much to enhance the reputation of your Lordships' House, the problem seems to be getting worse. It is of course frustrating that neither this House nor another place has any power to amend European legislation. The effect of my noble friend's Bill would be to increase the accountability of Ministers to Parliament in their representation of British interests in the Council of Ministers.
The power of member states to veto proposals has diminished and there has been a significant move towards a system of qualified majority voting as a result of the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. There are unfortunately moves afoot to extend this system to other areas, such as tax policy. In that connection I also warmly welcome the introduction of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Waddington to restrict Ministers' powers to agree to tax harmonisation measures which at present seriously threaten employment in and the prosperity of the City of London.
I cannot understand why the Government are still seeking a compromise solution to the Commission's withholding tax proposals which will still cause this country much more relative damage than it will to other member states. The Government should, without further delay, declare their firm intention to veto this measure, the threat of which has already affected confidence in the City.
584
In these circumstances it is absolutely necessary to increase the role of the British Parliament in the framing of Community legislation. Requiring the Secretary of State to consult with representatives of business, the trade unions, the professions and other interested parties, and then compile an annual report to Parliament is an excellent suggestion and should increase the obligation on Ministers to negotiate effectively on our behalf with their counterparts. The very sensible provision in the Bill to require Ministers to make an impact statement on British legislation required to give effect to European legislation will also serve the same purpose. I suggest that such impact statements should be required to be included on the face of a Bill in the same way as statements of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights are now included.
Paradoxically, as power moves from the Council of Ministers to the European Parliament, the power of member states' parliaments will diminish. It is not encouraging that in spite of the wishes of your Lordships' House we have instituted a system of choosing our representatives in the European Parliament which provides for the least degree of democratic accountability and it seems that people have given their verdict on that system. For that reason also the Bill would serve the useful purpose of increasing public awareness of what is going on in Europe, both here at Westminster and in the country at large.
There are several industries and activities where we are world leaders but where we face particular threats. As regards the art market in this country, my noble friend Lord Hindlip has told the House on other occasions about the loss of jobs and damage to the market resulting from the Government's failure to prevent the droit de suite from being applied in this country.
I strongly welcome the Conservative Party's seven-point plan to cut red tape from Europe announced by my right honourable friend Mr John Redwood on 25th May. Among the seven points, I think that the point requiring the costs to affected countries of every piece of legislation introduced to be considered by the Commission and that requiring an assessment of the extent of compliance with existing legislation before the introduction of new proposals are especially important.
What I think the Government do not realise is the fact that we have a world market today, not a European market. Ring-fencing the European market by European red tape inhibits the competitive advantages of European players on the world stage. The opportunities available to British industry and commerce as a whole outside the EU are obviously greater than those inside the EU, especially given the respective expected future economic growth rates. For Europe and its member states to be strong and achieve their full potential and prosperity for their peoples, we need to restrict the continuing increase in bureaucratic regulations emanating from the Continent.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that the Bill only had effect after the event, after the European legislation had been introduced. I agree with

585
him that it would be highly desirable for all European legislation to be subjected to an impact assessment by the Government before it is introduced. However, the effect of my noble friend's Bill would indeed be that Ministers would actually have to carry out an impact assessment prior to the introduction of legislation, because they will be uncomfortably aware of the need to report to Parliament afterwards.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak in this debate and look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I have also enjoyed listening to the contributions of other noble Lords.
1.41 p.m.
Lord Nunburnholme: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on bringing this very necessary Bill before us. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on his insight and foresight. He covered his subjects totally and completely comprehensively. I thought that he made a magnificent speech. As for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I should point out to him that a man who is a little bit wiser than I am, whose name, I believe, is Solzhenitsyn—although I stand to be corrected—said:
"A man who looks backward, looks forward with one eye closed; a man who never looks backward, looks forward with both eyes firmly shut".
I have many points to speak of the coming debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, touched upon tax harmonisation and I have some hard guns to fire on that matter. However, if the noble Viscount does not mind, I will leave that for the next debate. Nevertheless, he got the point and was smack on. I thank him very much for that.
1.43 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, during the last debate I thought that I saw the noble Lord, Lord. Willoughby de Broke, nodding his head with approval at some of my remarks. If that was a correct interpretation, I must apologise to him because I cannot quite reciprocate on the occasion of this Bill. I cannot return the compliment because I cannot support his Bill, although I could perhaps support Clause 3 with its idea of an impact statement on legislation.
Why? It is true that there is a substantial body of legislation coming out of Brussels which places burdens on companies. To my mind, that is an inevitable consequence of our membership of the single market. As our political and economic integration with Europe proceeds, as our exports are more and more oriented and our trade is more and more intertwined with that of Europe, of course we are affected by a host of European pieces of legislation. It is also true to say that in the past much of this has been oppressive, but there has been an improvement. For example, there is less concern now from Brussels with the harmonisation of, say, bottle-tops than there used to be.
However. even if this legislation places considerable burdens on companies, that does not justify the Bill. Indeed, it is a non sequitur. I find myself in the unusual
586
position of agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—at least as regards part of his remarks. I am not sure whether he welcomes my support, but on this occasion we do agree on one point; namely, that the effect of the Bill would not necessarily be helpful in any event because it would be retrospective and it would also be extremely onerous. It would not only be Ministers' time that would be consumed in trying to find out what the direct and indirect effects would he; there would also have to be a great army of civil servants. Is the noble Lord really suggesting that we should have a vast increase in the number of civil servants engaged in collecting statistics on something as vague as the direct and indirect impact on business of the various pieces of legislation? It would be a very difficult task to identify exactly what the impact was. What good would it do? At this point I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, because I think that it would be even more difficult if it related to future legislation when the impact would be even more uncertain.
There is another question that arises. If this is necessary in the case of legislation from Brussels, why should it not be necessary for legislation from the UK? There is no reason why we should not have the same sort of impact statement because that, too, can be extremely burdensome to industry. Let us imagine, for example, the Bill on which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I were engaged earlier in the pre-legislation committee on the financial markets and services. It would be very difficult to assess what the exact impact, whether direct or indirect, is going to he. How could we ask a Minister to make a. full statement on the subject? With great respect, I am afraid that the Bill is not practicable.
The latter raises the question as to why it has been brought forward. I do not think that it is necessarily the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, but certainly there are others who welcome this as offering an opportunity to try to create more trouble in our relations with Brussels. It seems to be part of a sort of guerrilla campaign in which more and more impossible demands are made whereby power is sought to be restored to the UK Parliament. That is something which is perfectly logical from the point of view of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart. They want us out of the European Community. But what is interesting is that that seems to be more and more the direction in which the Conservative leadership is travelling. This business about "in Europe but not run by Europe" is slowly beginning to edge us into moving out of Europe altogether. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he give me one instance in the course of any speech that I have made either in this place or outside where I have said that we want to get out of Europe? If he cannot do so, would he kindly withdraw his remark?
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I cannot give an instance and I am very happy to withdraw it. I am sorry. I identified the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington,

587
too closely perhaps with the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Pearson. I certainly apologise to the noble Lord if he is not with them on that goal.
I do not think that this is a matter which really needs any long speeches or intricate analysis. In my view it is an impractical Bill and I certainly do not think that it will do any good whatever to our relations with the European Union.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he really not going to answer any of the analysis which has been offered so far, and which cannot be called intricate, or is he simply saying that he wants to be in the European Union however awful it is, and that is that, and he will not answer the criticisms of those of us who want to leave?
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I shall not debate the whole question of British membership of the European Union at this moment. It is going to be a long day anyway. I am concerned only to deal with the particular provisions of this Bill which in my view are quite impracticable.
1.49 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for introducing his Bill this afternoon. His list of EU directives was certainly extensive but it is also perhaps a measure of the co-operation and scope of EU activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that he could not support the Bill. I can understand some of the reasons for not wanting to support the Bill. But then he also expressed interest and support for Clause 3. However, all noble Lords are aware of the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in these matters and we are grateful for his analysis. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, with regard to the Conservative Party's attitude to the EU that we on these Benches have absolutely no interest at all in leaving the EU.
All three items of European business today cover similar issues of concern. Not surprisingly the list of speakers is also similar in all three cases. We have touched on the issue of tax harmonisation. In the next debate I intend to consider the withholding tax, although some noble Lords have touched on it already. It would be interesting to see an impact statement on the withholding tax and also a Section 1 report on the withholding tax, if it ever came into being.
I found the contribution of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch interesting and detailed. I have no information but I suspect that the directive he quotes from is based on the British standard for condoms. I can understand the EU's reluctance to quote a British standard in an EU directive, but it is a little hard to understand why the directive could not refer to an ISO standard, even if the ISO standard was derived from our own British standard.
Noble Lords will be aware that we on these Benches are quite clear that we want to be in Europe but not run by Europe. That point was noted by most of those who
588
voted in the recent European elections. Clause 3 applies only to primary legislation. Your Lordships will be aware that most EU legislation is made under the European Communities Act as secondary legislation. If my noble friend is minded to take this Bill a further stage, he might like to consider amending Clause 3 to catch secondary legislation too.
On that point, I meet many ordinary people of all kinds and conditions outside this House. They often complain to me about new laws and regulations. These new laws and regulations often implement EU directives. By and large, they are desirable but I have to explain to these people that there is little I can do in Parliament because, as I have mentioned, all this legislation is implemented under the 1972 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who sadly is not present at the moment, referred to the unstoppable flow of regulation, as he put it, and the effect on small businesses. One example that he mentioned was the threat to preserved steam engines. Some time ago we debated the hot surfaces directive in your Lordships' House, I believe, in the form of a Starred Question. This issue of new regulations for boilers and steam vessels will be of serious concern to many steam enthusiasts. However, I am not aware of any steam vessel failure with preserved steam equipment. The Minister will not have the answer available but will he write to me and tell me exactly what the Government's policy is with regard to steam boilers in preserved equipment?
One major concern about EU regulations is that government departments have a bad habit of "gold plating" EU regulations. I well recall the debates we had in the previous Parliament concerning new eyesight standards for drivers of commercial vehicles. The Minister at the time pleaded that he was only implementing EU directions. However, later the Minister found that he could water down the regulations. I am sure that an impact statement would have concentrated the Minister's mind at that time. I do not know what my noble friend plans to do with his Bill. It is, however, vital that Ministers consider the impact at least as carefully as whether the Bill complies with the ECHR.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he explain to the House how this country will be in Europe but not run by Europe when we remain bound by the Treaty of Rome? As he himself said—he may or may not be right as to whether this applies to Clause 3 of the Bill—most European legislation now comprises secondary regulations which do not even pass through national Parliaments. It is an expression which I know has been put about by the Conservative Party often recently, but how can we possibly not be run by Europe when we are bound by the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty? It is just not possible, is it?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we have the Council of Ministers and we have the European Parliament.
1.56 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not participating in the internal debate of the Conservative Party as to whether or not the Conservative Party should support a policy of withdrawing altogether from the European Union. If I may, I shall restrict myself to the Bill spoken to this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. In all sincerity I congratulate the noble Lord on his clear and helpful exposition both of the purpose of the Bill and its detail. I am afraid that the Government cannot support the Bill. I shall briefly explain why that is.
First of all, the Government believe that the existing arrangements provide sufficient information for the impact of Community legislation to be understood in advance of the passage of that legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is aware, at present the Government prepare explanatory memoranda for Community legislation on a case-by-case basis. Significant impacts are identified in these documents, including significant financial impacts on business both large and small.
In addition, where the Government propose measures to implement Community legislation which is likely to have a significant impact, a regulatory impact assessment, including a small business litmus test, is prepared and published. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, pointed out, the Government have recently indicated that they intend to strengthen these arrangements so that in future it will clearly be the case that when regulations are introduced giving effect to European legislation there will be a clear regulatory impact assessment.
I entirely agree with the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the right and practical approach is that both Houses of Parliament and the wider public should be made aware in advance of any impact of Community legislation on business and beyond before it is introduced. With the greatest of respect, what the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, proposes is frankly absurd in its scope. As I understand the position, what he envisages is that a report should be prepared each year by the relevant Secretary of State dealing with what the impact has been in the previous year of all Community legislation. That is not just the legislation that is passed in the course of that year, but, I assume, that which has been passed throughout the previous 26 years.
The noble Lord envisages that the Secretary of State would first of all consult a wide range of bodies: businesses, trade unions, companies providing financial services and, no doubt, lawyers and accountants of every kind. As I understand it, the noble Lord envisages that public meetings should be arranged throughout the country to enable people to discuss various regulations and their effect. I do not know whether he envisages
590
such a public meeting in every area of the country. He nods enthusiastically. Therefore I assume that throughout the country—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is called democracy.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stoddart says that that is called democracy. However, the picture I have of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is of public meetings being arranged for most of the year, throughout most of the country, at which regulations such as the Dairy Products Hygiene Regulations would be discussed. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington, and Lord Taverne, that this process would lead to most of the civil servants and most of the Government indulging in a huge consultation process, the effect of which would be to place a very much larger burden on both business and the Government than any regulations produced by the European Union.
We believe that we have sensible arrangements in place which permit a proper giving of information before legislation is passed. That is only right and proper. We believe that the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, are not thoroughly thought out; they would place much too heavy a burden on Ministers, civil servants and the people consulted. I do not believe that anyone looking at them would think that they are sensible proposals for the giving or obtaining of information. For those reasons we cannot support the Bill.
Perhaps I may deal with a number of the specific points that have been raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked me specifically—and very kindly he said he would restrict himself to one question—to what extent we consult with interested parties, in particular with business. The guidance on the regulatory impact assessments which apply to Community legislation requires departments to consult with interested parties, including with small firms and their representatives in particular. I hope that answers the noble Lord's specific question.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, asked specific questions about the figures on water quality expenditure and related issues. Unfortunately I do not have those figures at my fingertips. Perhaps I may deal with the matter by way of writing to the noble Lord.
So far as concerns compliance information, the Commission publishes its reports annually, which include compliance and infraction information. The Government have not themselves examined compliance by other member states. However, a study prepared in 1994 considered compliance by other nations. I believe that it is available in the Library of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the volume of regulations coming from Europe. It is perhaps not without interest that the total number of Commission proposals at the end of 1998 was the lowest since 1990 at least. In the 12 months to the end of November 1998, the Commission presented only 34 proposals for new legislation.

591
It is perhaps worth mentioning that business and the UK Government have been actively supporting the pilot business test panel, which consults directly with business in participating member states on proposals for legislation. We hope that a successful pilot such as that will help give a broader picture of the effects of legislation.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the "steam boiler" position. Again I am not in a position to provide an answer today. Perhaps I may write to him with the answer.
For the reasons I have given, the Government cannot support the Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, when he comes to answer the questions about the water costs, will he put a copy in the Library? I am, of course, aware of the study which took place in 1994—I was a member of your Lordships' Select Committee at the time—and we found that it was entirely inconclusive. Not only did we not have the faintest idea what any other country was doing at the time, but the Commission refused to answer the British Government. I do not know whether the new Government's charm offensive in Brussels has been so successful as to encourage the Commission perhaps to give an answer about what other countries are up to with these incredibly expensive water directives.
If the Government are to resist this worthy Bill, can they explain why they continue to resist sponsoring an objective cost benefit analysis of our membership of the Treaty of Rome?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the first point, of course I will place the answer in the Library. As to the second point, Members can read the report for themselves and form a judgment as to what its effect would be. As to the third point, the idea of a cost benefit analysis would lead to such contention that it would be extremely difficult to produce something that would command widespread support.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, a 1994 report is a 1994 report; it is therefore completely out of date. Most of the expenditure we are contemplating under the water directives will take place after that date. Can we not find out what the other countries are doing? If we do not know the scale and effect of these directives they fall under Article 5 of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by Amsterdam; and if the European Union has not put out a cost benefit analysis on all these water directives, it falls under what used to be Article 130R. So we need not carry out these wretched things if we do not want to.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Perhaps I may deal with one or two of the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and the Minister made the point that it would be impractical to ask businesses, the consultees, to
592
provide the costs; that it would be too onerous for them. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard made quite clear, individual businesses are only too conscious of the extra costs involved if a regulation is anti their business. They will know how damaging the regulation is and have the answers ready for the consultation process that I hope will be pursued. I think businesses would welcome it rather than dislike it if they were required to provide figures for the Government. So that is a non-point.
I was very impressed by the foresight of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch in bringing the condom directive with him. Being a Friday, it is probably something for the weekend. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to an error or a failing in my Bill. I hope that we can amend it. We should, of course, have time to debate the impact statements when they are produced in Parliament. We will have the opportunity to amend that when we come to the Committee stage. I will have to take advice as to whether Clause 3 should include secondary legislation.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, did not think that I talked as much sense in my Bill as I thought he talked sense in his speech in the genetically modified crops debate; I very much agree with what he said then.
Despite the opposition of the Government, which I quite understand—they do not want to do any more work or expose the shortcomings in some of the legislation they have pushed through under European directives and regulations—the Bill is worth while. I believe that such shortcomings should be exposed, as do many businesses, particularly small ones.
I repeat my thanks to all noble Lords and to the Minister for the courtesy with which he replied. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

European Tax Harmonisation (Veto) Bill [H.L.]
2.8 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to require this and any future government to obtain the approval of Parliament and the public before agreeing to any proposal to limit further our right in Britain to decide on our own taxes and our own tax rates. That does not seem to me to be a very unreasonable requirement.
Not so many years ago it would have been thought unthinkable that any independent sovereign country would give up its right to levy whatever taxes it thought appropriate. A country's freedom to decide what to tax, and how much, is the bedrock of national sovereignty, one of the hallmarks of a free independent nation. The power of our elected representatives to decide what tax the voters should pay is a fundamental part of our democracy; and if this or any future government really are persuaded that there would be some advantage for the British people in our agreeing in some particular area to accept further inroads into our sovereignty, and

593
into our democratic rights, they should come before the country to explain why and try to convince the public of their case.
The Bill comes before the House only a few days after the European elections. If the results show anything, they show that in Britain there is a deep-seated hostility to our giving up the pound, and that the brainwashing—the public money spent to convince people of the inevitability of our joining the euro—has had only limited effect, that people see nothing extreme or anti-European in keeping our own currency and something very extreme in the ambitions of others to surrender our national currency and monetary institutions. They certainly see that there is something terribly defeatist and absurd in the notion that the world's fifth largest economy, a country with membership of the European Union and free access for its goods into the European Union but with worldwide interests, cannot keep its own currency, while countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia can keep theirs.
Most people can see that although it is perfectly possible to have a single currency and still have different tax levels—just as, for that matter, it would be possible for us to keep the pound and have the same taxes as others—the single currency in Europe is but a step to full economic and monetary union. There can be no disguising that fact, and if noble Lords want evidence of that, they need only look at the words of the president of the Bundesbank when he said recently,
"The European Currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wages policies as well as in monetary affairs. It is an illusion to think that States can hold on to their autonomy over taxation policies".
But I think that many people do not yet realise that even outside the single currency our right to pursue our own tax policies is under threat from the plans within the European Union to harmonise taxes throughout the Community and from the Government's pathetic failure to respond firmly to this threat. In fact, while the Government have protested their opposition to tax harmonisation. their actions have belied their words; and they have completely undermined what they say is their own position not just by their preparations to take us into the euro, but by their twists over the Commission's draft directive on a withholding tax, which is already threatening to drive the London eurobond market to Switzerland, by their leading role in the Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation and their hearty endorsement of the EU's plans to do away with so-called unfair tax competition, and by their support for the federalist designs of their socialist partners on the Continent.
First, the withholding tax, where almost every day a new spin is being put on the Chancellor's step-by-step approach towards what looks like being an abject surrender. Let us go over the history. At first the Chancellor told us:
"The United Kingdom will not accept a directive that requires every member state to impose a withholding tax".
A few weeks went by and then we were told that the Treasury was in discussion with the industry on a compromise which would limit the directive's effect to holdings of less than 40,000 euros. By the 25th May
594
there seemed to be better news, with Alastair Campbell letting it be known that there was a growing optimism in Whitehall that the withholding tax would slip off the agenda at the ECOFIN meeting of that date. But for once Mr Campbell was not very successful in his spinning, and the very next day the newspapers were reporting that Germany was satisfied that Britain was not fundamentally opposed to the directive, and would soon strike a compromise. Mr Eichel, who had presided at the ECOFIN meeting, was saying:
"My feeling is that in principle there is a willingness to compromise".
How could Mr Eichel have got that impression if Mr Brown had done and said nothing to warrant it? The answer is that he could not, and that Mr Brown had done something to warrant it. It turns out that he agreed to draw up a paper detailing ways in which a directive could be altered not to remove but to limit its impact on the London market. That was only a week or so after he had told the House of Commons that Britain would not accept any directive requiring member states to introduce a withholding tax.
It is about time that there was less of this business of telling one story in Westminster, and another in Brussels. It is about time that Mr Brown backed up his statement to Parliament, that he would accept no directive, with a clear indication, which he has not given, that the veto will be used.
Let us look at the plans to do away with so-called unfair tax competition. Unfair tax competition, which of course has nothing to do with tax evasion or illegal activities such as money laundering, is a concept beloved by those whose own improvidence and profligacy prevents them from matching the tax incentives offered by their neighbours to businesses looking for a congenial environment in which to operate. In the European context, it has been invented by Germany as a device to staunch the investment flight from Germany to states with lower labour costs and more friendly tax regimes.
Our rates of tax are below the European average. so when a country such as Germany talks of unfair tax competition, it is looking at Britain not as a fellow victim of unfair competition but as the villain of the piece. In short, Germany looks upon tax harmonisation as a way of undermining the advantage we now have as a result of lower tax and lower social security contributions, which allow us to attract business that it cannot.
The chosen instrument to bring about this harmonisation is the European Union Code of Conduct Group, chaired by Dawn Primarola, and set up in May last year to decide whether any business taxes or reliefs in member states constituted harmful tax competition.
Well, we know how Jacques Santer described the British decision to sign up to the code. He said, last November, that Britain's signing up to the code had the effect of nullifying the British veto and was a device to side-step the European Union treaties that require unanimity before tax harmonisation can be legally enforced. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in due course whether Jacques Santer was right or wrong on that, but

595
surely we can all agree that the fact that he, in his capacity as President of the Commission, looked upon it as a device to bring about tax harmonisation is a very good reason why we should treat it as such, and not as the innocent exercise that the Government would have us believe that it is.
So where have we got to with this exercise? We may well ask. For the Government, which are for ever telling us of their dedication to open government, did their level best to conceal what was going on from the British people. Despite constant questioning in Parliament, the Government refused to disclose the list of taxes and reliefs under consideration by the Code of Conduct Group. The full extent of the exercise became public only after someone went to a Dutch Government website, and we then learnt that 185 tax measures and reliefs had been singled out for possible harmonisation or elimination.
We discovered that the ground was being prepared for British surrenders on capital allowances for small and medium-sized businesses in Northern Ireland; incentives for the film industry; roll-over relief on the disposal of ships; regional incentives such as enterprise zones; and various measures affecting the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Dependent Territories. And now I read that we are in the ludicrous position of the EU committee chaired by a UK Treasury Minister also having in its sights some of the flagship measures recently introduced by Mr. Brown, which he said were measures necessary to boost Britain's productivity. I refer to 100 per cent capital allowances for scientific research and 40 per cent first-year capital allowances for small businesses.
What has finally given the lie to the Government's claims that they are against tax harmonisation has been their unstinting support for the declared federalist and tax harmonisation designs of their comrades in the socialist parties in Europe. Mr. Blair did not merely give token support for the socialist manifesto for Europe, The New European Way; the Chancellor's own adviser, Mr. Ed Balls, drafted it—including the commitment to deeper European integration, including tax harmonisation. Mr. Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, was the co-author with the leader of the French socialists of the European Socialist manifesto in the European elections. Mr Cook and his friends called for,
"co-ordination of economic policy, and a reduction in the use of the veto to block new European policies".
I do not want to weary the House with too many quotations, but it is quite ridiculous to argue that tax harmonisation is not high on the list of priorities of most key figures in the European Union and the Commission. When the former commissioner of the single currency was asked, "Will tax harmonisation eventually extend to VAT and personal taxes?", he replied, "Why not?". The Italian Prime Minister announced last November,
"In the age of the Euro, harmonisation of taxes is a necessity".
I see that M Jospin, in his manifesto in the European elections, calling for EU-wide tax harmonisation, said:
"we want a tax harmonisation plan covering capital [dividends, capital gains, withholding tax] and corporation tax, with the abolition of the national veto in the Council of Ministers".
596
As for Sr Prodi, he told assembled MEPs after his endorsement as president of the Commission that,
"The single market was the theme of the 80s, the single currency was the theme of the 90s, and we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy and a single political union".
Finally, we come to Chancellor Schroeder. Mr. Blair said the other day that Chancellor Schroeder was not one of these muddled-headed federalists, he did not want a single Europe; and that he had never met anyone who wanted anything of the sort. Chancellor Schroeder, who has talked of the single currency as a stepping-stone to political union, said that doing away with qualified majority voting on tax issues was the official position of the German Government. When he says that, he is pursuing an agenda which in his eyes flows remorselessly and inevitably from the goal of ever-closer union enshrined in the Treaty of Rome, but which is also of particular and immediate interest to a Germany determined to protect itself from the consequences of its own foolish taxation policies.
It is absolutely plain that the abandonment of the right to set our own taxes—the harmonisation for which these leaders in Europe and the European Commission yearn—can only mean that our taxes overall will rise to European levels rather than that European taxes will come down to ours. That means our taxes rising by at least one sixth and our business and top rates of income tax going up. Incidentally, if experience is anything to go by, as our taxes as a proportion of GDP rose to European levels our growth rate would fall and everyone would be the poorer. The message could not be plainer: if Britain wants to keep low taxes and continue to prosper it must stay outside Euroland, oppose the single currency and resist further attempts to transfer the power to tax from Westminster to Brussels.
I have no doubt that in reply the Minister will repeat what he said in this House:
"I do not believe that the threat … of tax harmonisation exists".—[Official Report, 20/1/99: col. 662.]
He will say that the Bill is unnecessary and that the Government have either no intention of giving up the veto on tax matters or will give up the veto only when it is clearly in the country's interests to do so; and that it ill-behoves me to complain about tax harmonisation measures because the previous government agreed to some, as if the follies of the past justify equal foolishness in the future. While the Conservative government agreed to certain minimum rates of VAT, it is only under this Government that European tax harmonisation has extended to direct taxes; and it is only under this Government that harmonisation is being advanced as a move towards (to quote Sr Prodi)
"a single economy and a single political union".
If the public want it, well and good, but it should be their choice. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved. That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Waddington.)
2.27 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on bringing forward this Bill, although I do not agree with

597
it entirely as I shall show. I also congratulate him on his speech. It is quite clear that, possibly for the first time, the noble Lord has listened to what people like myself have been saying for a very long time.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I have been listening to him for a very long time. I have been coming round to the view that the noble Lord was right long before I realised it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that admission. I am very pleased to have taken part in his tutoring as to the real meaning of the European Union. I and other noble Lords, for example my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, have given warnings every time we have signed a new treaty, from the Treaty of Rome to the Single European Act. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and I opposed that Act on behalf of the Labour Party. We warned that it would lead to huge increases in the power of Europe and the European Commission. but our warnings were ignored. We were also firmly opposed to the Treaty of Maastricht because we knew that that was the foundation of what we now have; namely, tax measures relating to economic and monetary union to build a country called Europe, which I and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, do not want. I do not believe that the people of this country want it either.
I do not agree with that part of the Bill which calls for a referendum. I believe that that would undermine the position of Parliament; and that is precisely what I would not wish to do. The referendums would be expensive nightmares and would undermine the basic power which gives Parliament its sovereignty: that is, the power to raise taxes. We have to be careful that we do not undermine the power of the House of Commons to raise taxes and to withhold supply.
It is clear from Answers to my Written Questions on the subject of the withholding tax which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that Ministers now have a device whereby they, and not Parliament, decide on the taxes we pay. That is altogether reprehensible.
I must weary the House with my Questions which were answered on 27th May. I asked,
"(a) whether parliamentary scrutiny arrangements can prevent [the Government] from agreeing to any proposal by the European Council for a withholding tax; (b) whether, following such an agreement, there would be a breach of European Community law if the necessary tax legislation was not enacted in the United Kingdom; and (c) whether such a breach would undermine both Parliament's control of supply and the constitutional principle that one Parliament cannot bind its successors".
This was the Answer from my noble friend who will reply to this debate. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey stated:
"There are long-standing government undertakings to both Houses of Parliament that they will not normally vote in favour of (or in some cases abstain from voting on) proposals in the Council of Ministers which are still subject to the established parliamentary scrutiny arrangements. The undertakings are embodied in a 30 October 1980 Resolution of the House of Commons (updated on October 1990).
598
A failure to give effect to an obligation to transpose the provisions of an EC Directive would he a breach of our obligations under the EC Treaty, and would render the United Kingdom liable to infraction proceedings under Article 226 (ex-Aricle 169).
The European Communities Act 1972 provides for effect to be given in our domestic law to obligations of the United Kingdom under the EC law, including, where necessary, for those obligations to override inconsistent provisions of our domestic law" —[Official Report, 27/5/99; col. WA 100.]
That Answer indicates clearly, first, that without the consent of Parliament Ministers can agree to measures which then become binding on Parliament unless they repeal the European Communities Act 1972. That is the position we have.
Members of the House of Commons should be hopping mad about it. They should be having another civil war about it. The civil war was fought about whether the executive, the king, would be able to raise and levy taxes which had not been agreed by Parliament. The king was beheaded. But now we have the European Commission and the European Union.
What that means is that Ministers, despite the undertaking in 1990 not to vote in favour or abstain if EU proposals are still subject to parliamentary scrutiny arrangements, can, once scrutiny is completed, go ahead and agree to taxation proposals in the EU which Parliament could not undo at any time without being in breach of European law.
Thus, two basic tenets of our constitution are set aside at one fell swoop: first, that Parliament can withhold supply; and, secondly, that one Parliament cannot bind its successor unless it first repeals the European Communities Act 1972. I would love it to do that because it would set this country free to pursue its goals in the global environment, free from the depressive and depraved regulations which emanate from Europe and impose on this country a situation which does not suit its people, history, institutions or heritage.
If we are to remain in the European Community—and I do not believe that we should—and at the same time protect the power of Parliament, a constraint must be put on Ministers to ensure that they do not usurp the power of Parliament over granting supply and raising taxation.
My noble friend will no doubt protest that Ministers would not dream of trying to usurp Parliament's powers. Of course I would believe him. I respect him and I know that he would not want to mislead me at all. But, of course, some of us, perhaps including my noble friend, remember the sixth directive on indirect taxation which still hangs over British taxpayers like a financial sword of Damocles, agreed to by a Labour Government
Then, of course, there was the agreement by the previous Conservative government, in addition to modification of the rules relating to VAT, to abolish duty free goods, which could not be saved by either the Prime Minister, despite his best efforts, or Parliament. The British Parliament could not repeal the directive; it could not tell British people that they could continue to have duty free goods. They will be phased out at the end of this month. So Parliament has lost its right to give a tax concession to its own taxpayers.

599
Therefore, we can see that the Government cannot be trusted on this subject—I trust my noble friend, but I do not trust governments—because they have already taken action either by design or shear stupidity to undermine the position of Parliament. What I find very worrying, and I hate to say it, is that Mr Blair appears to believe that Labour MPs should act as ambassadors for the Government rather than as representatives of the people checking the excesses of the Government and holding them to account, especially in regard to expenditure and the raising of taxes.
MPs are servants of their constituents; they are not ambassadors for governments, whether they be Tory, Labour or any other kind. The very freedoms of this country depend on Members of Parliament being prepared to defy governments—their own government if necessary—to ensure that the rights and duties and sovereignty of Parliament are upheld. I hope that will be remembered and that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will reconsider his strictures on Labour MPs that they should be ambassadors for his Government.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I cannot support the Bill in its entirety. However, I believe that it should be given a fair wind today; it should be given a Second Reading and, if necessary, amendments can be made at later stages.
2.39 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I thank very much the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for bringing forward this very important and interesting Bill. I have just been presenting myself to the electorate on a platform of "In Europe, Not Run by Europe", a phrase which some noble Lords may have heard a few times before. The reason why that phrase was successful is because to a very large extent we find ourselves in the present situation of being in Europe and run by Europe. There is perhaps no better example than the continuing pressure from the European Union for what it terms tax harmonisation. The Council of European Finance Ministers, chaired by our very own Gordon Brown, has already called for an end to what they call harmful tax competition.
There is a very good example not very far from these doors of what happens when we acquiesce in that. About six months ago 2.5 per cent VAT on art imports and exports was levied on the London art market. The effect of that has been the near termination of the London art market as an international entrepot and trading centre. Far from the business going to France or to Germany, which is probably what they would have liked, the business has been driven, and is being driven, outside the European Union entirely to Geneva, Monte Carlo and New York.
The imposition of the tax, which is droit de suite, will kill off what is left of the international element of the London art market almost entirely. Unfortunately, that is what happens when we allow taxes to be imposed on us from Europe.
600
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has drawn attention to the European Union code of conduct group chaired by a British Treasury Minister, Dawn Primarolo. The group has been called into being to review some 200 tax breaks, all of which are designed to lower taxes. The code of conduct group is there to stop what is called harmful tax competition. It is apparent from a Parliamentary Question and a reply dated 14th June—therefore it is fairly hot off the press—that eight of the tax breaks being examined are specifically British.
My noble friend enumerated them himself, so I will spare noble Lords the full list. But I make the very important point that four of those tax reliefs were introduced by the Government. They are—I stand to be corrected—100 per cent capital allowances for films; for scientific research; 100 per cent capital allowances for small and medium enterprises in Northern Ireland; and 40 per cent capital allowances for small and medium enterprises in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The decisions of the code of conduct group are not binding. However, the Government have said that they will abide by the conclusions of the group. In effect, therefore, the decisions of that group are binding. In terms of our national sovereignty that is an example of our present situation, which is being in Europe and run by Europe.
We have the bizarre paradox that a group chaired by a Treasury Minister will very likely have to negate tax concessions made just a few months earlier by the Government of which he is a member. I look forward to the Minister responding to that point.
Another example of action over which we have had no influence at all is the abolition of duty free. That was touched on with customary eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Britain needs to have tax competition. That means low taxes and, in consequence, low unemployment. What brings international investment to our country is principally, among other factors, low taxes. It is not the Government's ability to get the German Chancellor over to a campaign meeting, nor is it the Government's commitment in principle to abolish the pound. It is low taxes and costs which bring investment here.
I turn now to the matter of indirect taxes, which is an area where we do have control. Indirect taxes, taken as a whole, are much higher here than in continental Europe. There is a strong argument for tax harmonisation, but it is to harmonise the levels of indirect taxes here and in continental Europe. In fact, the Government are busy deharmonising indirect taxes with the level of indirect taxes in the euro-zone. Specifically, they have increased taxes on cigarettes and petrol and they have failed to reduce taxes on whisky.
There is a free market to some extent, which has resulted in widespread smuggling and much lower revenue for the Exchequer. If there is a desire to harmonise taxes it is concentrated on indirect taxes, not on direct taxes. Furthermore, the heavy impost of indirect taxes on diesel fuel has placed heavy burdens on the road haulage industry. That has placed British road hauliers at a specific cost disadvantage to their competitors in continental Europe. Many hauliers will

601
be driven out of business as a direct consequence of the Government's commitment to deharmonise indirect taxes; that is, to raise taxes here in relation to the level in continental Europe.
The British Parliament's ability to set its taxes at its own rate is a fundamental tenet of sovereignty. Indeed, that is what the English Civil War was fought over. I have some slight embarrassment in making this point, as my direct ancestor, the first Baron Dartmouth, was military governor of Oxford, the Royalist capital in the Civil War. So I am arguably estopped from making this point, but that does not make it any the less valid.
In conclusion, I make the point that tax harmonisation removes our competitive advantage in world markets. Should we adopt euro-zone levels of taxes, it would result in this country having euro-zone levels of unemployment. We must retain at all costs our low tax, low cost, low regulation, high employment, high growth economy. That means not succumbing to tax harmonisation, and, to coin a phrase which your Lordships may have heard before, being in Europe and not being run by Europe.
2.47 p.m.
Lord Nunburnholme: My Lords, once more I offer my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, on making good, hard points which he rammed home, and that is what must be done.
Once again, I must ask your Lordships to concentrate, as I did some six months ago, on the 20 per cent withholding tax. We should not forget also that the late departed Lord Denning warned strongly against the perils of the European Union. There is no doubt that Lord Denning will go down in history at the same level as F.E. Smith, the first Earl of Birkenhead and Marshall-Hall. He was in that category.
That tax harmonisation is seemingly to placate Germany which wishes to put a stop to money flooding across its border into tax havens such as Switzerland and Luxemburg. It will be an entirely fruitless exercise as the avoiders will simply send their money to Jamaica, the Caribbean or any other untouchable tax haven.
But no. That is not what it is about. That is not the purpose. The purpose is to weaken the City of London, the financial centre of Europe, and its eminence as a global financial centre. Germany wants that to be in Frankfurt. The USA would not be exactly displeased either. It knows that no sensibly minded investment adviser will tie his monetary assets into the euro, with its ever-changing bureaucracy and social chapter after social chapter, apart from its instability.
Have we any reason to believe that this Government, or any other future Europhile government, will not give way on tax harmonisation? They have surrendered on everything else, for example the fishing industry and the heavy art market, which has gone to New York, setaside, totally contrary to the interests of this nation—we are net food importers. Why set aside 15 or 17 per cent? What is the point? The list goes on and on. What will come next? North Sea oil?
602
The directly apparent earnings of the international bond market are £2.1 billion sterling per annum. That will be heading across the big pond and 'with it a further estimated £4 to £6 billion ancillary earnings; it may even be higher. That alone will double our cost of being in the EU. It is but one facet of the harmonisation and with it the 100,000 jobs which will go.
The incumbent of 11 Downing Street is known as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will always retain the title "Chancellor" but he will have to drop "of the Exchequer"; there will not be one. I could ask how long is this charade going on, but I do not have to. Clause 4 of the Communist Party manifesto and Clause 4 of the Labour Party manifesto are, as the Portuguese say, igual; that is, they are equal.
It is the intention of our dearly beloved president to tie his country into a seemingly socialist authoritarian state using the word "inevitable" as a propaganda tool. We can come out tomorrow and, with Europe's credit trade balance with us, there is nothing they can do about it. Apart from that, at present we pay the piper. The pro-Euros are being discourteous, to say the least, to the sovereignty of this nation. I could use a stronger word. This is farcical fiscal ineptitude.
2.53 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry that my name appeared on the wrong speakers' list. Nobody seems to know quite how that happened. In any event, there has been some chopping and changing today, but it all seems to have worked out all right in the end.
This Bill, so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is surely sound and desirable in principle. Whatever may be the case in other countries, traditionally in the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, reminded us, only the House of Commons can tax, notwithstanding that certain taxation powers may be delegated to regional parliaments or assemblies or, in the case of rates, to local authorities.
This principle applies both when a tax-raising proposal originates in a government which is formed from the current majority in the House of Commons and also when such a proposal comes from an outside source such as the European Commission via the Council of Ministers.
However, the idea that the electorate's endorsement of the tax harmonisation proposal be sought by means of a referendum is a rather different matter. I have never been opposed to referendums in theory, but in this taxation sphere the time, trouble and substantial costs involved would rarely be justified. In this small respect I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart; I believe that there might be rare instances where the implications of a tax harmonisation proposal were so grave—for example, if we were being pressed to raise the standard rate of income tax to the continental levels of 30 per cent or thereabouts—that it would indeed justify the expense of a referendum. Exactly how one could amend the Bill to provide for that hopefully unlikely contingency I am not sure, but I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to do so.

603
The necessity of obtaining parliamentary approval for more mundane run-of-the-mill taxation changes would concentrate governments' minds wonderfully—that is governments of all political persuasions. Above all, it would encourage them to use the veto more whenever our national interest is threatened, just like other countries do. In employing the veto there is no need for stridency or table thumping, the alleged prospect of which always alarms fastidious bien-pensants; a quiet but firm "No"; a single unrepeated "No" is all that is needed, and nobody can reasonably be offended by such a courteous response.
After all, nobody in government or establishment circles is publicly nor, I suspect, privately, raging against the one or two Benelux countries for insisting upon the abolition of duty-free—mentioned several times this afternoon—after 30th June, against the wishes of the other 13 or 14 countries. Almost nobody—this is both surprising and significant—castigated Spain for threatening to veto the accession of Finland, Austria and so forth unless the Spanish were awarded more structural funds, more extensive fishing rights and so on; in other words it was accepted as normal and proper for Spain to act out of pure self-interest. What is right for Spain must be right for all other EU countries, including our own.
On the more specific issue of tax harmonisation, one cannot see Greece ever agreeing to modify the extremely favourable tax treatment accorded to the Dodecanese Islands to compensate them for their relative remoteness from Athens—favourable treatment which sits ill with single market principles. Yet it is difficult to imagine the French, Germans and Belgians seriously criticising the Greeks for sticking to their guns on this matter.
Apart from being good for Britain, this Bill, shorn perhaps of all or most of its referendum provisions, would actually make the Government more popular with the electorate. In this week of all weeks, such a prospect must be enticing to them. For that, and for more disinterested reasons, one hopes that they will give it serious consideration.
2.57 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I, too, believe this to be an excellent Bill. I hope it will be given a fair wind.
I also find myself somewhat in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and somewhat doubtful of the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, against the referendum in this case. That is because—I am sure the Minister will want to confirm this when he replies—the House of Commons has already lost the power to tax. That is to say, if the executive agrees to a tax modification or a new tax in the Council of Ministers, then it is illegal under European law for the House of Commons to disagree with it.
Apart from that regrettable fact of European law under the Treaty of Rome, it must be unlikely that if the executive agreed to a tax change in the Council of Ministers in Brussels, the House of Commons would
604
throw it out. If we look at how the House of Commons is composed at the moment, it would not be a line of defence for the people if the executive agreed, for instance, the withholding tax in Brussels. So, in those circumstances, I do think that a referendum would be justifiable, especially as we are not just looking at the withholding tax which is very much on the stocks at the moment; we are also looking at tax harmonisation over a very large area, and massive tax increases will be proposed before long by Brussels.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may just correct the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I did try to make the point that I believe that the referendum should only be used in extreme circumstances.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I am simply saying that the withholding tax would, in itself, to me be an extreme circumstance, given the massive damage it would do to the City of London. Certainly the sort of tax hikes that are on the way if we were to join economic and monetary union, which have been estimated at a minimum of 25 per cent, would, I should have thought, be a matter of sufficient national interest to justify a referendum or, indeed, referenda.
The trouble is that, unfortunately, and thanks to the factual detail and working of the Treaty of Rome, to which successive governments have so foolishly committed us, we are much more committed to running our economy, including our tax policy, on communautaire lines than most people and perhaps the Government realise. For example, we do not actually have an opt-out from EMU. Our long-term ability to avoid tax harmonisation must be in doubt. One ploy which the European Union is contemplating at the moment is to simply make tax harmonisation a requirement of the single market. We have already been told that the single market cannot work without tax harmonisation. If the British Government were not strong enough to veto that development, then tax harmonisation would be subject to qualified majority voting under single market legislation; and that would be the end of that.
I say that we are much more committed to tax harmonisation than we think and that we probably do not even have an opt-out from EMU, against the background that there are at least six articles which were not included in Protocol 11 of the Maastricht amendments to the Treaty of Rome, which has become the new Protocol 25 under the Amsterdam amendments. So even if the United Kingdom continues to exercise its opt-out from EMU, which is contained in that protocol, these six articles would remain in force and their combined effect allows the UK to be taken to the Luxembourg court for unlimited fines if we do not run our economy on communautaire lines. I have no doubt—indeed, I am sure that we will eventually, if we have not left this wretched treaty—that we will be taken to the Luxembourg court for such anti-communautaire activities as exporting unemployment, competitive devaluation or, in the example covered specifically by this Bill, unfair taxation.

605
It is useful to bear in mind the decision of the Luxembourg court against what my right honourable friend John Major, when he was Prime Minister, thought was our opt-out from the 48-hour week. When one looks at that, one must realise that the value of our opt-out from EMU and from tax harmonisation is extremely 2010questionable. Perhaps I may very briefly quote three paragraphs of a letter which my right honourable friend sent to Monsieur Santer, the President of the Commission, on 12th November 1996, after he thought he had obtained an opt-out from the working time directive when he had insisted on an opt-out from the ELT's social policy, but the Luxembourg court showed that he was wrong. He wrote as follows:
"Dear Jacques,
My intention in agreeing to the protocol on social policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other heads of state and governments also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at Maastricht".
That is quite an important statement. The letter continues,
"However, in its judgement today the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under that protocol can be adopted under Article 118A. That is contrary to the clear and expressed wishes of the United Kingdom Government and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied".
My right honourable friend and the previous government then said that they would block everything to do with the Amsterdam Treaty if he was not satisfied on this point. However, he then lost the election and the new Labour Government regrettably signed up to the social chapter, the Amsterdam Treaty and all the rest of it.
I do not propose to weary the House with a full quotation of the articles concerned, but there are a few extracts which I think should be placed on the record to show exactly how serious this situation is for the United Kingdom. The first article I have chosen—which has not been excluded by Protocol 25 under the Amsterdam amendments—is Article 2 of the consolidated treaty on the European Union, loosely referred to as Maastricht. I refer particularly to the first indent thereof. The United Kingdom is committed to this. The article states,
"to promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this treaty".
That could not be clearer. We are committed to economic and monetary union in Article 2 of the Maastricht Treaty. Actually that article goes back to the original Treaty of Rome.
I suggest that "the strengthening of economic and social cohesion" must put strong pressure on our tax policies. Article 3 of the same Maastricht Treaty states,
"The Union shall in particular ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole and in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies".
606
There we are; once again we are committed to communautaire economic policies. However, the position becomes worse and more specific. Article 2 of the treaty establishing the European Community—known as the TEC—states,
"The Community shall have as its task by establishing a common market and economic and monetary union to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among the member states".
There it is again; it is a case of economic and monetary union absolutely with knobs on, but I should have thought that tax policy was included in that.
Article 4 of the TEC states,
"For the purposes set out in Article 2 the activities of the member states and the Community shall include the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close collaboration of member states' economic policies".
I should have thought that it i s difficult to have al t entirely independent tax policy under that provision.
Article 98 of the TEC states,
"Member states shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community as defined in Article 2".
The provision in Article 99.1 of the TEC is, I think, inescapable. It states,
"Member states shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall co-ordinate them within the Council in accordance with the provisions of Article 98".
I shall not weary the House with the penalties for falling out with this communautaire economic policy, as they are contained in Articles 226–229 of the TEC. They are draconian and allow for unlimited fines in the Luxembourg court, against which of course, in true Euro style, there is no appeal.
I welcome this Bill, but in this matter, as in every other matter concerning the Treaty of Rome, this country is much more bogged down than people think in the quagmire of the treaty into which governments of all hues have so foolishly led us over the past 25 years. I think that this Bill, if passed, would at least give the people a say. which at the moment they no longer have except through an extremely esoteric representation in the Council of Ministers by the executive and not by the House of Commons. It would at least give the people a say in whether they want to suffer the undoubtedly enormous tax increases which this country faces if we are to stay in the Treaty of Rome.
3.10 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for introducing the Bill, if only as it enables us to refer to the question of the veto—which, I observe from the face of the Bill, does not appear anywhere except in the Title. The Bill is entitled European Tax Harmonisation (Veto) Bill but the term "veto" does not appear elsewhere. However, it affords us the opportunity of discussing the principle beyond it.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to Clause 3 and "tax harmonisation proposal". Subsection (b) states:
"requires adoption by unanimity in the Council of Ministers".
Therefore one is talking only of a tax harmonisation proposal where the Minister has a veto.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's further elucidation of the veto because it of course gives me the opportunity to raise the matter.
I well recall the occasion when my noble friend Lord Stoddart and myself had the opportunity from the Benches opposite—with the full approval of the Leader of the Labour Party, now a Commissioner in Europe, and of a parliamentary candidate who, sometime later, became exalted to a rather higher rank—of opposing the Single European Bill 1986, as it then was. My noble friend and I fought the Bill with some resolution and were opposed by the Conservative Party, which formed the Government at that time.
I also recall—as I hope your Lordships will recall—that my noble friend Lord Stoddart, myself and others were faced in the Maastricht Treaty deliberations with a rather different situation. My own party, the Labour Party, in effect, formed a coalition with the Conservative government at that time in order to get through the Maastricht Treaty legislation.
I say this because I hope that the House will realise that the attitude of myself and my noble friend towards the question of the veto has not been arrived at by some caprice or some gust of emotion that has arisen over the past two or three months or perhaps even years but was put before this House as a result of a very deeply held conviction that we were quite right in insisting on the veto. That received an affirmative response from the then Leader of the House, who said that the veto still remained intact.
We queried it then from the Opposition Benches because we recalled a situation in May 1982 when the British Government in Council tried to veto a settlement in that year of the price review. The Government at that time, through the then Minister, proceeded to try to exercise their veto. A difficult situation then arose because the Council declined to accept the veto on the ground that in its opinion Britain's national interest was not involved. Our opinion of course was that it was involved, otherwise we would not have tried to use our veto. In the end the Council's decision not to accept the British veto and to refuse to acknowledge it won the day. This put doubt in the minds of my noble friend Lord Stoddart and myself when it came to the debate on the Single European Act as to whether the veto was valid. I had the honour of reciting to the then Conservative Benches the events of May 1982. Notwithstanding that, an undertaking was given in the most specific terms that the British right of veto on matters affecting national interest would be retained.
My noble friend and I raised exactly the same point in relation to the Maastricht Treaty. We asked whether the British right of veto still remained. We were given the most equivocal undertakings, which appear in Hansard, that it did. The House will recall that in recent
608
months, following the raising of the tax harmonisation proposals, I asked exactly the same question. I was given the unequivocal answer—as a matter of honour of course—that the veto still remained.
Before I conclude, I shall repeat that question. If I am told that the British right of veto is still exactly the same as it was when I was given that affirmative answer two or three months ago— I shall not bother to produce the quotation from Hansard, which I can obtain quite easily—I shall immediately accept that. However, I shall accept with some misgiving. I shall do so not because I in any way mistrust my noble friend the Minister or the Government but because I know the way that the Commission works. I have had long experience of it not by remote control in London but personally in Brussels. I know the way it works.
We have seen the Commission documents. There was an initial proposal for a code of conduct over tax harmonisation but it was not to be binding. I remember the words well. Over the months, the term "binding" seems to have disappeared. There has been an insidious process of trying to modify the code of conduct and to remove the British veto.
The Commission produced a memorandum a few months ago on own resources in which it made it clear that it wanted to tax itself in order to augment its own resources. At the same time it advocated that the British rebate should be cancelled. The Commission has never made its position clear. It wants to levy its own taxes outside the scope of the British Government, among others. I shall be glad if my noble friend the Minister can repudiate what I have said. As a matter of honour, I would immediately accept and welcome his repudiation.
There is much talk about the necessity of Britain being at the heart of Europe. I wonder what that means. It cannot be said that we are not at the heart of Europe in defence matters as we have recently dominated military proceedings. It cannot be argued that our language is unknown in Europe and that we do not have any claim to be heard. The fact is that English is generally accepted as being the language not only of Europe but of most of the world.
I ask my noble friend this question. Is it really right, for the sake of perhaps personal friendly contacts, which I agree are extremely important, that every time we want something different from what may be wanted in other countries we should be accused of being anti-communautaire? Is there any real obligation on the British Government to agree with everything that the other states want? Is that up to us? What means do we have to do anything other than state our minds? We are a nation, a country, and we have a history. Some of us may say that it is distinguished, others less distinguished, but nevertheless we have a history of our own. I plead with my noble friends that for the sake of being highly regarded in Europe in personal, political and technical terms it is not necessary to agree with everything or to believe that, because we disagree, there is something reprehensible about that and that we need to be cast into the outer darkness of European affairs. That is a lot of nonsense.

609
If there is a future for us in Europe, a proper future, it is a future in which Europe respects us too. It is one in which the Commission is not seen as a commission of bureaucrats and as the only body in Europe that really matters, particularly when we consider its recent record which has been so miserably revealed over the past few months. That is not exactly the kind of ideal administration to which respect should be given as of right.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that even if his noble friend the Minister were to agree on the points that are being put to him, the fact that we still have the veto—I hope that the Luxemburg compromise, as it is known in the jargon, goes slightly wider than the veto on tax matters—does not really help us and does not obviate the need for the Bill? If the Executive go ahead and agree to tax harmonisation in Brussels, the House of Commons and the people will still be stuck with the results. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no Minister can agree to any tax harmonisation proposal without the express instruction of Parliament through a vote and of the people through a referendum. In other words, if the Bill were to become law, a nod from the relevant scrutiny committee would be insufficient. No Minister would be able to go ahead and agree, as Ministers have done in the past, if that nod was not forthcoming.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a question. I was concerned with establishing a principle—that there is either a valid veto or there is not. Whether or not the Government decide to exercise a veto can be argued about as and when the occasion arises; and I shall argue my corner. I merely want to be satisfied that the Government themselves consider that they still have the right of veto and still maintain that right.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, time is getting on and hope that noble Lords will not make two speeches in every debate. First, I wish to address myself to the Bill, which seems to be unworkable. We cannot possibly have a. referendum on every tax change that may take place. There would not be many tax changes as a result of harmonisation in Europe, but there may well be some. I hope that the Commission's proposals on the harmonisation of pension taxes will go through. That would be greatly beneficial to fund managers and others in the City of London and elsewhere. If they do, is that the kind of issue that should be brought to a referendum? Even those who are in sympathy with the general tenor of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, recognise that the Bill itself is unworkable and that we cannot have referenda on all these changes.
I want to turn briefly to the general questions that have been raised about tax harmonisation. The case for tax harmonisation in Europe is a somewhat limited one. In so far as it exists, it flows from the existence of the single market, although the arguments might be strengthened, and even more so if we are members of
610
monetary union. The case is strongest, and is only really acceptable, where the subject to be taxed is mobile. Otherwise, taxes can be left to subsidiarity. That is true in the case of indirect taxes, as we see with cross-border shopping. The noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, seemed to accept that in regard to indirect tax there was a case for harmonisation. That is why we have a common system—
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I accepted a case for harmonisation only because it would result in lower taxes. What we are seeing is continual disharmonisation, which is resulting in higher taxes.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, the case in which the noble Earl believed it was likely to apply was that of indirect taxes, and we certainly see that in cross-border shopping. There would be great benefit if some of the excise duties on the Continent went up. It obviously makes sense that we have a single system of VAT, which was agreed by a Conservative government in the past, within broad ranges. There is presently no proposal that the ranges of corporation tax should be narrowed or changed.
The case is at its weakest in relation to income tax. There are no present proposals for the harmonisation of income tax. There is currently very little mobility. Some people move from one country to another, but they do not on the whole move for tax reasons. There are all kinds of other considerations that matter more than tax.
On the question of corporation tax, one should always distinguish between the rhetoric and the reality. It is true that Lafontaine, when he was Finance Minister, called for the harmonisation of income tax at a common level. There is a case for a common tax base. It would have considerable merits in a single market. However, it is a rather academic case, because it is practically impossible to achieve any agreement on the harmonisation of a tax base. The Ruding Committee examined that possibility and made complicated proposals which have totally withered on the vine.
Harmonising tax rates is totally irrelevant. One has only to look at the difference between Britain and Germany. Germany has much higher nominal tax rates—they average something like 45 per cent—while the UK has much lower tax rates, at 30 per cent. Our corporate tax burden is much heavier. Our corporate taxes yield something like 3.6 per cent of GDP; German corporate taxes yield 1.9 per cent of GDP. It indicates how irrelevant are proposals for a common rate if we do not have harmonisation of a tax base, which is an academic question.
As regards labour taxes, there is not a great deal of mobility of labour, and all the pressures in Europe are presently for downward pressure on labour taxes. Most countries now recognise—it is recognised in, among other things, the new agreement with Chancellor Schroeder—that labour taxes in Europe are too high and that it is one of the many causes of unemployment. A recent study by the World Bank has underlined what an adverse effect high labour taxes in Europe have had on employment.

611
We then come to the more controversial areas, where there are proposals for harmonisation. First, there is the code of conduct to deal with unfair tax competition. It has been accepted by the Government. It is almost self-evident that there can be cases of unfair tax competition. That no longer applies to whether our labour taxes are unfair—that is not what the code of conduct is about—or whether we should harmonise corporate tax rates. It is about individual cases of harmful tax competition.
We all accept that there are cases of harmful state subsidies that distort competition and are unfair. In principle, there is no great difference between a state subsidy and a tax incentive. There is some difference—
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I find it absolutely astonishing that the noble Lord sees no difference in principle between a subsidy and a tax allowance.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, there is a considerable difference. Certainly, there is a difference in the impact on total spending. There are also considerable similarities. A particular tax incentive can have exactly the same effect as a particular state subsidy. If one has unlimited tax incentives so that instead of giving a state subsidy to a particular company one gives it a special tax incentive, one can achieve exactly the same effect, which can constitute unfair tax competition.
Individual cases have been looked at. I do not believe that we have a great deal to fear. For example, I believe that the Commission has approved the special arrangements for the film industry. There are other cases where we have a great deal to gain. I believe that this must be looked at case by case, as has been done. In some cases action will be justified; in others not.
That brings me to the question of the withholding tax. I believe that these proposals are deeply flawed. This concerns not just the bond market, although that is of considerable importance to the City of London. There is concern about the whole idea of a withholding tax on interest which does not extend to the whole of the OECD but is limited to the European Union. The Germans tried a withholding tax and it was a disaster. Billions of deutschmarks flowed into Luxembourg. They had a second go because of a ruling of the constitutional court in Karlsruhe. Again, the yield was very disappointing because there was a great outflow of savings. Now the Germans, the Commission and a number of other member states want to see an EU-wide withholding tax. It would make no sense. There could be easy withdrawal of savings to Switzerland, the United States or other various tax havens.
The proposal has been criticised not only by people in Britain but by a very prestigious French institute. The most devastating criticism that I have seen of the withholding tax is contained in a report prepared for the Edmond Israel Foundation by the Promethée Institute which is one of the foremost institutes in Paris. To my mind, those arguments are overwhelmingly persuasive.
612
I believe that this is a deeply mistaken proposal, and I am glad that the British Government are beginning to win allies in opposition to it.
Finally, I deal with the perpetual refrain about the coming of a European superstate. There is a lot of rhetoric about this. We must distinguish the rhetoric from the reality. There are many German politicians who always talk about a federal superstate. Their actions tend to contradict their words. One cannot have a federal superstate if one has a veto. It is very interesting that at Amsterdam it was the German Government who opposed the extension of qualified majority voting which the British Government supported because of the pressure of the Lander who have no enthusiasm for a federal superstate.
Of even greater importance is the question of taxation. One cannot have a strong federal superstate without substantial central revenues. Who are the great opponents of central revenues? The Germans. They are not alone in their opposition. They are just as opposed to a greater contribution to the centre as are we and other countries. It is clear that 1.27 per cent of total GDP resources—half of which at least is spent on agricultural policy—is no basis for a federal superstate. The Germans insist not only that that should apply until the year 2006 but that after that the budget should be frozen altogether. The rhetoric is totally contradicted by their actions. This great federal superstate is a wonderful bogeyman with which to frighten children, but it is not a realistic prospect.
3.33 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Waddington for introducing the Bill this afternoon. I warmly welcome it. My noble friend is to be congratulated on the measured way in which he introduced it. It was in the 1970s that the British electorate saw the advantages of a free trade area, which we have now developed into a single market. The recent Euro elections, despite the low turnout, amply demonstrate that we on these Benches are right to be extremely cautious about the single currency.
I believe that tax competition is highly desirable. We need to have the most favourable tax environment possible. We look at the high non-wage costs of employing workers of our continental friends and then notice that they also have high unemployment. I do not believe that we want to follow their example. We exist in a global competitive environment, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. (I see that he is not now in his seat, but I am sure that he will return to hear the Minister.) It is no use having a cosy EU tax cartel, if I may put it that way. when we would be at the mercy of overseas competition. Does the Minister agree with Professor Tim Congdon of Lombard Street Research who has calculated that taxes in Britain would have to rise by at least one sixth to bring them into line with other EU member states? I do not know whether the noble Lord agrees with him on that point. But that works out at £2,000 per taxpayer.

613
If all our taxes were harmonised in full economic and monetary union, how could we be sure that we still had a sound fiscal policy? How could we be sure that we still have the best policy in order to maximise employment across the Community?
My noble friend Lord Waddington and others made the point that if one has a single currency, tax harmonisation has to follow—I would say as surely as night follows day. My noble friend's point is that Parliament and the British public should formally agree to any tax harmonisation policies after public debate. My noble friend Lord Waddington and many other noble Lords mentioned the spectre of the withholding tax and the threat of financial markets moving their business outside the EU. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, covered that point well.
Like the Minister's right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I am confused as to how the tax will work. However, my confusion relates to why the tax will not severely damage UK business. The tax may be complicated but the outcome is simple. Thousands of jobs in the City of London will be lost to Switzerland and New York.
In the EU we do not have significant labour mobility—and certainly not when compared with the United States. In any case, work undertaken and paid for in Germany is taxed under German tax arrangements. If the same work is carried out and paid for in the UK, it is taxed under our arrangements. But when we look at road Fuel duties we see that the Government have widened the differential in duty between ourselves and other EU members. Your Lordships will be aware of the difficulties created for road hauliers—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Dartmouth—and the opportunity for large-scale smuggling between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The Minister will no doubt point to the higher non-wage costs, to which I have already adversely referred. What is crucial to road hauliers is the marginal cost per mile. Fuel is a major component of marginal costs of road transportation.
It seems to me that we should retain full control of our tax system but at the same time avoid diverging EU tax and duty on goods when it encourages smuggling and other illegal activities.
I am sure that the Minister will draw attention to the annual Budget and the accompanying Finance Act. Can he assure the House that it is not possible to vary UK tax or duty rates by means of secondary legislation in particular under the European Communities Act 1972.
In conclusion, we on these Benches are not in favour of tax harmonisation. We are in favour of tax competition even where that means that our Government may have to cut taxes. We believe in low taxation. The principle of my noble friend's Bill would help to maintain our current competitive position in the world and our relatively low unemployment—surely a commendable objective. That is why I support the principle of the Bill.
We on these Benches want to be in Europe but not run by Europe. If we agree to tax harmonisation we really would be run by Europe.
3.38 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for introducing the Bill which gives us an opportunity to place on record yet again the Government's position on taxation within the European Union. I say "yet again"' because when I make absolutely clear and unequivocal statements I find noble Lords behaving as though they had not been made, or, more importantly, as though the Chancellor, Chancellor Schröder and former President Santer had not made clear statements. Noble Lords simply brush them aside and say, "We don't believe that so we'll go on regardless".
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on rounding up the usual suspects. He has got together virtually the full gang of Europhobes to whom we listen. I have the battle honours, too—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend described us as Europhobes. We are not—at least I am not. However, I am an Anglophile and I believe that we should conduct our own affairs through our own elected Government and our own Parliament. That is not Europhobic. What I fear about some people who accuse us of being xenophobes and Europhobes is that they are Anglophobes.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the Minister replies—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I must reply to my noble friend first. Please, we must have some semblance of order in this House. I once accused my noble friend Lord Stoddart of being a xenophobe. He repudiated it and he was right. I apologised to him for it. However, I still believe that his words and his record over the years show that he is what I would call a Europhobe, but I use it as a descriptive term rather than as a term of abuse.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Minister ought not to be allowed to get away with that. Does he not realise what offence is caused? We make a perfectly reasonable proposition that we are a proud, independent country. with strong links with the EU; that we want to maintain those links and have free entry for our goods into Europe; but that we are also a country looking outwards to the rest of the world with which we have most important links and many great interests. To stigmatise any of us as being anti-European because we wish that relationship to prosper but we do not want a federal Europe, frankly, I find insulting. We hear it every time.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the Minister that in the earlier debate I mentioned that one of the most important points in the whole debate about the Treaty of Rome is the ambiguity of the word "Europe". Those of us who some people on his side of the argument describe as Europhobes, little Englanders, dangerous nationalists and so on, love the Europe of nation states which should be freely trading together. What we are phobic about and what we dislike

615
is the Treaty of Rome and everything that that makes possible for Brussels to inflict upon us. That is an enormous difference and we are the better Europeans.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if anything I say causes offence, I withdraw it. I have no intention of insulting anyone or of causing offence. But I believe that noble Lords know exactly what I mean. I object to using the weasel phrase "Euro-sceptic" because I do not believe that it describes the position of noble Lords.
I was congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on rounding up the usual suspects. I was about to say that I have the battle honours, too. I spoke in the debates on the Single European Bill and on the Maastricht and Amsterdam Bills. I have heard it all before and it is almost nostalgic for me. Almost, but not quite.
During the time I have to reply to the debate, I want to set out the principles which underpin the Government's approach to European Union tax issues and apply them to a number of specific cases which have been raised today and in the recent past. I shall then turn to some particular difficulties that we have with this Bill.
When we first address the phrase at the heart of the Bill, "tax harmonisation", which we have heard so often, let us he clear about the fundamental issue. The priority for Europe is the promotion of employment, economic reforms and competitive markets, not tax harmonisation. The Government have made it clear that they will not support any action at European level which will threaten jobs or the competitive position of British business. We start from clear principles. In particular, we believe in the benefits of fair tax competition. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that he believed in the virtues of tax competition and that in principle it is desirable. It is desirable, but at the same time it has to be fair tax competition.
We also wish to see concerted action to deal with unfair tax practices that distort real competition. We wish for the cessation of unfair state aid. Whether subsidies are the same or fundamentally different from unfair tax measures does not seem to be important. They have the same effect. I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in that respect.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that sometimes they are very different? Tax can be much more general than a state subsidy. Sometimes they are very similar if the tax incentive is a particular one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indeed. We need to co-operate with our European partners to make progress in these areas. Britain is not alone in thinking in that way. At the Cologne European Council earlier this month the conclusions on tax policy were that the Council of Ministers,
"emphasises the need to make tax systems in Europe more employment-friendly and to combat harmful tax competition".
616
That confirmed the conclusions of the Vienna European Council six months earlier which said,
"Co-operation in the tax policy area is not aiming at uniform tax rates and is not inconsistent with fair tax competition, but is called for to reduce the continuing distortions in the single market, to prevent excessive losses of tax revenue or to get tax structures to develop in a more employment-friendly way".
Germany has held the EU presidency for almost six months. It was made clear in the joint statement made by the Prime Minister and Chancellor SchrÖder last December that there was no case for the harmonisation of tax rates. I understand that officials in the German Finance Ministry, in oral evidence to the current inquiry by the European Communities Committee of this House into taxes in the EU, made the same point.
The Government believe that EU taxation should continue to be based on the principles of national competence whereby policy is wholly a matter for member states if the European Community does not have competence under the EC Treaty, and unanimity whereby EU-wide taxation measures can only be adopted by a unanimous vote of member states.
We are not alone in insisting that direct taxation is a matter for the national state. There is no proposal and no prospect of one, for the harmonisation of income tax in the European Union. No member state believes that there is a case for a European rate of corporation tax. Even the former president of the Commission, M Santer, who has been quoted so often, said,
"income tax and corporation tax are sovereign national matters and will remain so".
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, seems to believe that tax harmonisation can be agreed under single market rules and thereby avoid unanimity. The single market rules only apply to indirect taxation. Under Article 99 they do not affect the unanimity rule. There is no diminution of unanimity. As tax matters require unanimity, there is no question of tax changes that are not in Britain's national interest being imposed on us from Brussels.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Minister has represented the position exactly as it is at the moment. I mentioned in my speech what the plans are in Brussels to change that. There is a movement afoot in Brussels to make tax harmonisation part of single market legislation which the Government could veto. As I said in my speech, the Government are not mad keen on vetoes in Brussels.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is nothing I can do. I have tried to convince the noble Lord that the Government's position is clear and that of the European Commission is clear. There are no proposals to make any changes. The noble Lord is marvellous at conspiracy theories —not the conspiracy theory of history but that of the future. He has somebody plotting something wicked which will somehow be imposed on us despite the unanimity rules and all the powers that we have to maintain our national status.

617
The point is that not only is that the case now but that is the way it will stay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been absolutely clear on that point. He said last December:
"Everybody knows that EU tax proposals require unanimity and a change to that requires a treaty change which requires unanimity and that is simply not going to happen".
I say to my noble friend Lord Bruce that we shall retain the veto on tax issues. I have said it before and I shall say it as often as I have to. It does not become any more or less true with repetition. The Bellman only went up to three times. I am now on five or six. Perhaps it will eventually sink in.
Having outlined the principles which apply, let us consider the areas which have been the subject of speculation; for example, value added tax —and I was going to mention corporation tax but the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has dealt with that point adequately —withholding tax and the codes of conduct.
On VAT, there are no detailed proposals to change the existing rate. We were elected on a clear pledge to maintain zero rates of VAT on food, children's clothes, books. newspapers and public transport fares. Our zero rates are fully safeguarded under existing arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said that only under this Government were changes being brought forward. I cannot remember exactly when he left the previous government, but between 1992 and 1997 there were 30 VAT or excise harmonisation measures proposed by the Council of Ministers and adopted by this country. In addition, there were two direct harmonisation measures —the mergers directive and the parent and subsidiary companies directive.
If the noble Lord's Bill had been in operation, we should have had 32 referenda between 1992 and 1997. We should have had hardly any since 1997. The noble Lord should reflect on that.
All European Community VAT matters are subject to agreement by all member states. We shall stick to our pledge" I remind the House that the Conservatives introduced VAT on domestic fuel and sought to increase it from 8 to 17.5 per cent.
I turn now to the withholding tax; that is, the draft Commission directive on the taxation of savings. The motive behind the measure is one which I hope all noble Lords will be able to support; that is, the prevention of tax evasion. It is aimed chiefly at citizens of the European Union who place accounts in member states with highly secretive banking systems, such as Luxembourg, and then do not make a declaration to their own tax authorities. That is tax evasion, not avoidance.
The Government support effective action against tax evasion but we do not believe that the directive is likely to be effective. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that the draft directive on withholding tax is fundamentally flawed. In particular, it will be very damaging to the Euro-bond industry. We have made an oft-stated commitment to protect the European Union financial markets. Instead, we believe that member states with banking secrecy laws should reform their laws as soon as possible to make possible the exchange of information.
618
There are clear signs that we are winning the argument. The Council working group discussions have resulted in an acknowledgement by the Commission in the conclusions agreed to at ECOFIN on 25th May that the draft directive poses real problems for the financial sector. Our case was accepted. A further review was agreed as regards the treatment of international bonds. The UK was asked to submit proposals for excluding the Euro-bond market. That is what we have been asked to do and that is what we agreed to do.
We shall continue to negotiate in good faith and on a realistic timescale to see whether a workable solution can be found. Ultimately, if the flaws in the directive are not addressed, we shall take whatever action is necessary to protect the financial markets in the City of London. If necessary, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we shall not hesitate to use our veto to block the directive.
I turn to the issue of the code of conduct. First, I make it clear that the group is working to produce a code of conduct. When it is produced, it will be a political compact which explicitly preserves the national competence of member states on taxation.
It is certainly not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, seemed to think, that we have signed away any of our rights. However, as I said earlier, we think that there are potentially harmful tax measures where the effective level of taxation is lower than the general level of taxation. For a measure to be harmful it has significantly to affect the location of business activity. It could be argued, for example, that the differential taxation of small businesses is not harmful.
We have made public, and I made public last year, the five tax measures which we submitted to the code of conduct working group. That has been confirmed in a Written Answer within the past month. We maintain, and we will defend the position stoutly, that these are not harmful tax measures. We will continue to negotiate on that basis.
I turn to the Bill as we have it before us. I find it astonishing that the noble Lord should be proposing that no tax harmonisation proposal should be agreed to unless the House of Commons has approved it and a referendum has been held on the matter, and that a majority of those voting, including the abstentions on one side, which is a remarkable procedure, should be in favour of the proposal.
The Conservative Party has been against a referendum all its political life. When we introduced the narrow range of constitutional referendums on the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the mayor for London, the Conservative Party bitterly opposed them on the grounds that they would derogate from the authority of Parliament. I am amazed that the Conservative Front Bench should give even the general welcome which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, gave. I am sorry, but this is not a sensible Bill in the terms in which it is drafted, nor is it effective in the terms in which it

619
is drafted. It seeks to remedy problems which simply do not exist. Of course we shall not oppose the Bill, but we must be clear that we cannot support it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene. The Minister referred to "the usual suspects". I plead not guilty to that. I welcome the principle of the Bill, but I am not sure that I would like to see it on the statute book. I raised the point about the single currency inevitably leading to tax harmonisation; that if the single currency did not work we would have to go to tax harmonisation to make it work. Does the Minister have anything to say on that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acquit the noble Earl from being among the usual suspects, with great pleasure. The answer to the noble Earl's question can be given by looking at the United States. They have had a single currency for more than 200 years. They do not have tax harmonisation; it does not follow.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is a completely bogus point, for a start. Eighty per cent of the revenue raised in the United States is raised by the federal government and only 20 per cent by the states, so there is tax harmonisation. By far the largest slice of all taxes is taxed by the federal government. I have to say to the Minister that he may have made some good points today but that is a particular bad one.
I shall have mercy on the Minister and all noble Lords present because time is getting on. I thank all who have taken part in the debate. I am very flattered indeed that such acknowledged experts as the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, should come along. I occupy a room not very far from the room which, until recently at any rate, was occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I always marvelled at his ability to get into the room because the whole place was full of Community documents. So nobody can pretend that he is not an expert in this field. All those who have spoken today feel strongly about these matters.
I do not accept for one moment the argument that the Bill could not work because we would be having referendums every second day. The object of the Bill is to prevent a Minister going to Brussels and signing up to tax harmonisation because we do not think that it is right and we do not think that it is necessary.
I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. He said that the Germans tried a withholding tax and that tax was a disaster. Indeed, he is right. My understanding is that the directive on the withholding tax was actually formulated at the behest of Germany following its mistaken decision to introduce a 10 per cent withholding tax on domestic interest payments. That led to a massive shift of funds out of German domestic bonds by foreign investors to Luxembourg. It is beyond my comprehension why we should now be spending so much time trying to protect Germany from the consequences of its own folly.
620
We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that the continual refrain of the "superstate" caused him much irritation and all this rhetoric must be entirely discounted. I ask noble Lords to look at the quotations I gave today. They do not come only from Germans. They come from throughout the Community, from statesmen from almost every country in the Community and also from presidents of the Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not reply to one of the most important questions I put to him. He will remember that I said that Jacques Santer described the British decision to sign up to the code as a decision which had the effect of nullifying the veto and was a device to side-step the EU treaties that require unanimity before tax harmonisation can legally be enforced. Does he agree that Jacques Santer said that? If he said it, was he right? If he was wrong, does the Minister agree that we would be very foolish if we did not look upon the code of conduct exercise as an exercise in tax harmonisation if that is what a former President of the Commission thought it was?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that he said it; I do not have the source in front of me. If he did say it, he was wrong. When the code of conduct is finally signed it will be a political contract which specifically reserves member states' national competence on tax.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply so far as it goes. I note that there is no denial that that is what the President of the Commission said. We should take note of that. I shall not weary the House further. I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. It has been a useful exercise and I hope the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Comitology: ECC Report
4.2 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hope of Craighead rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Delegation of Powers to the Commission: Reforming Comitology (3rd Report, HL Paper 23).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Select Committee on the European Communities reported to the House on a proposal which relates to procedures. There is a view that matters of procedure are even more contentious than matters of substance, but we shall see as I develop the background to this report.
The procedures with which the report is concerned are those for the exercise of implementing powers conferred by the Council on the Commission. This is not the first time that the committee has visited this subject. In previous reports it has expressed concern about the arrangements for adequate scrutiny and the need for greater transparency. But on this occasion it took the opportunity to examine the whole subject in much greater detail.
To the uninitiated—those who are not well versed in the workings of the institutions of the European Communities—the system of procedures known within the Community as "comitology" is almost unknown. To those to whom that word means anything at all, it remains for the most part a mystery. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. The exercise by the Commission of its implementing powers has at least the potential to affect the everyday lives of people at all levels throughout the Community. The system is an indispensable part of the Community's law-making machinery; it is at the heart of the constitutional structure of the EU. It does not seem to be right, therefore that, due to the complexity of the system and the fact that it is subject to so little public scrutiny, the process should be so obscure and so difficult to understand.
The occasion for this study of the system, and for the report which the European Communities Committee has now placed before the House, was the proposal by the Commission for a Council decision on the implementing procedures which is printed at pages 39 to 43 of the report. In simple terms, the proposal seeks to simplify and improve the present system. It seeks to do this in five main ways: the first, by setting criteria to guide the choice of implementing procedures; the second, by reducing the number of types of committee, which at present is complicated by the availability of several variants; the third, by ensuring that proposals which have legislative character, in contrast to those designed merely to implement, go to the legislative authority; the fourth, by enhancing the monitoring of the exercise of implementing powers by the Parliament; and the fifth, which is a matter of alignment, by aligning the existing procedures—those in existing committees—with those set out in the proposals.
The first task which we in the committee set ourselves was to investigate and to try to understand the present system. One of the points which came to the committee's attention as soon as it began to work was that so little information about the system was available. It is a remarkable fact, but it is the case that there is no definitive list of the comitology committees, their functions, their activities and their membership. So a substantial part of the committee's report has been devoted to setting out this background. We have traced the history of the system through its various stages of development.
We were particularly grateful to the Government for providing us, at our request, with a list compiled from departmental records of all the comitology committees of which they are aware which fall within the scope of the proposal. This list sets out the name of each committee, its legal basis, its type—using the existing system of numbering—and a summary of the activities in 1997 of those committees which were active during that year. It so happens that a number of them were not active at all. So far as we are aware, nothing like this has previously been made available anywhere within the European Union by anyone. It seemed to us that the list with which we were provided was so valuable that we should take the opportunity of publishing it as an appendix to this report. It runs to more than 50 pages.
622
As the report itself runs to only 35, it has certainly added greatly to the substance and, we hope, also to the usefulness of this document.
In the course of our inquiry we took evidence from, among others, the Principal Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the Commission and one of its Deputy Administrators—the people largely responsible for the proposal. They provided us with some useful insight into the thinking behind it and the practical considerations in the light of which it should be used. But, in order to subject their evidence and their explanatory memorandum to critical analysis, we took evidence from senior officials in the three departments of the United Kingdom Government most intimately connected with the practical operation of the system and from two members of the European Parliament. We also had the assistance of the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who was good enough to give up time to provide us with her oral evidence. In addition, we were in the receipt of a quantity of written material from other interested parties. We are grateful to all those who contributed to our inquiry.
In the light of that information, we felt able to take a view on the proposal. As I have already indicated, our starting point was our appreciation of the fact that comitology is as contentious as it is important and as opaque as it is complex. With that in view, it seemed to us that the new comitology decision should have three main objectives, which, broadly speaking, are those which the Commission has explained in a memorandum.
First, what was proposed should enhance the role of the European Parliament. Secondly, it should simplify comitology procedures; and, thirdly, it should inject greater transparency. We had in mind that there were three main interests that needed to be safeguarded. These were the major national interests of the member states; the interests of those people within the member states most likely to be affected by the measures which were being implemented; and the general public interest, which we all share, in securing democratic legitimacy and accountability.
Our conclusions are set out in the report under three main headings which perhaps I can touch on briefly in order to set the scene for this debate. First, there is the question of a greater role for the European Parliament. Everyone was agreed that it should have a. greater role The Commission made this clear in its explanatory memorandum and it was common ground among all our witnesses. But there was quite a division of view as to how this might best be achieved, and in particular how far the greater role should extend. On the one hand there was a desire on the part of the Parliament that it should be entitled not only to scrutinise but, in its own words, "to blow the whistle"—in this context the analogy was simply that of the referee in a game of football—on implementing measures which it did not like. On the other hand there was a much more modest proposal by the Commission to improve the position of the Parliament in two ways; namely, by formalising some of the aspects of the present procedures, and by making a few changes in the default procedure under the regulatory committee procedure.

623
As a committee, we have always been sympathetic, at least to some degree, to the Parliament's wish to be more involved in the comitology process. There is clearly a case to be made for this. However, we feel bound to point out that there are some limits as to what is practicable and what is desirable. A balance has to be struck. Regard has to be paid to the fact that oversight of implementing legislation is a matter for the member states as well; to the interests of speed, where this is necessary; and above all to effective law making.
What we have recommended comes down somewhere in the middle of the two extremes which I have sought to identify. We recommend that the role of the Parliament should be formally recognised; it should have a right to be consulted, not merely to have that done as a matter of practice. In particular it should have the right—subject to exceptions for urgent cases—to receive every proposal to be submitted to a comitology committee in sufficient time for it to be able to offer an informed opinion to which the Commission would be bound to have regard. We also recommend that the Parliament should be given an enhanced role in the regulatory committee procedure in those cases where co-decision legislation has been referred to the Council following a negative opinion by the relevant comitology committee. We believe that these changes, which are outlined in more detail in the report, would be a substantial improvement on the present position. But we have made it clear that we do not favour giving a power of veto to the Parliament.
Secondly, there is the issue of simplification of procedures. The Commission has made it clear in its explanatory memorandum that this is one of its prime objectives, and the draft decision has gone to quite some lengths to meet this objective. I do not wish to dwell on this matter as it is rather complex. It is perhaps enough for me to say that we were not entirely satisfied with the solutions which the Commission has proposed for simplifying the procedures, especially relating to the choice of the type of committee in the implementation process. They bore the hallmarks perhaps of a degree of overworking in an attempt to define various situations. That attempt at definition seemed to us to give rise to a number of practical difficulties which might best be avoided. What we have done in the report is to make some suggestions as to how the proposal might be improved. Our main suggestion concerns the use of guidelines for the choice of committee type, rather than the laying down in advance of precise criteria.
Thirdly and lastly, there is the issue of greater transparency. There was no difference in view among the witnesses about the need for this and I have already drawn attention to the list of comitology committees provided to us by the Government. As we mention in the report, the Government have quite rightly told us that they cannot guarantee that the list is absolutely complete and accurate, but it certainly is a valuable step in the right direction. We should like to see that initiative built upon.
We have recommended that steps should now be taken—making use of modern electronic technology, where appropriate—to make available to the public a
624
complete and authoritative list of the committees, and above all of their functions and activities. We have mentioned that steps should be taken to improve the procedures for scrutiny by your Lordships' select committee in various respects which we have set out at the end of our report.
It would not be right for me to end without paying tribute to the assistance which all Members of the Committee have received from its legal adviser, Dr. Kerse. His contribution to the work of Sub-Committee E, not only in this investigation but throughout its work, deserves special thanks. In this case his initiative and expertise was invaluable to us as we explored a very difficult and highly complicated subject, both in the investigation stage and at the stage of the preparation of the report.
In commending the report to the House I should like to underline the role which we see in this matter for the national Parliament, which is part of the reason why we seek an improved scrutiny role for the select committee and, through that committee, your Lordships' House. It is for that reason that it seemed to all of us important that there should be an opportunity for the report to be debated. I commend the motion to the House.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Delegation of Powers to the Commission: Reforming Comitology (3rd Report, HL Paper 23). — (Lord Hope of Craighead.)
4.17 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee E of the European Communities Select Committee I am happy to support the recommendations of the report, which have been outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. As our chairman he has been courteous, thorough and fair—not only with the witnesses but, if I may say so, with the members of the committee as well. We are extremely fortunate to have him as our chairman. I think it is important that we have a continuing convention that this particular sub-committee, which deals with law and institutions, should have a current Law Lord as its chairman. There are some in the House who wish to pursue to extremes the doctrine of the separation of powers so that Law Lords holding current judicial office should not have any involvement in the work of the House except for its judicial work. It would be a great loss if Law Lords could no longer be chairmen of sub-committees such as this and presumably not eligible to be a member either.
As my noble and learned friend has said, this report, like others before it, owes much to its legal adviser, Dr. Christopher Kerse, who on this occasion, perhaps sensing that to some of us comitology was not the most gripping and exciting of our projects, sought to humour us with an excursus on the spelling, derivation and meaning of the somewhat unappetising word.
The system of committees we examined is the system of committees created by the Council of Ministers to assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers. The committee consists of national civil servants from the member states, chaired by an official of the

625
Commission. Your Lordships will gather from my remarks about allowing Law Lords to take part in the legislative work of this House that I believe in adopting a pragmatic and flexible approach to the doctrine of the separation of powers. Hence I see no objection in principle, nor does our report, to delegation by the Council of Ministers to the Commission of the implementation of legislative powers.
In the 1920s, the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewert, inveighed against the delegation of the United Kingdom Parliament's legislative powers to civil servants in a book entitled polemically, The New Despotism. But in the modern world this parliament, other national parliaments and the European Parliament all need to concentrate their attention on important matters of policy and principle and to allow at least some of the details to be filled in by others. The vital conditions are surely that such delegated legislation is transparent, de-limited, overseen and accounted for. In the United Kingdom we have over more than half a century developed a controlling web of publicity, of scrutiny and of parliamentary and judicial supervision.
What our sub-committee found in the web of committees in the European Union was the opposite of transparency. We found a system that was opaque, with not even a definitive list available of the committees that do the work of reviewing the implementation of legislative powers. If we have done nothing else, we have put a search light on those committees and published details about them in an appendix that takes up a major part of the report.
Secrecy and complexity breed suspicion, especially as the powers of the European Parliament are not as strong as many of us think they should or might be. The Parliament and others are naturally suspicious that the distinction between legislation and implementation is not always maintained in the European Union. So, in addition to seeking more transparency, our report seeks two other principal objectives: simplification of the committee system so that it can be better understood and an increase in the involvement of the European Parliament, elected by people throughout the European Union.
I want to refer to just one of the report's proposals that goes towards that objective of greater involvement on the part of the European Parliament. Paragraph 18 contains the proposal that the European Parliament should have the right to receive every proposal submitted to a comitology committee, so that it can offer an opinion to which the Commission would be bound to have regard. That is what the committee has proposed. We were not happy with Article 7 of the proposed Council decision because, while requiring Parliament to be informed of proposals, it does not explicitly give Parliament the right to offer an opinion to which the Commission must have regard.
Yet such a provision has been part of the so-called modus vivendi of 1994 which was agreed between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament. When I had the opportunity to ask a question on this matter on 14th October 1998, Madame Durend, Principal Legal Adviser to the Commission, said that the legal text of
626
the decision did not preclude "other inter-institutional agreements". That can be found on page 9 of the minutes of evidence. We would much rather have such things in the official legal text of the decision than have them left to some further agreement between the different institutions. I commend the report to the House.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords,
"Delegation of detailed rule-making and individual decision-taking is a common feature of the relationship between the legislature and the executive in Western democracies. That delegation is usually subject to some form of supervision or control and of accountability".
Such are the opening words of the report we are today considering. In the light of current experiences and the future hopes for the expansion of the European Union, this Third Report of the Select Committee is greatly to be welcomed. I, too, should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and his committee for bringing the report before us today.
Before I discuss some of the details of the report, I should like to look at the wider perspective in which it must be set, as indeed previous speakers have done as well. In an earlier debate on 22nd March. I stressed that the opportunity should now be taken to look in depth at the manning and scope of the Commission's activities. In broad terms, I would wish to see the Council of Ministers playing more of a cabinet role; the Commission more of a purely executive role; and the European Parliament, among its other duties, a greater scrutinising role. It is against that background that I have studied this report.
The report says that the treaties do not provide that all law making is vested in the Council and that in practice the Commission is frequently given implementing powers. It goes on to say that the exercise of those powers is overseen by committees, which are composed of national representatives—usually civil servants—who are able to exert influence on behalf of the Council of Ministers. The first point I want to make is one that I have often made before. If in any organisation the board of directors does not give a clear lead, the managers will tend to take over—and I do not blame them. Clear leadership has too often been lacking from the Council and the Commission has become too powerful.
Secondly, the views of national parliaments and of the European Parliament itself have not been properly taken into account. Various reasons for that have been given and they are spelt out in the report—time has been too short; confidentiality has been regarded as essential. the workings of national parliaments and of the European Parliament itself have been too slow and cumbersome. However, the fact is that, whatever the reasons, the present situation is unacceptable and changes must be made.
Our own procedures for dealing with UK secondary legislation are at present under scrutiny. Greater flexibility in parliamentary procedures and greater chances for the views of interested parties to be heard are both required. Yet such greater national scrutiny is

627
equally needed for European secondary legislation. After all, the results of such legislation have usually to be administered by the national governments and we are similarly subject to its consequences. It is only right, therefore, that it should be subjected to the same type of scrutiny as that given to national secondary legislation.
My third point is a simple one. There are now too many Commissioners. They all have to be staffed and they all have to appear to have important work to do. Clearly the whole matter of the numbers of the Commissioners and the methods of their selection, their staff and duties will have to be reviewed before further enlargement takes place. In my view, such a review should take place now.
So what decisions should the Council of Ministers now be taking in these matters? First, it is important that it gives a firm lead so that its proposals are adopted and will allow future procedures to be exercised with efficiency and fairness in the years ahead. The size of the Commission should be reduced. The amount of legislation delegated to it should also be substantially reduced.
We are told that there are about 250 committees all beavering away at secondary legislation of one sort or another. I congratulate the committee on getting those figures out of the authorities. While UK attendance at these meetings is, I am sure, doing much to help ensure the success of Eurotunnel, the Council must, nonetheless, insist on a reduction in the numbers of these committees and the return of a substantial part of their work back to where it properly belongs; namely, with the national governments.
Too often, complaints regarding secondary legislation are answered with the reply that nothing can be done, since the regulation was made in Brussels and the Government are bound by it. Yet is it often the case that the responsibility should properly lie with the national governments, who ought themselves to have drawn up the legislation within their own procedures, including adequate public consultation. It is a fact well realised in all bureaucracies that the more you can dissipate decision-making, the more difficult it becomes to control it—and the more difficult it becomes to put the blame on anyone when anything goes wrong. Responsibility is too easily ducked.
Of course there will rightly be much that must still be left in the hands of these European committees. But their work will then, it is to be hoped, be less overwhelming and consequently better scrutinised. It has been said, indeed it was stated in the report, that the European Parliament has been snowed under with paper. Parliament has expressed a determination to handle the committee reports more carefully and speedily. A reduction in the number of reports coming through to it for scrutiny would clearly help it to achieve those objectives.
Finally, since the detection of fraud, corruption and mismanagement cannot be disregarded in whatever aspect of European activity is under scrutiny, I feel that I must voice my strong reservations about the Government's recent Statement on the appointment of the new European Anti-Fraud Office.
628
Once again, the Council has shown a clear lack of leadership. At Maastricht, the Court of Auditors was given full independent status. As a result of its subsequent reports, the Commission was eventually forced to resign. Without those reports, that subsequent resignation would never have happened.
I have noticed that, ever since the investigations of the Court of Auditors began to embarrass the Commission, the gossip began to grow that the court was not perhaps the most distinguished of bodies, and that perhaps no one should pay too much attention to it. It is quite obvious that the last thing that the Commission would want would be for a truly independent anti-fraud office to be centred outside the Commission.
I fear that this lame duck Commission will now be laughing all the way to its overdue retirement, having ensured that the new body is to be placed within the Commission itself. The Council should have insisted that the full independence of this new office was secured by its attachment to the Court of Auditors.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I agree strongly with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shaw, about the need to reorganise the Commission. It gives me a certain sense of nostalgia. In 1979, I was a member of the Spierenburg Committee, a five-man committee which looked at the workings of the Commission and decided that it should be radically overhauled and that the directorates should be reorganised. But of course that proposal sank almost without trace, except that the same ideas are now being revived.
I do not have a lot to say on the subject, and I shall not take a long time to say it. Delegated legislation always presents a problem; the implementation of laws always does. In the UK we have the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The public know nothing about the work of those committees. I believe that they do their work quite well, but it is at least being looked at again.
In the European Union the organisation is far more obscure. I am very grateful to the noble Lord not only for the manner in which he introduced the debate but for the report itself. It means that once again I am subject to a moment of clarity and understanding of the term "comitology" and the comitology committees. Five years ago I did a study on the future of capital markets in Europe and I thought that I understood "comitology", but as soon as the report was completed I forgot all about it. I suspect that by next Monday I shall have again forgotten how the comitology committees work.
The matter is nevertheless important, as shown by the list of 250 separate committees in the appendix. I note that one of the witnesses thought that there were 399 committees, so perhaps the list should be even longer than it is. There is one difference between delegated legislation in the European Union and in the UK. Quite a lot of draft directives are in rather general terms because they are the result of political compromise. Therefore, more is left to the

629
implementation committees that must cross the t's and dot the i's. The need for simplification, clarity and transparency is self-evident. Given co-decision, the involvement of the European Parliament is also important. However, I am not sure how effective the recommendations will be. It appears that the European Parliament has not made full use, or even good use, of the rights given to it under the 1987 agreement.
The report is a very good one, and I hope that it will have influence. The reports on Europe by Select Committees of this House have a good deal of influence in Europe. On the occasions that I go to Brussels I am amazed by how much importance is attached to the reports. They enjoy a far higher reputation in Brussels than in this country, where nobody is aware of them. I hope that this report will be treated with respect and implemented.
I raise only one question on the report. I do not know whether it is a matter for the Government or the committee. I am not sure that the recommendations on simplification are very strong. I believe that recommendations 20 and 21 pull their punches compared with the proposals being put forward by the Commission itself. As the recommendations emerge they appear to result in less simplification than the Commission seeks. There may be good reasons for that; indeed, some are given in the report. Does the Minister agree with that? Generally speaking, will the Government give their full support to implementation of the recommendations of the committee?
4.39 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for the committee's report. I found it most interesting, so much so that I had to read it through at least three times and document it in some detail. Owing to the fact that there is racing at Ascot and it is late on Friday afternoon, I do not propose to make a very long speech on the subject, much as I would love to.
Going through the report, I am struck by how much it endorses the findings of a previous Select Committee report on genetic modification in agriculture which also carries a section on comitology. Your Lordships will be aware that "comitology" is not a word that is acknowledged in the English language. I understand that Oxford University Press does not envisage in the foreseeable future incorporating it in any new dictionary. According to the European jargon, the phrase is reckoned to be "the science of committees"; and that indeed it is. The difficulty about these committees—it is brought out clearly in the report and incorporated in the recommendations—is, first, that no one knows how many there are. The evidence given by the Commission was approximately 250 but it did not know. The version produced by the diligent work of the sub-committee was 258. A further estimate was made—it is incorporated at the end of the report—which says that there are some 390 different comitology committees.
The characteristic of these committees is that they are appointed. How they are appointed we do not know. The committee itself did not know despite its examinations
630
of Ministers who appeared before it. The Commission is always in the chair, which one would expect when one deals with European legislation. No one knew the identities of the people concerned—at least except in a few instances, enlivened by occasional interspersions by the Sunday Times. No one knew how their finances were provided—under which budget head the expenditure incurred by these committees came. Some of the members were naturally expert civil servants and some were brought in from outside. Those who were brought in from outside were not identified in any way. And their interests, if any, were not disclosed. And it is not known to whom the committees are finally accountable. So the position about these committees is not exactly satisfactory. One can see scope for a certain amount of abuse.
One thing is quite certain. Unless he is exceptionally industrious and does nothing else but peruse those committees' reports, no Minister of the Crown sees the results of these effusions. Ministers may think that they have final responsibility for Community legislation which becomes enforceable in this country. They may think that: but they do not. Large numbers of regulations passed by these comitology committees go directly into enforcement without any intervention from any Minister and without scrutiny by the parliamentary scrutiny committees.
One needs no profound political convictions to know that that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and involves enormous difficulties. One solution suggested by the noble and learned Lord's committee is that there should be greater supervision by the European Parliament. It makes that almost a principal solution. I venture to differ. If any noble Lord wishes to read the proceedings of the European Parliament—they become available in the English translation in this country some eight or nine months later than the date to which they relate—I do not think he will be frightfully impressed, whatever his or her political persuasion or inclinations with regard to the European Union, by the nature of the contributions that are made on the Floor of that Chamber. It is sometimes difficult to discern what contributions the individual committees of the European Parliament make. I have in front of me a report which was published more than a year ago containing a constructive contribution from Mr Kenneth Bowman of the European PPE. He makes some excellent observations on the subject, but apart from that little else appears.
Sometimes we think that everything goes as smoothly as it ought to go in theory; for example, that there is proper scrutiny before anything becomes enforceable in legislation in this country. That is not true and it can easily be checked. Every week there is published a document entitled Progress of Scrutiny and it is available in the Vote Offices of this and the other place. It lists the various documents, including regulations and so forth, received from the EU. It indicates their disposition, stating which have gone to a committee or sub-committee of the EU Scrutiny Committee and which are not considered necessary for further attention. They are listed and there should be no difficulty in finding them.

631
Another document, a report, is issued only in the other place. It lists the outstanding queries on explanatory memorandums. From what some Ministers say, one would think that all the scrutiny committee had to do was to send a query to the government department originating the explanatory memorandum in order to receive a reply within a reasonable time. That is not so. Only a few weeks ago I received a report from the Commons' scrutiny committee, which reported that in 84 cases it was awaiting replies from Ministers, with queries going back to 1996 and 1995. Those are listed every week and can be seen. There must be a breakdown in the system somewhere.
Time does not permit me to go further. I have spoken to your Lordships too many times today, but I felt compelled to do so in the circumstances. The situation cannot be satisfactory. There must be a root and branch overhaul not only of the machinery at the Commission end but also at our end. We must ensure that what we assume happens does in fact happen, rather than being overlooked due to pressure of work or possibly lack of inclination.
Quite clearly, the situation cannot continue. The veil of confidentiality in regard to the activities of these committees must be lifted. Their origins and purposes must be revealed, as must their grade: advisory, regulatory or management. There are also sub-categories. We must know exactly why they exist and exactly what they do. We must know the result of their deliberations and, above all, the circumstances in which legislation is passed for enforcement without Council control or, I should guess, direct ministerial control.
These observations are not made out of sheer cussedness on my part. I have had to study these matters for many years. Something has to be done about them. In particular I would like to pay tribute to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead. I had the honour of working with him for four years in the European Parliament. I agree entirely with everything he said. When we were in the parliament together we rarely disagreed anyway.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I regret that I shall be unable to follow entirely down the road taken by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I shall confine my remarks to the report which is before the House this afternoon. I agree very much with what he said and his criticisms both of the Commission and of the national parliaments and their conduct. The House should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for introducing today's debate on delegating and implementing provisions to the European Commission. Thanks are also due to our legal adviser who always serves us so well. They are also due to his assistant legal adviser. Both have played a major role in the preparation of the documentation before your Lordships today.
As regards the inquiry into the draft version of the Council's decision adopted in July 1987, it may be helpful to make brief recall to the Commission's
632
position before that year. It was only after the direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979 that members recognised the existence of a plethora of committees chaired by Commission officials with civil servants from national governments. They were taking decisions on implementing legislation. Many of the committees had originated during the 1960s. Very little was known about them at all and certainly not by the European Parliament.
Debates raised in the European Parliament contributed to the adoption of the 1987 decision which recognised the right of information to the Parliament provided by the so-called comitology committees. Twelve years later—last year—a draft Council decision was considered to replace the 1987 version. It is designed to meet the objectives of the European Parliament and to legalise the three inter-institutional agreements which have been adopted in order to mitigate at least some of Parliament's objections.
Evidence before the committee showed that the European Parliament is still not satisfied with the draft decision and rightly so. Although Parliament does not seek further powers it demands full recognition of its supervisory role in relation to the comitology committees. The number of those committees has not been provided by the Commission and many noble Lords have commented on that fact. Her Majesty's Government have provided a list which is known to Whitehall departments. As I understand it—and it is mentioned in the report—there are about 250.
It is known that there are probably many more committees which are not set out in the list. There are probably at least 350. The Commission should be obliged to publish a complete list, whether the committees meet frequently or not. Some will meet regularly; for instance, the management committees dealing with agricultural matters will meet weekly concerning the prices of agricultural products and so forth. Other comitology committees probably have not met for a whole year. They may meet twice only over a long period. There is a vast difference between the committees, although for the time being they come under the heading of comitology which we are considering today.
The approach of the Commission has been to simplify the terms of the 1987 decision. At least it is said that it is simplifying them, and that is a laudable objective. But in so doing, it deletes reference to obligations imposed upon it. That could give rise to discussion—I use a mild word—between the institutions as to the role of the Commission. Therefore, it would be preferable to state clearly the tasks of the Commission, even though that may mean a slightly longer text. I maintain strongly that brevity does not necessarily mean clarity.
Reflecting a long-term objective of giving more general powers to the Commission, for some years the European Parliament has proposed the elimination of the regulatory committee, retaining only the management and advisory committees. The sub-committee does not accept that proposal, and rightly so. It is essential to retain the regulatory committee. Provided that the European Parliament is kept informed of its activities, the retention of that committee is to be supported.

633
Other issues raised concerning the drafting of the decision, including in particular Articles 2 and 7, give cause for concern. It is hoped that the sub-committee will be kept informed of progress before a final decision is adopted and that its views will be taken into account.
We have already looked at the issue twice and this is the third occasion. The report gives a view on the most recent proposal. However, in view of the drafting with which we have been presented by the Commission, there may well be a fourth report. I hope that once again we shall have the pleasure of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, chairing the committee in relation to that.
4.57 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on his chairmanship of the committee which produced that very important and comprehensive report. I thank him also for introducing today's debate on reforming comitology.
On these Benches, we warmly welcome the committee's report and many of the recommendations which it contains in response to the Commission's proposal on reforming comitology. The report sheds much light on what may be described as one of the more secretive and mysterious procedures employed by the European Community in its law-making. Certainly, it is relatively new to me. The report provides a useful first step in demystifying the subject of the work and functions of comitology committees as well as raising important questions about the reform of the comitology process which I hope the Minister will be able to answer today.
I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Borne, regarding the role of the current Law Lords. Of course it is necessary to have regard to the separation of powers, but who better to determine where the separation should lie than a Law Lord?
In his interesting comment on statutory instruments and the relevant committees, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, suggested that the general public are ignorant of how statutory instruments come into being. He is probably right about that. On the other hand, trade associations and consumer groups are well aware of how statutory instruments are devised. In fact, they have a major part to play. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to some of the difficulties in scrutinising secondary legislation. But there is the advantage that it is easy to challenge a Minister, especially in your Lordships' House, with regard to secondary legislation, and particularly if there is lack of consultation. For example, my trade association is involved closely with the DETR in the development of new secondary legislation.
As the report makes clear, there is little to be gained from the veil of secrecy surrounding the system of delegated decision-making. Moreover, if the low turnout in last week's European parliamentary elections has demonstrated one thing beyond the apparent dislike for
634
the closed list system, it is surely that there is a high level of public apathy and general lack of interest in what goes on in Europe. That cannot be desirable.
That is doubly a matter for concern when one takes into account the fact that some of the decisions made under that system of delegated decision-making have a direct effect on European Union citizens; for example, in terms of the safety of foodstuffs. That is particularly pertinent today in the light of the current food scares in Belgium and the continuing debate on the safety of GM foods. My noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon introduced a Bill today to address that very issue.
I turn to the conclusions reached in the report. The report makes clear that no one disputes the fact that the European Community must have a system of delegated decision-making powers without which the wheels of the Community law-making would rapidly grind to a halt. However, that system must have the correct checks and balances built in in order to ensure that democratic accountability, transparency and legitimacy are maintained. Nor is there any dispute over the need for reform of the current system of comitology. That is a question that the committee has sought to answer: what should be contained within a new decision on comitology so that it meets its objectives while respecting the institutional balance as set out in the treaties and contributing to better and more efficient law-making at Community level?
Does the Minister agree with the view of the committee that the Commission's proposal for the new comitology decision falls short of meeting the three main objectives essential to such a decision as identified by the committee; namely, to enhance the involvement of the European Parliament, to simplify the comitology procedures and to inject greater transparency?
I should like to comment briefly on the three objectives of the new decision. I refer first to the role of the European Parliament. The House will be aware that at present the European Parliament receives prior notice of and information concerning proposed measures, and has the opportunity to express its views, but it has no rights under the present comitology arrangements and cannot block implementing measures.
Controversy over the role that the European Parliament should play in the exercise of the Commission's implementing powers has provided much of the impetus for the current discussions over reform of the comitology process.
The committee's report concluded that the Commission's proposal concerning the role of the European Parliament fails to meet the Parliament's demands for equality, is short on detail and imposes few obligations on the commission or the council. Does the Minister share the view of the committee?
We on these Benches firmly believe that member states who are responsible for applying legislation must retain primary supervision over its implementation. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not support any proposals that would undermine the role of member states and national parliaments in the oversight of the implementation of such legislation?

635
Secondly, I refer to the simplification of procedures. Although the types of procedure to be used in comitology committees were limited following the Single European Act and the Council decision of 1987, the position as regards the numbers and types of committees remains somewhat complicated. It is clear that a system by which there are no objective criteria to determine which committee procedure should be used must be rejected as a priority. However, there is a danger that an overly prescriptive and inflexible approach to simplification may have the counter-productive effect of undermining implementation instead of improving it. It appears that in its proposal the Commission may have fallen into that particular trap.
Does the Minister agree with the committee's conclusion that the criteria suggested in the Commission's proposals are unclear and may be difficult to apply, in particular the proposal to remove the variants? Does the Minister agree with the committee in opposing the European Parliament's proposal to abolish the regulatory committee procedure and to simplify the comitology procedure? What steps have the Government taken to express that view? What action do the Government intend to take in line with the committee's recommendation to seek political agreement on a set of guidelines to assist in the choice of type of committee guidelines?
The third issue is that of transparency. One of the strongest criticisms of the system of comitology is its lack of transparency. Many noble Lords have referred to that; for example, it is remarkable that there is no list of the 250 or so comitology committees that is publicly available, nor an authoritative account of the functions and memberships of each. There is no doubt that such a lack of openness conflicts entirely with the principles of democratic accountability and legitimacy.
On the subject of transparency, the committee's report criticises the lack of systematic parliamentary scrutiny at either a national or Community level and the confusion over rights of access to comitology documents. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will take action to seek the implementation of the committee's recommendations to enhance transparency?
The committee also concluded that it should see all comitology documents which are likely to require Council decision or are of such political or practical significance that they might cause Ministers to be concerned if they were to learn of them first in the newspapers. Does the Minister agree that that is a sensible way forward?
In conclusion, the task of reforming comitology is far from the dry, abstract, esoteric and remote process that it would first appear to the layman. The decisions made as a result of implementing powers vested in comitology committees can, and do, have far-reaching implications which affect every citizen of the EU. It is critical therefore that this process is transparent, accessible and scrutinised appropriately by member states. The Minister's words will be listened to very carefully and I look forward to her response.
5.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and his committee for their work in producing the report, and the noble and learned Lord for introducing this debate today. The committee's work produced an excellent report and as the Government made clear in our written response, it is one with which we overwhelmingly agree.
I offer my thanks too to the other members of the noble and learned Lord's committee—my noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—for their hard work in drawing together the committee report. Perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on his sterling performance at the Dispatch Box over three debates this afternoon, and my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington whose expertise and commitment to all issues European draw the admiration of the whole House.
I shall respond to the detailed points in a moment, but I should first like to contextualise some of those points. As a number of noble Lords remarked, comitology is indeed a complex and technical subject. It is one of those obscure terms known only to a few people closely involved in the system. I believe that even Commissioner Kinnock, when in another place, once said that comitology sounded as though it should be a disease of the lower intestine. And when I was asked about comitology it was suggested to me that it was more closely allied with the Question we had earlier this week from the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on asteroids and the Spaceguard Programme.
As to what comitology actually is, I can think of no better definition than that given in paragraph 2 of the committee's report; that is,
"'Comitology' is established Community shorthand for the system of procedures involving committees, made up of representatives from Member States and chaired by the Commission, whereby the Member States can exercise some control over implementing powers delegated to the Commission by the Council".
For the most part that means issues which do not make the headlines, such as the detailed implementation and the day-to-day market management issues. Yet as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, comitology is very important. The committee made that very clear in its report. As in most national systems, secondary legislation in the European Union makes up the vast majority of legislative Acts passed, as the noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, reminded us.
The Council and the European Parliament cannot take all the decisions themselves; there would simply not be time for them to do so. It is quite right, therefore, that implementation of basic Acts is delegated to the Commission. I agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie in that regard. But it is also right that the Commission should be monitored in how it carries out that role. That is why committees of member states oversee what the Commission does.
The recent dioxin case shows how important it is to have such procedures in place. If there is a crisis in one member state, the freedom of the single market makes

637
it vital that the Community as a whole should be able to respond quickly. Comitology provides a mechanism for the Commission to summon experts from all the member states to assess the available evidence and approve, or otherwise, the Commission's proposals.
Once a decision has been made, it can be implemented right away. Hence the Commission's ban on the export of Belgian eggs, which was taken within one or two days of the issue being brought to public attention. I am sure that all noble Lords will think that that is the right sort of time-phase, if I may put it that way, in which such decisions should be taken. However, as a number of noble Lords have said, notably my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, the comitology system is not perfect; it is far too complex and it could be simplified. Moreover, the fact that virtually no one in the general public is aware of it simply demonstrates that it is far too opaque. Of course it is not the only aspect of the Community's work which could be made more open, as my noble friend Lord Brace of Donington said when he talked about the secretive nature—as I believe he put it—of much that went. on in Brussels, particularly in the Commission.
However, as I am sure this House is aware, the Government agree that the functioning of the Community's institutions can be improved. We would like to make their work more efficient, more effective and more open to the outside world. That can be seen in our reaction to the Commission' s resignation in March. The Prime Minister was quick then to call for reform of the Commission. The United Kingdom put forward specific proposals for improving not only the Commission's financial control but also its internal management system.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, that that approach is now bearing fruit. The nomination of Mr Prodi as Commission President was a step in the right direction in the Government's view. Mr Prodi has now clearly displayed his reform credentials with the ideas that he presented to the Cologne European Council. Like us, he would like to see far-reaching changes and we will support him in those efforts.
The forthcoming IGC on institutional reform which was agreed at the Cologne European Council will be another opportunity for change. That will help the Union prepare for the challenges of enlargement by looking at the size of the Commission College and the decision-making processes within the Council. We welcome the well-defined agenda which was agreed at Cologne. This should help to ensure that member states can take the necessary decisions to prepare for the enlargement. Revision of the comitology decision has been another opportunity to push for a more effective and more open decision-making structure. It is with this in mind that member states at Amsterdam asked the Commission to come forward with a new draft decision; it is also this which guided our approach to the negotiations.
Perhaps I may now turn to the detail of the committee's report. As I have already said, the Government believe that this is an excellent report and one with which we very much agree. As the noble and
638
learned Lord, Lord Hope, will be aware, negotiations in the Council have been proceeding rapidly since the committee issued its report. I can now inform the House that these negotiations appear to be approaching their conclusion. On Monday, the General Affairs Council will be asked to give its approval to a text that has already been discussed at working group and at Coreper level.
The members of the noble and learned Lord's committee will, I hope, be pleased to know that very many of their recommendations have been taken on board. Of course, I cannot guarantee that the text going to the GAC will not be changed before it is adopted. I should be grateful if the House could bear that in mind as regards what I am saying here today. However, I will do my best to highlight the relevant points as I go through the conclusions of the committee's report.
If noble Lords will permit me, I should like to start with the general objectives of the decision. I believe that the committee rightly identified three of these as follows: first, greater recognition has to he given to the position of the European Parliament; secondly, there should be further simplification of the procedures, but only in so far as this is practically and politically feasible. Thirdly, the whole comitology system needs to be made far more transparent. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked me to comment on all three points and I intend to do so.
First, I turn to the role of the European Parliament. In its opinion the committee notes that the European Parliament has asked for the right to "blow the whistle" on implementing measures with which it does not agree. In other words, it would like to be able to veto some measures. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, the committee concludes that this would be neither practicable nor necessary, and Her Majesty 's Government agree.
The Commission's proposal gave the European Parliament an effective veto over measures which were not approved by the regulatory committee. Instead of a proposal related to the proposed measures then being passed to the Council, as at present, the Commission would have had the option only of coming forward with a full legislative proposal. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked me what the Government thought of that. The Government believe that this could have seriously delayed comitology decisions being taken, and that would have been unacceptable. The regulatory procedure in particular has to deal with subjects which need to be resolved quickly, such as matters of public health, or indeed animal safety.
Instead of a veto over implementing measures, the committee recommended that the European Parliament be able to scrutinise implementing measures and have an opportunity to give its opinion. My noble friend Lord Borne concentrated particularly on this proposal in his address to us. The Government again agree, and so do other member states. It is important to recognise the increased legislative role which the European Parliament is now playing. Co-decision makes the EP co-legislator with the Council. Now that the Amsterdam Treaty has come into force, co-decision has been

639
extended to a significant number of new areas. This should of course be reflected as far as possible in the comitology system. After all, comitology is there to implement legislative acts.
But at the same time the Council has to keep within the limits of the treaty. Article 202—that is, the old Article 145—of the treaty establishing the European Community gives the European Parliament no formal role in the comitology system. As a result, the current draft of the decision tries to involve the European Parliament but not put it in the driving seat. It contains a new article which specifically gives the European Parliament the right to receive and scrutinise all draft measures implementing co-decided acts. The Commission will be able to take account of any opinion the European Parliament may give before it comes to a final decision.
However, the new article does not amount to a veto, nor can it legally do so under the treaty. In addition, the European Parliament will be able to comment on all draft measures implementing co-decided acts which are submitted to the Council under the regulatory procedure. Again this is something which the committee of the noble and learned Lord wanted to see.
The committee also addressed the question of information passed to the European Parliament. It recommended that decisions should go further on this than the Commission's proposal. This should be possible. Under the draft decision the European Parliament would now receive not only all measures implementing co-decided acts, but also summary records of meetings and lists of those present, or at least the organisations to which they belong.
The United Kingdom would have liked to have gone slightly further than this. Like the committee, we saw little reason why the European Parliament should not receive all draft implementing measures as long as those implementing non-co-decided acts were simply for information purposes. However, sadly, there was no consensus for this in the Council and in the end it was necessary to reach a compromise.
I turn now to the question of simplification. The committee first addressed the question of criteria to determine the choice of comitology committee. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne—who is not present now—asked me to address this issue in particular. As noble Lords will be aware, the Commission's proposal contains an article setting out the circumstances in which the legislative authority should select a particular type of comitology committee. This was designed to prevent disputes between the Council and the European Parliament when the type of committee was being chosen. The noble and learned Lord's committee felt that it would be difficult to define all the circumstances in which a particular committee type might be chosen. As a result, binding criteria of the type preferred by the Commission might give rise to more time-consuming debate between the Council and the European Parliament. The majority of member states within the Council agreed with this approach. There was a consensus that criteria could be helpful to guide an institution, but they would have to be non-binding.
640
The other key question in relation to simplification is the removal of the variants. There are currently seven possible procedural types in the comitology system. That is too many. It makes the secondary legislative process even harder to understand for those on the outside. The Commission's proposal therefore reduced the number to four. That is how it has remained, although the two safeguard procedures have now been combined into one variant. As the Committee's report pointed out, the one variant chosen by the Commission would have shifted the balance too far in the direction of protectionism.
Finally, the Committee addressed the question of transparency. Here noble Lords will, I hope, be pleased to know that we have good news and good stories to tell. I began my remarks by saying that the Government were consistently looking to increase transparency in the Community's institutions. That is exactly what we have sought to do during these negotiations. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, reminded us, there is currently not even a publicly available list of all the comitology committees and their activities. As noble Lords will know, the public perception of comitology is, therefore, probably rather less than nil. I think most members of the public do not know that such committees exist, nor indeed what comitology is. I hope that the list of committees published by the noble and learned Lord, if not absolutely guaranteed as a full list of committees or to be 100 per cent accurate, will be of considerable help. I thank the noble and learned Lord for ensuring that it has got into the public domain.
The new decision should now go some way to remedying this. As it currently stands, it makes a number of significant advances. First, within six months of the entry into force of the decision, the Commission will be required to publish in the official journal a list of all comitology committees, along with the basic instruments under which they have been established. Secondly, from 2000 onwards the Commission will have to publish an annual report on the workings of the comitology system. Thirdly, all documents sent to the European Parliament will be listed in a public register to be set up in 2001. Fourthly, there will be public access to all comitology documents on the same basis as Commission documents.
I hope that this is exactly the kind of success which the committee hoped for when it wrote its report. I trust that if the decision is finally adopted in this form, it will at least go some way towards improving the public's perception, such as it is, of the comitology system.
The noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, mentioned the issue of fraud. We can only welcome the decision of 25th May of ECOFIN and the European Parliament to set up the new independent European anti-fraud office within the Commission. That is something for which we have pushed for a very long time. I should say to the noble Lord that the Government believe the fact that the office will be able to work within the Commission, with access to papers and people, is very much a strength, not a weakness. The important issue is that it will be able to manage its own investigations independently. I stress that to the noble Lord because I rather gained the impression from the remarks that he made that he

641
has a great deal of doubt about its independence. We would be very unhappy if there was not independence. I assure the noble Lord that we will be keeping our eye on that matter. The office will be looking at all institutions, not only the Commission.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It might be of assurance if one knew who is to appoint the members of this new office and to whom they will report.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord and give him those details, and I shall put a copy in the Library.
I hope that noble Lords taking part in the debate will see that the Government agree with almost everything in the report. Moreover, negotiations in the Council are also heading very much in the same direction. I hope that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that I commend the committee's work. It has provided a much needed expert input into the negotiations and was very much appreciated not only by the Government but by many others as well.
We entered this negotiation with the intention of taking another step towards improving the functioning of the Community decision-taking process. The decision that is emerging represents a very successful outcome. It should make comitology both simpler to understand and more transparent and we all hope effective in the way that it works.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am particularly grateful to the two members of the sub-committee, the noble Lord, Lord Borne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for their support. I should also like to echo the words of kindness expressed about the work of the assistant legal adviser, who made a
642
substantial contribution. I thank, too, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the Minister for their kind words and for the obvious care that they have taken to study this complex and detailed report.
I thank the Minister for bringing us up to date with such encouraging words on the progress that has been made since the date of our report. We are greatly pleased that the report has achieved some success, and her words are much to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, spoke about some lack of strength in the recommendations about simplification, and the Minister hit the point in her reply. It has all to do with the problem of definition and with the risk that if it is imprecise it may give rise to litigation. When we tried to think of better words to express the various options, we found that the risks were too great and we thought that it was precisely the non-binding quality of the guidance that was crucial. We are, therefore, particularly encouraged by the way in which that problem has been resolved, as it fits exactly with our views.
The noble Lords, Lord Taverne, Lord Shaw of Northstead and Lord Bruce of Donington, have contributed greatly to the debate by drawing on their great experience and providing us with the context against which the report should be read. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said about ensuring that things that should happen do happen. The progress of scrutiny, which occupies much of our reading time, is designed to achieve precisely that. Our powers are not unlimited, but we follow that philosophy as far as we can, and I am glad to draw on his encouragement.
I renew my thanks to all those who have taken part in the debate and who have formed part of the sub-committee, and I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past five o'clock.

  China: Nuclear Capability Development
  China: Nuclear Capability Development
  Kosovar Refugees: Military Training Allegation
  Kosovar Refugees: Military Training Allegation
  Estonia
  Estonia
  European Court of Human Rights: Selection of Judges
  European Court of Human Rights: Selection of Judges
  Passport Agency
  Passport Agency
  Human Rights Bill 1998
  Human Rights Bill 1998
  Public Authority Decisions: Publication of Reasons
  Public Authority Decisions: Publication of Reasons
  New Criminal Offences
  New Criminal Offences
  Closed Prison Resettlement Units
  Closed Prison Resettlement Units
  Yorkshire Miner's Welfare Trust Fund Scheme
  Yorkshire Miner's Welfare Trust Fund Scheme
  Speed Camera Vehicle Front Photographs
  Speed Camera Vehicle Front Photographs
  Human Rights: Joint Committee
  Human Rights: Joint Committee
  Blood Donations from Butchers
  Blood Donations from Butchers