Sitting of 10 March 1999

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

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
12.30 pm

PRAYERS

  Dietary Supplements
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  9.33 am
  Mr. Mark Todd: I am glad to see such a healthy attendance so early in the morning.
  My motivation in choosing this subject for debate stems from two concerns. First, two companies in my constituency are manufacturers of herbal remedies, vitamins and minerals. One, a very small company, is worried about the potential impact of regulation of the sector that might affect its business. The other company is much larger, but its anxieties are real too.
  Secondly—like, I am sure, many other Members—I have been lobbied by consumers in my constituency about last year's proposed reduction in maximum permitted levels of dosage of vitamin B6. I think that we all remember the postbags that we received then. As vitamin B6 was classed as a food at the time, the Select Committee on Agriculture, of which I am a member, reviewed the Government's proposals. Our firm view was that the proposed regulation of the dosage was unjustified. Such evidence as there was that excessive consumption might pose a risk had been heavily criticised by scientists. No one taking vitamin B6 had complained of ill effects, despite the massive publicity given to the subject for several months—and, internationally, for longer.
  If, as was claimed, the issue was purely one of safety, there was no real evidence to support intervention. There are two possible grounds for intervention: safety and need. Is the product effective in meeting a person's requirements? Does anyone need it? Are unjustified claims being made about the need for it? Let us begin with safety, however. As the Committee's report observed, as a society we allow many items to remain readily available, their availability being restricted only by often ineffective measures to protect children from products that carry known risks, such as alcohol and tobacco. It has been clearly demonstrated—possibly even in the personal experience of some Members—that excessive consumption of alcohol can damage health; yet we still allow it to be freely available in shops, with no suggested dosage levels.
  A doctor with whom I conducted a debate on the radio this morning ventured to express the view that sales of alcohol and tobacco should be banned. I suggested that such a programme might enjoy limited support among the electorate. We must make judgments about what is practical and also about what should be left to individual citizens to decide for themselves, on the basis of reasonable information that is available to them.
  280
  We also allow the sale of salt without warnings, although excessive consumption of it can do significant damage, and we do not try to restrict the size of packets available in supermarkets.
  We need to consider the concept of risk. We all take risks, in almost everything that we do. We take risks when we eat and when we consume drugs prescribed by doctors. We take risks when we cross the road. Which of those risks is it our responsibility to judge, and in which cases should the Government try to help? One of the problems has been the failure to establish the philosophy on the basis of which we should make decisions. Should the Government decide what people ought to consume when they are feeling ill, or should individual citizens make judgments based on their own perception of their health needs?
  We should measure relative risks. We should be clear about the kind and level of risk that we expect citizens to weigh up for themselves, the cases in which clear warnings are justified, and the cases in which society should expect Government intervention in the form of either restriction or a total ban. Because we have engaged in no proper analysis or debate, we act in an ad hoc and reactive fashion featuring glaring inconsistencies of approach.
  The Government's response to the Select Committee report is directly relevant to today's debate. Let me quote some key passages. The Government
  "accepts the Select Committee's view that action on vitamin B6 should not be taken in isolation but in the context of the wider review of the safety of dietary supplements which is to be undertaken by the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals. The government recognises that the Expert Group will be considering the establishment of principles on which controls for ensuring the safety of vitamin and mineral supplements can be based."
  Mr. John Hayes: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about the expert group, although many in the health food industry are concerned about it. Will he, however, dissociate himself from the words of the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who said that these were "drugs masquerading as foods"? Surely that compromises the work of the expert group before it has even begun.
  Mr. Todd: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health will have a chance to reveal the Government's position for herself. I will not be drawn into defending or otherwise a statement that I have not seen in context.
  The response continued:
  "The government agrees that there is a delicate balance to be drawn in this and other areas between regulation to protect the public and the desire to determine such issues on the basis of personal choice.
  It is for this reason that the government accepted the Select Committee's recommendation that action on vitamin B6 should be deferred pending the report of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals."
  Essentially, the Government said that we have to understand the philosophy of how we should intervene in the sector before we take an isolated decision on one particular product. They accepted the argument that I have set out.
  There is scepticism among many consumers and those in the vitamins and minerals industry. Our discussion on B6 showed an unhappy relationship between that sector

  281
  and the "official" health sector. There is considerable suspicion that drug companies wish to undermine the position of those providing alternative products.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Do not large drug companies have a motivation to use increased regulation and licensing requirements as an enemy of economy of scale that they can exploit to exclude smaller firms that feature largely in the market?
  Mr. Todd: The hon. Gentleman may have a point. On a slightly different subject, but related to it, consumers in my constituency have complained to me about changes in the price regime for the purchase of simple analgesics following changes in dosage levels. There is a suspicion that some companies in the sector find ways in which to raise prices, based on Government intervention that has just happened.
  In recognition of that scepticism, the Government made an extremely welcome and positive step, which was to allow direct representation by consumers and representatives of the industry on the expert group. After it considered the Government's response, the Select Committee applauded both those steps: the recognition of the need for a clear philosophy and for proper representation in the decision making that would lead to a regulatory framework.
  One might therefore assume that any new proposals for intervention will be founded on that report, when it finally emerges, and there is probably still another year or so to go before it concludes its evidence. One would be wrong. The Medicines Control Agency is proposing to take additional powers in the sector after a brusque consultation that even another Government Department, the Department of Trade and Industry, has commented on:
  "We share your concerns that the consultation period was very short.… There are a number of pieces of legislation affecting these proposals in the 'borderline area' and we are concerned that the proposals from the MCA do not make any reference to these or require the MCA to consult with ourselves and other government departments with a responsibility for these areas."
  That is scarcely a ringing endorsement of the consultation.
  The MCA has proposed that it should have sole powers to decide whether any health product should be classified as a licensable medicine, requiring it to be tested for efficacy. Those tests carry massive costs for small companies. I think in particular of Surepharm, a small company in my constituency, which was built up from scratch by an individual entrepreneur, employs 30 or 40 people and specialises in the sector. It could not carry the regulatory cost that would be involved in securing clearance for particular products through the MCA.
  That company had never imagined that it was manufacturing something that might be described as a medicine, yet someone could make that claim to the MCA and it could make that judgment. One recognises that most minerals, vitamins and herbal products could be described as either a food or medicine, and lie within that borderline classification. If the sole basis for classification is whether a product has a physiological impact, most foods and drinks would fall within the MCA's compass.
  Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject. On the key
  282
  subject of classification, my constituent, Mr. Ralph Pike of the National Association of Health Stores, has referred to the problem of the definition "medicinal by function" which appears in the consultation. Does he share my concern about its being a strange and subjective definition in deciding such important issues?
  Mr. Todd: Indeed; I share exactly that concern. I have also been contacted by health food proprietors near my constituency; as my constituency is not blessed with one of those shops, people have to go to Derby to buy the products. They are concerned about precisely those points, so I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
  An individual would only have to complain and say, "Yes, I believe it is a medicine," for the MCA to be involved in the process. There is no review of any MCA judgment in which the industry or other consumers might be involved.
  As the MCA is likely to be reactive to individual contacts, its involvement will be incoherent. A comment will be made about an individual product, the MCA will make a judgment on whether it is a medicine, and then apply the necessary regulatory framework to it if that be so. Essentially similar products may be treated differently. That is why the Government wisely referred the issue of B6 to the expert group to provide a coherent framework within which decisions might be made.
  That takes us to the second possible reason for intervention. On the B6 study, did taking B6 actually help anyone? The evidence on that was inconclusive. I am not a scientist or a consumer of the products, so I have no way of making a personal judgment on the matter. One could go only by the number of people who claimed positive effects. There are many reasons why someone might claim a positive effect for consuming a particular product. We are all reasonably well aware of the fact that consumption of particular items may make people feel good, but may not have any medical or physiological impact at all, although they feel better for having taken it.
  Mr. Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman plays a distinguished part in the Select Committee on Agriculture. I thank him for his contribution. Does he recall that two members of the Select Committee claimed benefit from such products?
  Mr. Todd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his compliments. Indeed, one member of the Select Committee did a trial run on B6, taking it in measures that were in excess of those suggested by the Government. She then consulted her family and they all said that she seemed much the better for it. I personally think that she is very nice just as she is now, but that was just one individual's subjective judgment.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am horrified by that exchange. The medical profession would say that a double-blind, crossover trial must take place on any substance before we draw any conclusions. I would hate anyone to go away with the impression that one person feeling a bit better according to her family after taking something should be the basis for a judgment.
  Mr. Todd: I take the hon. Lady's comment. In a way, it exposes exactly the point that I am making, which is

  283
  that many individual judgments are made on the matter. The scientific evidence is inconclusive. Select Committee members will bear me out: the information that we were able to obtain showed no clear judgment in favour of consumption of vitamin B6 for particular purposes.
  Mr. Luff: Or against.
  Mr. Todd: Or against. Therefore, people could simply make their own judgment. That is what hundreds of thousands of people did.
  We heard no complaints. We were assured by the industry that it was careful not to attribute powers to the product that were not demonstrable. However, one cannot stop other people—in magazine articles, for example— suggesting the use of a product to deal with a particular problem. That often happens in the sector. People read a piece in a magazine that says that consuming a few more vitamins of a particular sort will do them a lot of good, and they go into a health shop and buy them. Perhaps the product does make them feel better—although we do not know whether they feel better because of the product. However, quite often, endorsement and marketing of products are effected by such informal means.
  One cannot stop informal advertising. Moreover, we already have laws against misleading advertising. The MCA has also recently sought powers to control advertising claims for licensed medical products. There is an argument that such controls exist already. However, I am prepared to accept the view that there may be abuses that are best dealt with by the MCA. There is already such a proposal in an earlier MCA regulation that has not yet received parliamentary approval. However, that is not my specific concern today. The MCA would be applying the rules on advertising within the licensed sector, on products that have been licensed as a medicine—not the products that we are discussing today, unless the MCA chose to classify them as medicines through the process that I described earlier.
  There is a third strand of regulatory activity, at European Union level. Since 1991, the European Commission has sought harmonisation of regulations for the sector. So far, the United Kingdom Government have rightly said that any regulation should be based on safety rather than need. Therefore, using the distinction that I drew earlier, the UK Government maintain that it should be a matter of whether a product is harmful, not whether it is demonstrably good for people. Although that is the correct view to take, it is not exactly the view that is taken in all other European countries—which is why the issue has been batted around for quite some time already.
  The issue of efficacy should not be the determining factor in deciding EU regulation. However, the MCA's proposed involvement in the matter may make efficacy precisely the determining factor. Surely one should argue that there is inconsistency in the Government's approach to the matter. I believe that, provided manufacturers or marketers of the products make no medical claims for them, consumers should be left to make their own judgments.
  The issue of dietary supplements evokes strong passion. Since becoming involved in it, I have discovered that people write extremely passionate letters on the benefits of the products that they have been consuming, and that, when they get on the telephone, they tell one about the products at considerable length.
  284
  One person told me: "Do not prevent us from taking responsibility for our own health." There is a broader philosophical issue—which we could debate at much greater length—on the balance between reliance on the medical profession to tell us about our health and reliance on individuals to make their own judgments on how they themselves should manage their own health. The person who told me that individuals should assume responsibility for their own health made an important and profound point. Individuals should own the issue of their own health—on which they, too, should make some judgments.
  Furthermore, I do not think that it benefits the United Kingdom medical profession to regard itself as the sole arbiter of how health should be provided to individual citizens. Going down that route will lead only to overload and a complete lack of individual responsibility for what one consumes and how one lives one's life—all of which are much more critical factors in determining good health than whether one regularly visits the doctor.
  Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, recently, the Government have shown some inconsistency on those issues? We are not allowed, for example, to make judgments for ourselves on beef on the bone. We have absolutely no chance of making a judgment on genetically modified foods, as substances that have been genetically modified are already in the food chain. Does he agree that the Government have to get their act together and decide just where they will stand on the issues?
  Mr. Todd: The hon. Lady is dragging a very large red herring right across a debate that could engage us for quite some time. However, I should briefly deal with the two points, which deserve a quick response.
  On the beef on the bone ban, I should say—for the benefit of Conservative Members who do not know me so well—that I am not by instinct a regulator, but have always taken the view that individual citizens should make judgments for themselves. Therefore, I took some persuading that the Government's action on beef on the bone was the correct course to take. However, the main persuader in the issue was the overriding objective of lifting the beef ban. A critical factor in attaining that objective was the Government's stance on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and on the possibility of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease among human beings.
  The need to deal with the critical factor of credibility led me to believe that the beef on the bone ban was necessary, to ensure that our European partners—with whom we were, and still are, negotiating to lift the ban— were persuaded of the seriousness of our intent. That was the justification for the ban.
  On genetically modified foods, I take the view that the Government are very seriously engaged in ensuring that consumers have, by means of proper labelling, proper information on what they are purchasing. We are operating on that issue within an EU framework, in which we must try to persuade others of the validity of our point of view. Fortunately, we have greater sympathy within the EU on that matter than we would if we were negotiating with the Americans, who take a much more cavalier approach to the subject.
  Certainly within the EU, we have been forcefully defending the position of providing greater information, both in labelling products themselves and in stating on

  285
  labels the fact that GM-derived ingredients may be involved—or the fact that enzymes have been used that are not left in the food ultimately, but that nevertheless have a GM link. Currently, all those elements are subject to Government action.
  I therefore believe that the Government are responding properly to the concerns mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.(Dr. Tonge).
  I believe that consumers should be left to make their own judgments on dietary supplements. It simply should not be the Government's business to prevent someone from taking a product that is not known to be unsafe if they feel that it does them good. Let us establish a clear framework of how to regulate those products. If further regulation is needed, we should consult the public on their perceptions, and then act. Without such action, I believe that we shall risk taking incoherent action that is damaging to businesses and totally inexplicable to many consumers.
  9.57 am
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this important debate and am grateful for the opportunity of stating the Opposition's view on the issue. I am grateful also to you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to speak early in the debate. I apologise to the House and to the Minister for the fact that I shall have to leave before the debate ends, so that I may attend a Standing Committee. It is only one of the drawbacks of being somewhat short-handed on the Opposition Benches.
  The British approach to dietary supplements, both by the current Government and the previous Government, has always been safety focused, concerned with the safety of consumers rather than with their dietary need. We strongly support that position. Although the direction in which the Medicines Control Agency is travelling has caused the industry some concern, the line taken in principle by the Government seems to be—as the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) quoted—that dietary supplements are "drugs masquerading as foods".
  The British approach now has to be placed within the European context. Within the European Union, there is clearly a significant interventionist tendency focusing on dietary need—which often is expressed in terms of multiples of recommended daily allowances—rather than on safety. The European Union is therefore moving towards developing medicines standards in which not only safety and quality, but efficacy, have to be proved.
  Safety must be the paramount consideration. Any substance, however it is classified, should be subject to removal from open sale if it is harmful. However, any such judgment must be based on sound science. We must have no repeat of the B6 fiasco. Therefore, the regulatory framework governing dietary supplements has to be the servant, not the master, and ensure that only safe products are on sale and that only justifiable claims for those products are made. It must not have the effect, however unwitting, of removing from sale products that are perfectly safe, that make no unjustifiable claims and that are widely used.
  286
  The great fear, which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire has expressed, is that extending medicines legislation to cover products that common sense tells us have little similarity with complex pharmaceutical compounds—the Medicines Control Agency has already publicly acknowledged that it is taking that action by embarking on action against products that are "medicinal in function", even if there is no concern about their safety—with all the associated costs of satisfying medicines standards, and introducing an efficacy hurdle, will effectively remove the products from sale by administrative action. Such a move would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
  We must ask ourselves whether there is any evidence of serious safety risks from these products. Is any damage being done to consumers? Is the NHS suffering a burden of additional cost in treating ill effects caused by the products? Quite the opposite, I suggest, even if in some cases, as I think the hon. Member for South Derbyshire suggested, the benefits of taking them may be as much psychological as physiological.
  I should like to suggest two possible ways of dealing with the problem. First, I question whether it is sensible to define everything as either a food or a medicine. Might it not be sensible to create a third category for supplements, with no requirement to prove the efficacy of the product—in other words, no requirement to prove need—but with a streamlined procedure for dealing with any science-based safety concerns? Secondly, if there is to be greater regulation of supplements, might we as a minimum consider introducing some grandfather rights so that products not hitherto subject to an efficacy test but on sale in substantial amounts throughout the country can continue to be sold unless they are demonstrated to be unsafe?
  Dr. Peter Brand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many prescribed drugs are on the pharmaceutical register only through grandfather rights? Digitalis and aspirin never went through the rigorous tests that are now mandatory, and they probably would not have passed them.
  Mr. Hammond: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is with that analogy in mind that I suggest that if the regulations are tightened it will be appropriate to protect the existing industry and consumers, where there is no suggestion of a safety hazard, by introducing a system of grandfather rights that would allow products to remain on sale.
  The burden of proof in relation to an established product must lie with the accuser, in line with the long tradition of British justice. In any regulatory regime, the Medicines Control Agency cannot act as policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury in its own case. The consultation document MLX 249 takes a worrying step in that direction. That, as the Minister will be aware, seems to be part of a trend. Amendments to the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994, which have also been laid and are due to be considered by a Committee of the House, appear to be headed in the same direction. They would extend the powers of the MCA and give it the right to act as judge and jury in its own case.
  Other European Union countries operating under the same directive have managed to allow sales of supplements and herbal products either as foods or

  287
  medicines, with a simplified regime. Any licensing regime in the United Kingdom must be appropriate to the products involved. The objective must be the safety of the consumer, not a constraint on his, or perhaps in this case I should say her—it often is a woman—buying only what she needs as opposed to what she wants. If we adopted that test, we would ban half the goods on sale in the high street today.
  The regulatory burden must be proportional to the risk, and so far I have seen little evidence of any risk. Action can be justified only to protect the public, not to conform to what, for most of us, is an alien concept of state intervention to allow us to do only that which is good for us, as opposed to preventing us from doing that which is positively harmful.
  We need as light a touch to the regulatory regime as is consistent with the safety of consumers. I think that the Government recognise that principle. As always, within the limits of the paramountcy of public safety, we should support an established industry which has many valuable small firms within it that make an important contribution to the economy. Above all, any regulatory change must ensure continued access to existing products from a diverse range of suppliers in a competitive marketplace, unless there is clear and compelling scientific evidence that demonstrates that they are unsafe.
  The expert group on the safety of vitamins and minerals established after the B6 fiasco has only just begun its deliberations. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said, it has probably another year or 18 months of work ahead of it. I urge the Government to allow the group to consider the wider issues, and to withdraw the proposed regulatory changes outlined in MLX 249 until that group has finished its work and reported its conclusions so that the Government may come to an informed decision.
  In among all the talk of medicines, supplements and dosages, it is clear to me that what is most urgently needed in the debate on dietary supplements is a dose of common sense. I hope that the Minister will deliver that when she replies to the debate. I am only sorry that I shall not be able to hear that reply in person, but I shall read it with great interest in Hansard.
  10.6 am
  Dr. Brian Iddon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on his timely Adjournment debate. I have nothing to declare other than an interest in the topic that has been created by workers in a factory in my constituency who make health products and by hundreds of constituents who wrote to me during the B6 saga. I do not use health products myself, although I must confess to having been brought up during world war two on a lot of spoonfuls of cod liver oil and rosehip syrup. I made a lot of pocket money by collecting rosehips from hedgerows in the fields where I used to play as a young lad.
  It is worth reminding the House that the B6 saga was a long struggle and I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on referring the subject to the group that has already been mentioned by other hon. Members. I had intended to go over the history of B6, but in view of the time, I shall go to the crux of the debate.
  I pointed out during the Adjournment debate on vitamin B6 that, whereas medicines and foodstuffs are closely regulated, the group of products that we are discussing
  288
  this morning fall into a regulatory no man's land and attempts to use medicines law or foodstuffs law to regulate them will cause and have already caused problems.
  MLX 249, which is partly causing the present controversy, is a proposed amendment to the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) Regulations 1994. It was issued recently by the Department of Health. A consultation letter was sent out on 6 November last year by the Medicines Control Agency and responses were requested by 31 December 1998. Note the very short time for consultation over one of the busiest holiday periods of the year. I shall come back to that in a moment. The proposal was to put the regulation in place by statutory instrument by 1 April. The MCA claims that it wants to make the decision-making process more transparent and put the classification process for medicinal products on a statutory basis.
  MLX 249 relies for its existence on European directive 65/65, which was incorporated in UK law in 1995. That led to MAL 8, which is the MCA's interpretation—I underline that word—of the directive. Other countries have interpreted the same directive differently. Although the directive excludes foodstuffs, it has produced a broad definition of a medicine, which supersedes that given in the Medicines Act 1968, causing panic throughout the health food industry. The definition is:
  "Any substance or combination of substances which may be administered to human beings or animals with a view to making a medical diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying"—
  I underline the next word—
  "physiological functions in human beings or animals is likewise considered to be a medicinal product"
  according to directive 65/65. Note the use of the word "physiological" instead of "pharmacological". The definition could classify water as a medicine, along with many other substances.
  In a court action last year, the MCA used directive 65/65 and MAL 8 to remove melatonin from the shelves of health product stores and supermarkets. The industry is very worried that many other products will follow suit.
  In a letter to me dated 2 February this year about MLX 249, my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health, said:
  "The proposed legislation has no bearing on herbal remedies exempt from licensing".
  She goes on to say that
  "all the current exemptions from licensing for medicinal products will continue to apply."
  However, at a meeting in Committee Room 18 on 19 February this year, John Neale, manager of the borderline unit at the MCA, took an apparently contradictory view when he said:
  "The proposals will improve the MCA's prospects of success in court"
  and
  "make it extremely difficult for a manufacturer to prove a product is not a medicine".
  He also said:
  "We already have all the powers we need to do our job".
  The health products industry regards such remarks as a threat to their business.

  289
  In response to a parliamentary question on 18 January this year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health admitted that at that time her Department had
  "received 69 letters from hon. and right hon. Members and 278 representations from other interested bodies and individuals. Three representations broadly support the proposals. The remainder are critical of the proposals to some degree."—[Official Report, 18 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 380.]
  In the time available for the debate, I am not able to refer in equal detail to the MCA's other proposed new regulations, MLX 239, on advertising, and SI 267, which was laid subject to negative resolution.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I have a registered interest with a pharmaceutical company in my constituency. I am concerned about the lack of a satisfactory appeal mechanism to an independent body under SI 267. Companies could be in the invidious position of committing a criminal offence, on the judgment of the MCA, without being able to appeal to a higher court. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to address that.
  Dr. Iddon: I fully endorse that point, which I was going to make in my next few sentences.
  If all the proposed regulations are accepted, the health food industry will be far more complicated to run. Many small firms will not be able to afford the costs involved. The MCA is a quango. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) has just said, there is no right of appeal against its decisions. That is an important point that needs to be emphasised.
  The 1997 Labour party manifesto made a commitment
  "to monitor the scale and quality of regulatory activity".
  As a result, the deregulation unit in the Cabinet Office, established by the previous Administration, became the better regulations task force. One of its first jobs was to produce a very important document, which many hon. Members may not have seen, called "The Better Regulations Guide and Regulatory Impact Assessment", which was published in July last year.
  On consultation, the document says on page 9:
  "Above all, allow enough time"
  It goes on:
  "Lack of time is one of the most frequent complaints about Government consultation. Eight weeks should generally be the minimum period."
  On page 34, it says:
  "Always consider the option of 'do nothing' or 'do minimum' as it may not be possible for Government to improve matters, or the costs of doing so may outweigh the benefits".
  I have written to Lord Haskins, chairman of the better regulation task force, suggesting that some Departments are not taking much notice of the good advice given in the Government's booklet.
  Vitamins, minerals, dietary supplements and herbal products are clearly not foodstuffs or medicines, but as I have tried to show, two Departments—MAFF and the Department of Health—have tried to regulate them. We are in a regulatory mess. Indeed, that is why the debate is being held.
  290
  What should the Government do? Clearly, there is a need to do something. The two Departments that I have mentioned have rejected the "do nothing" and "do minimum" options. The Government could try to make the existing regulatory frameworks work, as they appear to be doing, but they are clearly having great difficulty. I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that a third way is needed. I suggested that at the recent annual Health Food Manufacturers Association conference in London. The Government should consider establishing a separate regulatory framework to cover the substances in question. The principles of safety, quality and efficacy, based on bibliographic evidence and traditional usage, should be the key drivers for the regulations, as they always have been.
  There is nothing new about this idea. Canada and Australia have tried it already. Following a letter from the Canadian Health Minister, dated 13 November 1997, the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Health Products published a document entitled "Natural Health Products; A New Vision" in November last year. It contains 53 recommendations. Health Canada was recommended to set out an appropriate definition of natural health products in conjunction with a new separate natural health product expert advisory committee. The relevant food and drugs legislation would then be amended accordingly. There were also recommendations to create a new regulatory authority for such products, to build appeal mechanisms into the processes, to seek advice from those involved in the production of natural health products and, importantly, to promote research on their efficacy and safety.
  We have reached the critical stage in Britain at which we need to review the existing regulatory procedures and seek a third way. We could refer the matter to the better regulation task force or, like the Canadians and Australians, we could set up a commission to look at the quagmire that we appear to be getting into. I look forward to the response of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health.
  10.19 am
  Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on allowing us all to appear so liberal this morning—even if only with a small "1". Citizens of this country can expect the Government to protect them in two ways: from being poisoned and from being ripped off. We are talking about substances which, in high concentrations, may well be poisonous, and substances for which claims are made that would make the average snake oil salesman blush. It may be that those claims are not made by the manufacturers, but they somehow find their way into advertising.
  I am concerned that large sums of money are being spent by vulnerable people who are hoping to improve their lives. We must strike a balance, and I like the third way that seems to be breaking out all over the place—it is obviously catching.
  The important issue is who decides what should be referred to the MCA. It is wrong that the agency has the power to trawl around to see what else might be within its remit. It is important that the shady line between what is a drug and what is food be addressed. I was disappointed that the draft Food Standards Agency

  291
  legislation does not address the issue of who determines what should be treated as a pharmaceutically active and dangerous drug, and what is a food. Physiological functionality includes everything that we breathe, do and take in.
  I made myself extremely unpopular in my party by supporting the Government's line on B6—and then they caved in. B6 was an extremely good example; in itself, B6 can be a beneficial substance, but taken in high doses, it can be harmful. I thought that the compromise of allowing it to be freely on sale at a reasonable, rather than high, dose was a good safety measure—rather like selling aspirins only in packages of 30.
  Dr. Iddon: At three times the cost.
  Dr. Brand: That is not a debate for this morning.
  The same issue can arise in terms of herbal remedies. As a GP, I am much more relaxed with people using herbal remedies. It is cheaper to use the natural product, and it is extremely difficult to take a pharmaceutically active substance in high enough doses to do oneself much harm. I am worried about the relentless drive to try to identify the active ingredient in whatever herbal tea we might be drinking, so that it can be concentrated and flogged off at a high price.
  I am surprised that we have not had more support from hon. Members concerned about the debate on herbal cannabis and cannabinoids, as there is a similarity. It is dangerous to say that we need to identify every active ingredient in everything. That means we deny people a substance which may have some benefits—even if it is only as a placebo.
  I urge the Government to set up a mechanism where we can identify what needs to be considered by the MCA. The FSA should have a responsibility in this area, and we need to work much more closely with the Advertising Standards Authority, which has a major responsibility in sorting out what is and is not a reasonable claim.
  It is perfectly proper for any food or substance to be able to claim that it may be good for your health in general. "A Mars a day" helps whatever it is you want to do—that is a perfectly reasonable claim. It can be believed or not, and most people are not fooled. However, I would be extremely worried if it were claimed that a Mars could cure colitis, or stop cancer. There is a problem about claims being made for substances, as vulnerable people may be taken in. They may not help themselves by spending money that they do not have, and by taking substances in high doses—or to the exclusion of a more balanced diet—which may be harmful.
  I urge the Minister to rethink. There is an opportunity to set up an agency with an overarching responsibility for food safety and nutrition. If we include the third category of substances, and align them more closely to food than to drugs—the link with drugs has already been established in terms of the FSA—we may find a way forward, provided we are prepared to be patient and to let the status quo carry on for the time being.
  10.25 am
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on obtaining this debate. He mentioned the B6 saga last year,
  292
  and history seems to be repeating itself. The MCA's proposals on borderline substances have all the hallmarks of the proposals for B6. The Minister's hair should be standing on end, because those proposals caused enormous problems for the Government. If this proposal goes through, it will be devastating for consumers, manufacturers, and practitioners of herbal remedies and vitamins.
  If Uncle Joe Stalin had been going through his red box in the Kremlin and this proposal had come up, he would have said, "I like it very much. It is good. It is disempowering the people. It is giving one of my Government agencies the opportunity to be judge, jury and de facto executioner." Does that really fit in with the Government's philosophy? It is bad luck for the Government that they have chosen 1 April to implement the measure—April fool's day. It is hardly a good omen.
  The pressure on the Minister resulted in the extension of the consultation period, which was widely welcomed. However, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, that consultation period included Christmas; it was woefully short and quite inadequate.
  When the MCA circulated proposals for the revision of the so-called 1994 regulations on medicines for human use last November, a flood of correspondence came into the offices of Members of Parliament—not least mine, as I am the treasurer of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine, a position that I have been proud to hold for three Parliaments. I have been doing the job for 10 years, and I regard it as valuable.
  Dr. Brand: The hon. Gentleman is looking very fit on it.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I thank the hon. Gentleman; perhaps it is because I take a few supplements. Many complementary and alternative practitioners in this country are scared out of their wits by the proposal. An experienced traditional Chinese medical practitioner—a qualified UK physiotherapist and acupuncturist—said to me, emotionally, last week that the proposal, if it goes through, will make her a criminal. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) may look askance, but the facts do bear that out.
  The document would give the MCA new legal powers to allow it to decide, unilaterally and virtually without reference to anyone other than its own officials, whether a so-called borderline substance—one of the vitamins or supplements—was a medicine or not. The decision would be binding in any criminal or civil proceedings, unless shown to have been made unreasonably. Do the Government really believe that that is fair?
  On 19 January, the parliamentary group of which I am treasurer met John Kneale, the manager of the policy and borderline unit at the MCA. I pay tribute to him for coming along—he did not have to. We were grateful to him for speaking to representatives from the industry and colleagues. He said:
  "I do not believe that the MCA would be able to review products that have been on the market for a long time."
  He tried to reassure us that the MCA was not taking powers that it did not already have, but he went on to say:
  "The manufacturer would have to seek to show through the court that the MCA's decision was unreasonable. It improves the MCA's possibility of success in court."

  293
  The burden of proof is transferred from the accuser to the accused, which gives the MCA too much power and will result in the criminalisation of a practitioner through an MCA decision made without the necessary element of natural justice required to safeguard basic constitutional rights. Power is transferred to a prosecuting authority to adjudicate without accountability. Such a power exists nowhere in any other democratic society and if granted will unquestionably be open to abuse.
  The current UK legal system operates to protect the innocent as well as to convict the guilty, placing the burden of proof on the state. That one simple aspect of British justice helps to prevent a large number of miscarriages of justice. If the proposal goes through, there will be widespread injustice, because arbitrary decisions will be taken, they will be disputed by those affected and there will be little recourse.
  How does that sit with new Labour's so-called philosophy of open and accountable government? I suspect that the Government were hoping to slip the proposals through. They certainly were not checked by their spin doctors. Someone slipped up, however. If the proposals go through, it will be highly damaging for the Government's image and credibility in both the short and the long run. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) may castigate me for trying to tip off the Government about these problems and may say that we should let them ride it out.
  Why is all this happening? The whole exercise is being carried out not to protect or benefit consumers, health manufacturers and practitioners, but to make life easier for officials in the UK and to appease the bureaucrats in Brussels. At the meeting of the all-party group on alternative and complementary medicine, the borderline unit manager said:
  "We are bound by European legislation."
  However, we have exemptions, as in many other matters. We are fighting to maintain those exemptions, while the European Community as a whole is revising its position.
  There is every indication that there will soon be new legislation on herbal products from the European Commission, as it tries to homogenise the law in Europe. The great concern is that the UK Government will try to pre-empt what is happening in Europe and introduce a draconian measure at a time when the whole process is being thought through at a more leisurely pace on the continent.
  Herbal remedies are traditional medicines whose therapeutic use has been tried and tested over hundreds, or even thousands, of years. Such plant medicines invariably comprise many chemical components whose overall effect cannot simply be assumed by reference to perceived active constituents. Apparently unimportant fractions of a plant may act in vivo to buffer or amplify its principal pharmaceutical characteristics.
  The essential features of herbal medicine have important implications for their assessment and licensing, but current European Union medicines licensing procedures are generally designed to evaluate and validate single chemical entities—not several chemical entities— as medicinal products.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I am rather concerned by the assertion that a medicine must be safe simply
  294
  because it has been around for hundreds or thousands of years. All medicines require the rigour of full medical examination.
  Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman may have the opportunity to make his own speech later on. Most medicines used by traditional Chinese medical practitioners have been used for a very long time.
  Plant medicines cannot be patented, so the enormous sums required to bring a new product to the market cannot be recouped. The cost of licensing compound herbal medicines would be so high as to be unrealistic for all but the largest companies. The smaller companies referred to by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire and others would be put out of business.
  It seems entirely wrong—this is borne out by all the letters that we have received—to classify pharmaceutical drugs in the same category as herbal medicines derived from natural sources, including many foods, such as cardamom, cinnamon, garlic, ginger, Chinese dates, peach kernels, orange skins, borage, celery, parsley, rhubarb and all spices.
  At a presentation to the all-party group by the Association of European Self-Medication Industry, known as AESGP, we were told that the European Commission was considering issues concerning the internal market and herbal medicine. The association stressed that there is a wide divergence of opinion in the European Union but that strenuous efforts are being made to develop a sensible pan-European policy.
  The Minister would be well advised to wait and see. Products not classified as medicinal products belong in most cases to the food and cosmetics category, even though they sometimes contain plants with pharmacological properties. In Ireland, Spain and the UK there exist preparations defined as medicinal products that are exempt, under specific conditions, from licensing requirements. We have to protect that position in the short term.
  It will be the role of the European Commission to evaluate and assess the consequences of possible divergence in the legal position and/or the assessment of herbal medicinal products, and to agree a plan on how best to safeguard public health while allowing the free movement of herbal medicinal products throughout the European Union.
  At a time when every country in the European Union has its own specific problems, it is not appropriate for the Government to take the arbitrary action that they propose. The issue is under debate and we do not need these draconian measures.
  I offer the Minister the hand of friendship in finding a way out of this maze. There are three possible solutions. She could back off and leave everything as it is, which would satisfy most people, because nobody really wants the change. The second honourable way out would be to wait and see what happens in Europe; so much is going on that it seems foolish to pre-empt it. What is the third option? Several hon. Members have mentioned the third way. Having been a great fan of Mrs. Thatcher, I have not always been keen on the third way, but in this instance it is probably the right way forward.
  The all-party group has consulted widely among our large membership to ascertain whether that idea should be pursued. In the United States, the Dietary Supplement

  295
  Health and Education Act 1994 defines dietary supplements as a special category between foods and medicines. They are defined as products that are
  "safe within a broad range of intake",
  and for which
  "safety problems within the supplements are relatively rare."
  Such supplements include all the medicines that we have been discussing.
  The way forward is not to allow the proposals through at this time. The Minister must back off or, perhaps better still, wait for Europe or consider the third way.
  The Government should not rush into any legislation that would harm the future of herbal medicines, food supplements and vitamins. The B6 fiasco last year, followed by the present proposals, have raised great fears in the industry. That fiasco should have served as a warning to the Government that all European countries treat such products differently. This is not the time to classify celery and beetroot as drugs, or to break well-established principles of English law. The Government should agree to consider a third, new category between foods and pharmaceutical drugs, thereby getting themselves off the hook and making consumers and producers happy.
  10.40 am
  Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on the way in which he introduced the debate. He has certainly given the House an opportunity to explore all the various issues. He was right to represent the producers of the products in question in his constituency. If I had such producers in my constituency, I would have done the same. Sadly, I do not, but I have many constituents who use the products and a number of health food shops that supply them.
  I pay tribute to Consumers for Health Choice, which has done a splendid job in educating Members of Parliament such as me on the various issues. Until the row about vitamin B6 last year, I knew precious little about the issues. I may regret what I am about to say, but I am not a natural pill taker. I would try anything to cure hay fever and have done so over the years. I was told that I would grow out of it, but I am taking a long time to do so.
  I have been overwhelmed with letters and petitions on the matter from my constituents. Given that, in terms of the number of senior citizens who live there, Southend, West is 33rd out of the 659 constituencies, I can only conclude that those people are doing extremely well on those products so far.
  Before the Minister responds, I simply want to draw attention to three pieces of information that I have received from constituents. One lady wrote that she used these products
  "daily to try and stay healthy so as not to burden the state … I understand the Government is now trying to sweep vitamin products off health food shop shelves, by trying to licence them as medicines."
  That lady wants the Government to tell her
  "why these proposals are being rushed through with such urgency (1st April 1999)".
  She points out:
  "The only people that would benefit at the end of the day would be the pharmaceutical companies",
  296
  who, according to her, apparently already make "vast profits."
  Another lady mentions the fact that 1 April is April fool's day and says:
  "it is no joke for the many independently minded people who wish to take responsibility for their own health and avoid as long as possible being without any free choice of health therapy."
  She asks me to
  "protest against this underhand plan to tack on the power to restrict … liberty by avoiding free debate on this vital issue."
  She continues:
  "We want nutrition to be our first line of health defence and we want freedom of choice in medicine."
  Finally, one supplier of such products in my constituency believes that the Medicines Control Agency wants
  "to include far more than is necessary under their control umbrella and once they have gained the changes in the law will become judge, jury and executioner in the removal of anything they see fit from our shelves without consultation."
  The letter continues that, as regards health food shops,
  "there is in place effective control on products under the Medicines Act that has worked well for years. Freedom of choice is again in jeopardy".
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I do not want to cause trouble between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, it was unfortunate that the Minister responsible for food suggested, when he gave evidence, that these products were somehow masquerading as food or were foods masquerading as drugs.
  If the hon. Member for South Derbyshire achieves anything today, I hope that it will be to persuade the Minister for Public Health to adjudicate on the difference between the two Departments and to put the fears of all our constituents at rest.
  10.45 am
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I shall begin not exactly by registering an interest, but by pointing out that my brother is a senior executive in Glaxo Wellcome. For that reason, I do not take part in departmental discussions or decisions about pharmaceutical licensing. I am responsible for complementary medicine, but I want the House to be aware of that fact in the context of my responding to this debate on a matter that would normally be handled by my noble Friend Baroness Hayman.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on taking this opportunity to raise a matter that is of great cross-party concern. I hope that, in the time available, I can generate a little more light than heat and put the record straight on a number of important issues for those hon. Members here today and for the many people who are enormously concerned about the issue.
  First, let us deal with the facts of the current controversy. I am concerned that much of the criticism of the proposals has been an unwarranted cause of worry and worse for manufacturers, retailers and consumers alike. I say that as someone who has ministerial responsibility for complementary medicines and who recognises the

  297
  enormous public interest in this new and developing area of medicine, which is of potential benefit. We should be clearer and more systematic about the evidence for the benefits that many people anecdotally report. I approach this debate by making clear my sympathy for complementary medicine in general and my understanding of many people's enthusiasm for and reliance on methods of complementary medicine.
  As has been clear throughout the debate, the problem is the lack of a legal definition of the term "dietary supplement". Many of the products described as such inhabit an increasingly grey area between foods and medicines. As the law stands, those products for which claims are made for the treatment or prevention of disease, or which are administered to restore, correct or modify physiological functions, fall within the definition of a medicine and are subject to the requirements of the Medicines Act 1968 and the appropriate European directive. Such products normally require a marketing authorisation—that is, a licence—before they can be sold or supplied.
  Products that are licensed as medicines are excluded from the definition of food in the Food Safety Act 1990. Products that are not licensed are automatically regarded as foods and are subject to the general provisions of the 1990 Act, which effectively requires that they should not cause harm, and to the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, which control the labelling and advertising of food. Among other things, the regulations prohibit claims in labelling or advertising that a food has the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, and lay down conditions for the use of nutritional claims and certain descriptions that may mislead.
  As regards policy, the Government have stated on a number of occasions that we believe that the quantity of vitamins and minerals in supplements sold under food law should be limited only in cases in which it is necessary to protect the public. Any limits should be based on safety considerations, judgments about which are made on the basis of expert scientific advice.
  I would not pretend for one moment that such advice might never give rise to controversy, but the boundary between categories of product can be difficult to determine. Garlic, evening primrose oil and vitamins in general may be dietary supplements or medicinal products. The determining factor is whether they are sold with claims to treat or prevent disease. If they are, and if the manufacturer wishes to continue to make those claims, he must apply to the MCA for a licence for the product.
  It may be helpful to remind the House of the responsibilities of the MCA. The agency has a duty, on behalf of the licensing authority, to implement and enforce the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968 and other medicines legislation. It does so to protect public health, and specifically to make sure that the medicines that sick people use are safe, of high quality and effective. The MCA has a very important role in protecting consumers.
  Part of the MCA's duties involve deciding whether a product is or is not a medicine. The criteria against which it makes those decisions is a matter of European Union law.
  Dr. Brand: Does the Minister think it appropriate for the MCA to be both the prosecution and the jury in
  298
  these matters? Should not the MCA take up only matters referred to it rather than deciding for itself what its remit should cover?
  Ms Jowell: I do not accept that point. The routes by which matters of concern are raised with the MCA are many and varied. Many of the grounds on which inquiries are raised about products that are in a grey area are identified by public concern or by general practitioners, such as the hon. Gentleman himself, on behalf of their patients.
  Unless EU law changes, there will be no change in the status of products sold as food or as herbal remedies exempt from licensing. Those products will continue on open sale without the need for licensing. It is claimed that if the consultation proposals became law, the MCA would sweep supplements and herbal remedies from the shelves unless they were licensed. Those claims are completely unfounded.
  What would the proposals do? They would make the process by which medicines are classified more transparent, consistent and credible among the wider public. That is important because the present purely administrative arrangements for classifying medicines are sometimes criticised by manufacturers on the ground that they have not had a full and fair hearing. It is the Government's view that decision-making processes should be as open as possible. We believe that introducing a new statutory process, on top of the agency's present administrative arrangements, will make for greater clarity and transparency.
  The Government also believe that if manufacturers are given greater access to the classification process, they will be able to have faith in decisions under it, and it is important that they should have that faith. We believe that introducing a statutory right for manufacturers to participate in the process and put their arguments and cases to a review panel would effectively address the criticisms sometimes made about the alleged secrecy of the present classification arrangements.
  At the same time, the proposals would improve the effectiveness of the MCA's compliance and enforcement processes by reducing the scope for delay and evasion. In that way, we would demonstrate the UK's commitment to full implementation and enforcement of medicines legislation. We believe that introducing a new offence of non-compliance with a final decision will bring greater precision to compliance and enforcement activity. The proposed presumption in favour of the MCA in any subsequent proceedings should also strengthen the effectiveness of enforcement activity.
  Let me say something about what the proposals do not do. They do not give the MCA a new and unaccountable power to decide whether or not a product is a medicine. The MCA already has that power, as the Court of Appeal confirmed last year. The MCA exercises its powers in accordance with EU and UK law, legal precedent and its published guidance. The MCA also has the power, on behalf of Ministers, to seek to enforce its decisions in the courts.
  I want to deal with some specific criticisms levelled at the proposals. It is suggested that the consultation exercise is too short and secret. In fact, the initial eight-week timetable was within the MCA's normal six to eight-week limit. We have extended the consultation period for an

  299
  additional month, and implementation of the proposals is not tied to a target date of 1 April. We have already said that we are prepared to listen further, and so we should.
  A second criticism is that the statutory review procedure would not be independent of the MCA. We propose that the members of the review body should be officers of the MCA. As the Court of Appeal has recognised, the MCA is a specialist body with accumulated experience in relation to medicinal products, which has had to develop a consistent policy for similar products. Under EU law, it is the licensing authority's duty as the competent authority to make final decisions on classification.
  The third criticism is that the proposal to introduce a new offence of non-compliance with a final MCA decision is unnecessary. In any subsequent legal proceedings, the MCA's decision would be deemed correct, unless the manufacturer could show that it was unreasonable. The proposals are said effectively to prevent a manufacturer having any chance of a successful defence in court, but that is not the case. The European Court of Justice has recently agreed that the courts should not have to reassess the merits, as distinct from the legality and reasonableness, of the MCA's final decisions. Accordingly, we do not accept that it should be necessary for the courts to reassess the merits of MCA decisions.
  If the MCA were to take proceedings because a manufacturer would not comply with a final decision, our proposed change would shift the burden of proof to the manufacturer, who would have to prove that the decision was unreasonable. We believe that that is justified. The decision would have been arrived at only after thorough and open assessment and review. Manufacturers will have repeated opportunities to make their case.
  Perhaps the most alarming claim has been that dietary supplements will have to be licensed from 1 April as prescription-only medicines. That is emphatically untrue. The proposals will not affect the status of dietary supplements, and the idea that they would be available only on a doctor's prescription is equally unfounded.
  We will consider carefully the criticism that the shift in the burden of proof in proceedings is oppressive and lacking in natural justice. We recognise that manufacturers would find it extremely difficult to prove a final decision by the MCA to be unreasonable. We are sensitive to the need to show that justice is done. Consequently, we will look particularly carefully at this part of the proposals, to ensure that they go no further than our obligations as the licensing authority require.
  In conclusion, we want the people of the United Kingdom to have confidence—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the debate in the name of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen).

  Government Housing Projections
  11 am
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is of great importance, especially to my hon. Friends, although there do not appear to be many Labour Members present. I can see the odd Liberal.
  Mr. John Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steen: I have not yet started and there is no way that I will give way to the hon. Gentleman now. If he sits still for half an hour, I shall give way to him.
  Last December, I was fortunate enough to obtain a half-hour Adjournment debate on the housing projections and the 4.4 million new units that will have to be built by 2011. The Minister explained that the whole thrust of the previous Government's policy of predict and provide was to be replaced by a new and radical planning model, based on the principle of plan and manage—the new buzz words. I have been fortunate enough to obtain an hour and a half debate some three months later and the same Minister is here to reply on behalf of the Government.
  I do not know why the Government wheel in their Jeremiahs on such occasions. On 9 December, instead of making an optimistic and constructive contribution, the Minister said that it was all too late, and that new Labour's new solutions would not come into play until the 4.4 million homes in the 1991 housing projections had been built. That is probably why he has been wheeled in by the Government. His sole role is to say, "Too bad. All those houses will have to be built. We will build them in the towns and in the villages. We will build them all over the countryside, wherever we can squeeze them in." That is probably why the Minister is before us today, and he will probably say the same thing again. I hope not.
  The Government have been assisted by the Liberal Democrats on Devon county council who have just approved the Devon county structure plan, which gives the go-ahead for the building of 70,000 new housing units for the county between 1995 and 2011. If that plan is carried out, 90,000 new housing units in total will have to be built in one of the most beautiful counties in Britain. That will increase the population from 1 million to nearly 1.25 million, or by some 20 per cent. On 15 December, the Herald Express, the local newspaper in Torbay, claimed that the number of people living in Torbay is set to rise to 133,600 by 2021, an increase of more than 10,000. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is in his place, as one would expect, because the paper also pointed out that the population of Teignbridge is expected to expand from 116,700 in 1996 to 135,000 in 2021, an increase of 15.6 per cent. South Hams, a large chunk of which is in my constituency, faces a 17.2 per cent. increase, rising from 79,300 to 93,000. It is not surprising that the population of Devon will increase to 1.25 million. We are talking not about redistribution of the existing population but about a net increase.
  Formal approval of the county structure plan and the Secretary of State's confirmation of the figures means that it will be difficult to change them. However, it is not too late to decide where the houses will go and at what speed

  301
  they will be built. That is why the Government's plan and manage policy is critical. If it were applied, it would ensure that priority was given to building on brown-field sites. As things stand, there is little planning policy guidance and no attempt to ensure that developers are directed to build first in urban areas.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The logic of my hon. Friend's point is that, if the Government are content to say that the previous basis for planning was wrong and that plan and manage is the way forward, they cannot refuse to impose their policy change on the present figures. The Government can take one position or the other, but the current situation is untenable.
  Mr. Steen: I hope that the Minister heard that point, because he was engaged in a conversation. If he does not answer that point when he winds up, I hope that my hon. Friend will remind him of it.
  As matters stand, the 4.4 million homes will be built under the housing projection. The structure plans have been completed in Devon, and the district councils now have to formulate local plans for the placement of those houses, paying regard to environmental sustainability— again, the new buzz words. I am glad that a few Liberal Democrats are present, because those are their buzz words, albeit they mean as little in reality as new Labour's buzz words, plan and manage.
  The Government have a 60 per cent. brown-field recycling target. We accept that figure, although we would increase it slightly. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said that if we were in office, the figure would be nearer 65 per cent.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the term "brown-field" can mean different things to different people? As the Minister is well aware, the Labour council in the borough of Trafford is seeking to build houses on playing fields, which count as brown-field sites for the Government's purposes.
  Mr. Steen: That is news to me, and I hope that it is news to the Minister. I hope that he will ensure that the council does not build houses on playing fields, but I fear that he will squeeze them wherever he can fit them in, including on playing fields. I hope that he will deny that and issue a PPG note on the issue. I am prepared to give way to him now if he would like to deal with that point.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Following the convention of our Wednesday morning debates, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman focuses intelligently on the issues, instead of bandying abuse across the Chamber, which does not ensure a sensible debate on serious issues about how genuine housing need is met in a way that is sustainable and does not damage the countryside.
  Mr. Steen: I would not have given way if I had known what the Minister was going to say. It was very unhelpful. I wanted him to deal with playing fields, but he clearly does not wish to do so yet.
  302
  The Government's 60 per cent. brown-field target is an admission of the fact that building in the countryside cannot continue at the rate that it has in the past. The aim is to recycle vacant, derelict, dormant, unused and brown-field land in our cities. That is nothing new, however: it was the aim from the 1970s onwards. In the 1980s, the Conservative Government set up a register of dormant, derelict, vacant, unused and under-utilised public land. I was much involved with that register and with what should be done with the 200,000 acres of unused vacant land that was then in public ownership.
  In my excellent book "Plums", which I know many of my colleagues have read, I suggested that public vacant land should be auctioned off, with a covenant to ensure that it would be developed within five years. I proposed private regional development corporations, listed on the stock market and with the task of developing vacant land and public ownership profitably. The Minister for Housing and Planning at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), was on the point of acting to implement my proposals when, unfortunately, he was promoted. The privatisation of rail, water, gas and electricity all followed, and that switched much of the vacant land from public to private hands. Public vacant land became private vacant land and, as a result, the number of acres of public vacant land has dropped dramatically. However, the utilities still own much private vacant land that could be developed.
  The brown-field recycling target is nothing new, only a variation on an established Conservative theme. The Western Morning News reported on 20 February 1999 that 58,000 of the new housing units planned for the west country could easily be built on brown-field sites in the west country. As a result, the figure for green-field building could be reduced and the figure for Devon could be reduced pro rata.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the first few minutes of his speech.
  The point from the Western Morning News about the availability of brown-field sites was taken from a report that has only recently been published by the south-west regional planning conference—the body that made the recommendation about the county structure plan numbers to Devon county council in the first place. Does my hon. Friend agree that, valuable as the report is, it would have been much more helpful if we had had such a report two and a half years ago when we began work on the country structure plan, rather than receiving it at the tail-end of the process, after the Prime Minister had issued a diktat to East Devon district council that it must now get on and plan those houses?
  Mr. Steen: As always, my hon. Friend makes a telling and important point. One cannot deal with housing allocation if one does not have the information necessary to put houses in sensible, wise and productive places. I hope that the Minister will take that point seriously because it is a grave and important one that will add to this debate.
  I have mentioned the problem of brown-field sites. Another problem stems from the failure to provide an arrangement by which local authorities can trade housing allocations. Districts cannot swap with districts, nor can

  303
  counties with counties or regions with regions. North Devon might want to trade with the Torbay area—after all, both their councils are Liberal Democrat run—with the result that the houses planned for a highly congested and overbuilt area could be moved to one where there is more space.
  The Minister is bound to say that that is not his fault, because those figures originated from the Office for National Statistics in the late 1980s and the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), handed them down to the regions. At this stage, I shall not argue with the Minister about the figures—we have already gone around that course—although, as I have said, I think that they are suspect and are based on the predict-and-provide philosophy. They are treated as though they are divine guidance. My criticism is of the way in which the figures are handed down vertically: Government, regions, county, district, parish. There is no lateral integration and no way in which local authorities can deal with each other and trade in housing figures.
  The ONS figures are merely a repetition of past trends. Past performance is not a guide for future demographic trends. The current structure plan is formulated on the basis of what has happened in the past. Can that make sense for the future? Surely, such calculations must be unreliable. For example, in the 1980s we believed that the economy would continue to grow and that that trend would never stop. Banks lent more and more money so that people could buy land and houses, and prices went up. However, it all went terribly wrong and many people burned their fingers; millions ended up with negative equity and debts.
  The housing forecasts are based on exactly the same flawed assumption: that whatever happened in the past is bound to repeat itself in the future. Predict and provide— the basis for those housing forecasts—has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I pointed that out to the Minister last December. The buzz phrase is no longer predict and provide, but plan and manage. At the moment, it is merely a buzz phrase; the predict and provide approach continues to hold sway in planning credence. What is the point of changing the whole basis for housing number predictions, if there will be no effect until the date of the next structure plan? The Minister protests that the Government are doing something, but what is it please?
  The figure of 4.4 million new homes for the United Kingdom—and 438,000 new homes for the south-west and 90,000 in Devon—should not be considered as a target that must be reached, but that is how planners and local politicians continue to regard it. The truth is that those figures are not targets, but merely projections—an informed guess or an estimate of what might be needed. The use of those housing figures as targets is the reason why councils and developers struggle to build houses, so that the targets are fulfilled at any cost.
  It is just like the building of the M25; that, too, became a self-fulfilling prophecy. We thought that building a huge road around London would put a stop to gridlock and end traffic problems, but more and more cars used the road and the traffic jams are legendary. It is the same with house building; the more houses are built in an area, the more people come from outside to live in them and the more the demand increases.
  304
  Does the Minister agree that the figure of 4.4 million is not a target, but a projection; and that such projections forecast the maximum number of housing units that can be built if all the conditions are right? Why was there nothing in yesterday's Budget to give incentives for developers to build in towns and disincentives to them to build in rural areas? Furthermore, if that was a recognised aim of the Government, planning appeal inspectors could refuse permission to build on green-field sites by arguing at the appeal stage that there were plenty of brown-field sites left for development in neighbouring towns and cities. That would discourage developers from using the appeal process as a form of blackmail against councils that are afraid of spending council tax payers' money to defend such appeals.
  Under the present system, councils and Government alike are obliged to allow developers to build wherever they want within the local plan area. In addition, councils feel pressurised by a time scale that forces them to allow building by a certain date; they are obliged by law to find sufficient land to designate for house building to fulfil the housing targets that have been handed down to them. The local plan highlights where those houses are to be built, but contains nothing to prioritise the use of brown-field sites in urban areas. That is because different local authorities deal with urban and rural areas and they are not able to liaise over the housing figures.
  Councils should strengthen the incentives for brown-field site building by telling developers, "Until you find the building of sufficient infrastructure to serve this new development and to provide good quality of life for the residents, there is no way that we shall give you planning permission". If that were the case, South Hams—an area whose natural environmental beauty has been recognised by no less an authority than the House of Commons Library and which has been described as one of the most beautiful places in England and Wales—could say no to developers. Furthermore, the local council would be assured that its decision would be upheld by planning inspectors on appeal. That would force developers to look at towns for building purposes—the Plymouths, Torbays, Exeters and Bristols.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He says that houses should be built not in South Hams, but in Torbay, of which he represents a quarter; and no doubt he does not want those 3,000 to 6,000 extra houses to be built in Brixham, Galmpton or Broadsands. The hon. Gentleman is being honest, so he is saying that those houses should be built in areas such as Occombe valley, Cockington or Preston Down road. The hon. Gentleman nods his head; I am grateful to him for that confirmation.
  Mr. Steen: If I was nodding, it was because I was getting bored with the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  The "not in my backyard" principle is a good planning principle because it expresses self-interest and there is nothing like self-interest to ensure that the right decision

  305
  is reached. Clearly, the right decision is that it is better for those new homes to be in the hon. Gentleman's constituency than in mine.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steen: I shall give way when I have dealt with the points made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders).
  There are many badly designed homes and buildings in Torbay, as the hon. Gentleman will agree. Torbay has grown like Topsy. If there was better planning and better design, the space could be used more productively.
  Mr. Tyler: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has abandoned his main thesis, which concerned the inadequacy of the predict-and-provide approach. We all now realise that the previous Government's failure to move away from that principle is why we are in the current position. Will the hon. Gentleman turn westward and consider the circumstances of his hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who is determined to have an even larger development on green-field sites than is currently proposed? What does the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) say to his neighbour?
  Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly acceptable point. I must not be drawn too far from the thesis of predict and provide, as he was clearly following it with interest. I hope that the Minister will withdraw his unnecessarily unkind remarks about my not getting involved in a serious discussion. I see the Minister smiling. I am sure that he was overcome momentarily and is now back to his normal, happy self.
  It is not for me to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) is well known for his oratory, clarity and good sense. I am sure that, when the time comes, he will be able to respond to that point.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: The time has come. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real glory of Devon is to be found not just in Dartmoor, in the rolling hills of South Hams—which he and I are privileged to represent—or in our coastline, but in our beautiful, picturesque villages? We do not want a new town or to see existing villages overwhelmed by new building. We must protect and preserve our existing villages in south Devon at all costs.
  Mr. Steen: That is the right answer. The only snag is that, in the 1960s and 1970s, the planners and the county council in Devon said, "We want to protect villages and hamlets, but we realise that we can do that only by ruining one area completely by building a new town". I used to represent that new town of Ivybridge, which is now in my hon. Friend's constituency. It was a tiny hamlet of 1,500 inhabitants but now has 12,000 or 13,000 inhabitants. If that was the only place ruined, one could accept it. However, the planners not only ruined Ivybridge but have continued to build in all the villages and hamlets that they
  306
  said they would not touch because they were building a new town in Ivybridge. Will the Minister address that important issue? If a new town is built outside Plymouth—large or small—will the hon. Gentleman put an embargo or guillotine on any further attempts by planners and local politicians to build in the villages or hamlets? That is the real problem.
  I do not want to be drawn too far away from the point that I was pursuing. We must find a way of forcing developers to consider building in towns. I mentioned Plymouth, Torbay, Exeter and Bristol before the hon. Member for Torbay jumped up. Unlike their American counterparts, our cities are grey, often unfriendly and not fun places because they empty at the end of the working day when everyone rushes home to the suburbs. British cities are like doughnuts: they have empty centres where the jam used to be. Jam is made by combining a mix of ingredients: by including all ages, lifestyles, earning levels, types of marital status and so on. Our cities need to be vigorous, vital and exciting places in which to live and work.
  That will not happen if developers continue to build on green-field rather than brown-field sites. By doing so, they make the urban sprawl worse—compounding the problem by attracting the more upwardly mobile members of society out to the suburbs, leaving behind the poor, the elderly and the ethnic minorities. Many of our cities are drab and dreary because of permissive planning policies that encourage building on green-field sites, which constantly robs the cities of the kind of people who could invigorate them—the upwardly mobile. We must ask what building by numbers is doing to our countryside as well as what it costs the taxpayer to build the extra infrastructure required by green-field developments.
  The Devon county structure plan demands that two new settlements be built on green-field sites. One of them would be built near Plymouth and the settlement of 2,500 housing units would constitute 35 per cent. of the current demand from Plymouth. However, will that local demand be met given that, despite the fact that its supposed aim is to meet existing demand, the new town will be advertised all over the country? If taking up the Plymouth overspill is the real aim, why not build on existing vacant land and fill existing housing in that city? Why not put under-utilised sites to better use? There are many of them: shops with a vacant upper storey, vacant land in both public and private ownership, and disused dockland sites. Plymouth is a good example of an unplanned city that has grown up by accident rather than design.
  Why are we not regenerating our cities? In the 1960s and 1970s, the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, launched several urban development initiatives, including the urban programme, the community development project, the education priorities and the young volunteer force, of which I was a director. Those initiatives switched the rates from rural to urban areas in order to finance the needs of rundown inner cities. The Labour Administration in the 1970s switched the rates from rural areas to urban areas in an attempt to regenerate them, and I welcomed that move.
  In the early 1980s, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), then Secretary of State for the Environment in the Conservative Government, launched a crusade to regenerate our cities. Fortunately, I was the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree at the time, so I

  307
  benefited from that policy. Yet our inner cities continue to empty outwards simply because people can move into a never-ending supply of housing built on green-field sites.
  Green-field development prompts the need for schools, shops, sewerage, telecommunications, transport, medical and hospital services and leisure facilities. Who pays for that? It is not the developer. The developer simply connects the houses to the local sewerage system and possibly installs a few telephone and electricity lines. There is a myth doing the rounds that green-field development is much cheaper than redeveloping rundown areas in the towns. It is not cheaper: it is a question of who pays.
  Green-field development is not cheap for the taxpayer, who must pay for all the services that new communities require. The only person for whom such development is cheap is the developer, who buys the land, builds the buildings and connects them to the main services. That is why green-field building land is so expensive to buy. I am told that Plymouth brown-field sites sell at about £50,000 per acre, while green-field land outside Plymouth sells for £800,000 an acre. The fact that it is so disproportionately expensive should alert us to the fact that something is wrong. Developers must be, and are, making good profits—so much so that the high cost of green-field land is worth paying.
  It is left to the public authorities to pay for the long-term infrastructure and employment provisions of new communities. The council tax payer and the central taxpayer pay. Who pays for the buses that will have to serve the new areas? Is it the developer? No, it is the taxpayer. Who will pay for a new sewerage plant that might have to be built? Is it the developer? No, it is the water rate payer. Who will pay to resurface the roads and build new ones to cope with the extra traffic? Is it the developer? No way. It is the taxpayer, through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  When the new green-field developments are advertised in the national newspapers and people—many of them retired—flock to the west country, who will pay for the extra hospital services needed to cope with the influx of elderly people or for the schooling of young families? Is it the developer? Of course not, it will be the taxpayer. Moving people from the cities to the suburbs costs taxpayers money. Who pays to decommission schools and other services in the town and set up new ones in the suburbs? It is not the developer, but the taxpayer.
  Why should the taxpayer be drawn in behind the developer who makes the profit on green-field land development, leaving behind problems of declining cities and infrastructure costs for others to deal with? If developers want to build on green-field sites, they should provide the necessary infrastructure. However, there is another problem: developers can pay only if the development is big and profitable. They can pick up the cost of green-field development only if that development is large enough to generate sufficient money. That is why planners advocate building new towns: two dozen starter homes will not make enough money to enable a developer to build a road or a school.
  The infrastructure is already in place in our cities. So why build on green fields, destroy the countryside and create endless unnecessary problems when pleasant homes can be built in the towns at less cost to the
  308
  taxpayer? It is only bureaucracy that is preventing such development: the bureaucracy of handing down housing figures from Whitehall based on the predict-and-provide policy, the refusal to allow local authorities to trade with each other and the Government's failure to implement their brown-field sites policy.
  There is no point arguing about the housing figures: rightly or wrongly, they are being treated as targets by the Government and by the Liberal Democrat-run Devon county council, which has rushed to approve them in the face of Conservative opposition. My argument is about where those houses will be built. I object to the inflexibility of the planning system. Once the figures are handed down from Whitehall, like the ten commandments from Mount Sinai, they are set in stone—mostly in our green fields.
  I welcome house building—we need it and local people need it—but it needs to be in the right places. I welcome the building of houses for young people in urban areas so that they can bring back vibrancy to the centre. I welcome the regeneration of ugly urban areas into pleasant residential spaces convenient for young and old alike and close to existing shops, schools and hospitals. I should like to stop the brain drain in which young people continue to leave in droves counties such as Devon and other parts of rural England and retired people flock there in their place, occupying many of the green-field housing developments. I should like enlightened developers, guided perhaps by Government funding, to reclaim poisoned or brown-field land and build land-efficient houses on it.
  Mr. Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman think it wise to intervene?
  Mr. Burnett: I think it is very wise. Will the hon. Gentleman treat us to his rather idiosyncratic views on fiscal or taxation proposals on development property?
  Mr. Steen: I hoped that the Chancellor would treat us to those yesterday, but he did not. If we are to shift the emphasis of building to regenerate our urban areas, clearly there must be tax incentives for the developers, and there are none at present. I was severely disappointed yesterday because I was looking forward to the Chancellor, in his giveaway Budget, giving away what we want.
  Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his last debate on this matter was attended by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—a most distinguished former Chancellor of the Exchequer—who distanced himself from the hon. Gentleman's proposals? Does he further recall the chaos that followed the introduction of development land tax and development gains tax?
  Mr. Steen: I am glad to say that I do not. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) would have been present today—he wanted to contribute to the debate and support what I am saying— but unfortunately previous engagements prevented him from attending. The hon. Gentleman could have asked him that question if he had been here.

  309
  I shall recap because other hon. Members want to speak. The figures are not targets that have to be met by projections; they are not the holy grail. The Government are repeating exactly the same pious imperatives that the Conservatives did in the 1980s. They are pulling out and dusting down the vacant land registers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and if they are not doing so, they jolly well ought to. They were right to state that many houses could be built on brown-field land, but the whole initiative has been precluded from the current structure plans. We do not want jam tomorrow; we need it today.
  Talking about jam brings me back to my earlier image of our cities as doughnuts that have no jam in the centre because the planning process has encouraged green-field site development. Cities will be neglected as long as we continue to encourage developers to make large profits on green-field sites because they do not have to pay for the infrastructure costs.
  The Government claim to be passionate about the environment. The Liberal Democrats claim to be positively frenzied about sustainable development. Those are meaningless claims because there is no yardstick against which new developments are judged. Some areas of this country—south Devon is one—have reached the maximum size that is possible without there being an adverse effect on the quality of life of the people who already live there. Surely that must be the meaning of sustainable development.
  If people's lives are affected by a flood of new housing and new people, the quality of their life changes—and that cannot be sustainability. That is why I have great problems in understanding why the Liberal Democrats on Devon county council talk about sustainable development when they continue ploughing up the land for houses. Perhaps one of the Liberal Democrats present, who have been eager to intervene, could tell me what sustainable development means to them, because it is not working.
  Developers cannot be expected to provide infrastructure if the size of the development does not generate sufficient profit for them to do so. The planning gain has to be substantial if new sewers, hospitals and roads are to be built by the developers who cause the need for them rather than retrospectively by the taxpayer. Most of that much-needed infrastructure is already in place in our cities.
  Building new towns in east and west Devon will make matters worse. They will further empty the population from the cities and cost the taxpayer an enormous sum in building new services for them. That is not to mention the cost of decommissioning old infrastructure in abandoned urban areas. I remember that, in Liverpool, schools in the inner city were constantly being closed, which cost a fortune. Taxpayers would have to meet the cost of decommissioning all sorts of infrastructure in Plymouth, Exeter and other cities as the people moved out.
  It is likely that national advertisements will continue to encourage people from outside the county to drift to the south-west. That rise in migration into Devon is currently at the rate of between 32,000 and 35,000 people a year. That is equivalent to seven or eight times the population of Totnes—or Kingsbridge, which is in my constituency—entering Devon each year. Those figures have been rising as we build more and more houses.
  310
  The Government cannot be excused for failing to recognise what is happening and how it will damage the beauty and quality of the environment in the south-west. The Liberal Democrats have even less excuse for letting that damage take place under their very noses. They have approved a massive programme of unsustainable development, and they are answerable to the electorate in Devon for what they are allowing to happen. That electorate must remember that they will have an opportunity to get rid of the Liberal Democrats on 6 May.
  Mr. Sanders: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steen: No, I have given way enough.
  Buzz words such as "plan and manage" are fine, but they are meaningless if they allow the building of 90,000 houses all over Devon. Such a level of house building is simply not sustainable. The Liberal Democrats know that; the Government know that and I know that. Politicians in authority and the Liberal Democrats in Devon have no excuse for not taking action to stop that house building. They have the means but not the will or the inclination to stop it.
  Mr. Sanders: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steen: No, if the hon. Gentleman wants to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he can make his own points, provided that I do not go on for too long. There are politicians without backbone and the Liberal Democrats are good examples. They are always passing the buck.
  It is not too late for the Government to ensure that new homes, many of which are needed for local people, are built in the right place. Our cities are crying out for new investment, new enterprise and new opportunities. The countryside is Britain's finest asset. To concrete over thousands of acres in the next 12 years will be environmental vandalism of the worst possible kind. The electorate will not forget that betrayal at the next general election.
  11.36 am
  Mr. David Drew: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate on well-worn territory. I initiated a debate on this subject last year, and I have intervened on the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) in a half-hour debate. Some of us are interested in these issues and continue to battle on.
  My stance is fairly well known. I support the Government's approach, but I have not been uncritical on certain points, including housing numbers. I shall concentrate on the household projection and its implications, but first I shall set the issue in context because the Government have done much good work and have had a difficult task given the problems that they were left by the previous Administration.
  I was interested to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning to a conference of the Economic and Social Research Council on 2 March, and I heartily agree with many of his remarks. It is only too clear that, unless we take action, we will face difficulties in future. I support, as I am sure all hon. Members do, the movement away from predict and provide and the emphasis on brown-field development, with the

  311
  60 per cent. target. I should like to know how the Conservative party could raise that figure, because it has a history of having much lower targets.
  There is undue criticism of the Rogers task force. I invited the task force to Stroud. It is doing much good work, but it is not yet ready to complete its report. We shall find out what the report says about fiscal measures and planning changes and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will then deal with those. Perhaps now is not the right time for that.
  The Labour party is committed to considering the whole area of planning guidance. A number of consultation papers have been issued and I am sure that hon. Members have responded. We look forward to the results. We view the emphasis on the regional dimension as an important departure which should be heartily supported. In a nutshell—I use an analogy from another policy area—we are seeking a firmer, faster and fairer method of planning and implementation.
  We have a sword of Damocles hanging over us in the form of the 4.4 million household projection. There is a rumour—perhaps it is now more of a prediction—that the figure is likely to increase when the Government issue their new projection. Paraphrasing the argument of the hon. Member for Totnes, I juxtapose the encroachment into the green-field areas, while our inner cities continue to decline. We must grapple with that problem and turn a lose-lose situation into a win-win situation.
  We have long experience of the problems in my county. The debate so far has focused on Devon and Cornwall, but the pain is felt in Gloucestershire and in my district, Stroud. Any meeting on housing is always packed with members of the public, who have an understandable interest in the subject. I congratulate the councillors who have tried to grapple with the issue; it is not always pleasant.
  We heard reference to NIMBYism. One person's self-interest is another person's demoralisation and the denigration of his area. The planning process must work properly, or the less privileged will lose out and those who have no voice will always be dumped on. As a politician, I am not prepared to see that happen. We are in politics to do something about it.
  There is a need for balance. We must conserve our landscape, where appropriate, but we must also allow evolution in rural as well as urban areas. That means building not on every green-field site, but on appropriate sites in an appropriate way. I shall return to that theme later.
  The central tenet of my argument is that there is a fundamental difference between the need for housing and housing need. Recently, we have concentrated on the need for housing, and on delivering what developers tell us there is demand for. We have failed to grasp that those in real need are being let down, in both rural and urban Britain. Contrary to what has been alleged from the Opposition Benches, I have villages where people are crying out for social housing and where the young people are being driven out. That is social exclusion of the worst kind. Why should future generations not be able to carry on living there?
  Mr. James Gray rose—
  Mr. Drew: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, but I am sure that he will understand that I want to keep my remarks fairly brief. Perhaps he will catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  312
  There is social exclusion, unfairness and unsustainability. If a village is not living, evolving and moving, it is not a place where many people want to live. They do not want their villages pickled in aspic, to remain as they were in the 19th century. That is not sensible.
  Experience has shown that, if development is carried out properly, it can work well. Too often, the problem in rural Britain is that a development is proposed which may include affordable housing or even social housing, the principle is agreed to and the planning application is allowed, but suddenly the developers change their mind and propose a development of four or five-bedroomed executive homes. Lo and behold, the very people for whom the housing was intended are excluded. There are many examples of that, which the Government must tackle.
  The problem of the dereliction of urban Britain is not confined to the cities. In the market towns of my region, there is much evidence of the need for regeneration through sensible housing policies, including the possibility of people living over a shop. There are too many barriers, social and economic, to such development. I hope that the urban task force under Lord Rogers will offer new ideas to move it forward.
  The difficulties originate in the ever-growing number of housing requirements. I am a critic of the trend-based forecasting on which the Office for National Statistics relies. My argument is that what happened in the past is not necessarily what is happening now, let alone what will happen in the future. I know that consultation has been offered, to examine alternative methodologies and mechanisms. I welcome a debate on alternative approaches to projections.
  I readily agree that projections are necessary for planning. If we do not know what we are planning for, it is difficult to know whether we are delivering what is required. However, there is a need for alternatives such as the bottom-up approach, and ways of dealing with issues such as net migration flows, which are particularly relevant in the south-west.
  Household projections are not the same as housing projections. I readily admit that questions of social engineering arise, about which some hon. Members may feel uneasy. If the Government are not prepared to consider such matters, who will? We need to understand the effect of the growth in single households. That is not a good thing in itself, although it may be what people want. An analogous case is that of the motor car. We know that more and more cars will eventually lead to increasing congestion and misery.
  I have outlined some of the issues that the Government must take up and introduce into the planning procedures. They have a difficult task, but they have made some movement. We need new planning procedures sooner rather than later. I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will tell us that those will be discussed shortly. We all have a part to play. People feel that they have been excluded in the past, and they have strong views to express. I hope that the debate today will take matters forward.
  11.46 am
  Mr. Tom Brake: As the dust settles on Mr. Brown's Budget, we should reflect on two missed opportunities—the absence of a green-field

  313
  development tax, and the absence of any moves towards equalising the VAT on new build and conversions. Those measures would have helped to reduce the rate of urbanisation, which is running at a rate of 110 sq km a year, and increased the percentage of new homes built on previously developed land, which all parties in the House support.
  Such measures would have helped the Government towards their somewhat unambitious target of 60 per cent. of development on brown-field land and reduced the impact on our countryside of the 4.4 million or possibly 5 million—I believe that an announcement is expected shortly—new homes that will be needed by 2016.
  The absence of any measures to equalise VAT on new build and conversions will make it virtually impossible to bring into circulation the hundreds of thousands of empty homes in England and Wales. That view is supported by the Empty Homes Agency. I spoke to its chief executive, Ashley Horsey, this morning. He said:
  "The Government claims to be promoting brownfield development and looking for an urban renaissance. Such action is meaningless if they are not prepared to take real effective action."
  It is worth reminding hon. Members of the facts about empty homes. There is a 4 per cent. vacancy rate in the United Kingdom. That is the equivalent of almost 800,000 empty homes. In Holland, the vacancy rate is 2.3 per cent. By matching Holland's vacancy rate, we would create 300,000 to 350,000 new homes.
  There are also empty flats above shops. According to a report produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, about 1,500 flats were created above shops between 1992 and 1995. Assuming that conversion has continued at that rate, about 20,000 flats could be created above shops.
  Office conversions offer further potential accommodation. Estimates suggest that 20,000 flats could be created in London. Assuming that that figure could be doubled across England and Wales, there is the possibility that a total of 400,000 new homes could be created from office conversions and by utilising empty homes and flats above shops. That figure represents 10 per cent. of the need. We can all imagine how much safer and more attractive our cities and towns would be if those empty homes were brought back into use. By ruling out a green-field development tax, Gordon Brown has sent the wrong signal—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That is the second occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has made such a mistake, and I hope that he will not do so again.
  Mr. Brake: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  By ruling out a green-field development tax, Chancellor has sent the wrong signal to developers.
  Mr. Drew: Until we have the urban task force's report, no recommendation is in place as to how that would take effect.
  Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman and I note what he says.
  314
  Mr. Brown's Budget was—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman continues in this way, he will have to resume his seat. He knows the conventions of the House.
  Mr. Brake: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Chancellor's Budget was, without doubt, a bad Budget for brown-field sites; but other developments could make the Government's task of minimising the environmental and aesthetic damage of new housing estates harder—the creation of the regional development agencies.
  In evidence to the Environment Sub-Committee yesterday, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said that the RDAs' role would be to make good the economic deficit in the regions. That is a perfectly valid objective for the RDAs, but another must be to ensure that development is sustainable. That objective is given much less prominence.
  Mr. Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have had a monumental dollop of hypocrisy from the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen)? Does he recall that the previous Government dictated—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must always have temperate language in the House. I would not associate the hon. Member for Totnes or any other hon. Member with hypocrisy.
  Mr. Brake: The RDAs will have to track an environmental indicator—the percentage of new homes built on previously developed land. But that is only one such sustainable development indicator. The RDAs will have to pay regard to many more economic indicators.
  With the proliferation of the different bodies that will operate at a regional level—the RDAs, the regional chambers, the regional planning conferences, the regional government offices and Whitehall—the potential for confusion about household projections and the preferred locations for development is enormous.
  Confusion is the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is a bloody battle between the RDAs and the regional planning conferences, with the former seeking to promote industry and housing in an environmentally sensitive area, and the latter fighting any such development. The potential for chaos is not helped by the Government's unwillingness to state whether regional planning guidance or the RDAs' regional strategies will be pre-eminent.
  I hope that PPG11, which is to be reissued at the end of the consultative process, will clear up some of those uncertainties, but the draft has not made a good start. It says:
  "the Regional Planning Bodies should work with the Government Office and other stakeholders to establish the level of housing required to meet the region's housing needs. In making this assessment the Government's latest published household projections should be taken into account."

  315
  It goes on to say:
  "the Regional Planning Bodies should take a realistic and responsible approach to future housing provision",
  and
  "once the housing requirement in RPG has been established and confirmed by the Secretary of State".
  That still smacks of intervention by the Secretary of State. We might yet find that the corpse of predict and provide makes a full recovery on the mortuary slab.
  One final aspect which has not been given sufficient consideration in this or other debates about household projections and new residential developments is water provision. As more water is taken from the environment to meet increasing demand, more and more wetlands are drying out. That has been confirmed in reports produced by English Nature, the biodiversity challenge group and the Environment Agency in recent years.
  All the new households that will be built will need water, and it is estimated that about 214 million litres a day will be needed. London will need an extra 25 million by 2016. Yet the water supply is already stressed and any further increase in demand will exacerbate the problems, and probably cause drying out on other sites as well.
  To cope with the increased demand, new reservoirs and new river transfer schemes will be needed. It is essential that the Government issue new planning guidance to planners to ensure that water is seen as a constraint on new development. That is in line with the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which stated:
  "water supply should become a major part of the consultation and planning process. Planning authorities should be given the power to insist that water efficiency measures are included in new houses and to refuse developments where they are concluded that it would not be possible to provide adequate water supplies without damage to the environment."
  That national planning guidance must be produced quickly to address issues such as from where the water resources would come and how any additional water demands would be met.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond positively to some of my concerns in relation to a green-field development tax, VAT equalisation, RDAs, regional planning guidance and water resources, but he will find it hard to convince the House that the Chancellor's Budget has not scuppered the Government's chance of hitting their 60 per cent. target of development on brown-field sites
  11.56am
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I share the privilege of representing a constituency in what I hope hon. Members will agree is probably the most beautiful county of Devon. In the few minutes available, I want to tackle some of the issues concerning where the new houses can be built, because some misleading statements have been made about the extent to which the cities can accommodate them.
  The space as well as the distance are two of the attractions that generate the desire among constituents of many other hon. Members to go and live in the south-west, and particularly in Devon and Cornwall. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment,
  316
  Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), said in a debate instigated by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 9 December 1998, we do not live in a Maoist society in which we can ban such migration.
  The population projections take account of population change and household formation, and that includes migration. Migration into Devon always comes under the closest scrutiny. For the reasons that I have mentioned— space, distance and beauty—in-migration is a significant factor in some parts of our county, but not within the Plymouth sub-region. Our principle need is for housing to meet the needs of our existing population.
  Plymouth is an attractive city. The Shell guide praises its waterfront as one of pre-eminence in the world, and The Independent lists Plymouth as the 26th most interesting place in the world to be at the millennium, alongside other cities such as Moscow and Paris. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but there are good reasons for that, to which I may return in another debate. I mean The Independent, not the local rag The Sunday Independent.
  The aspiration of many hundreds of thousands of people is for country living in small villages and towns, or something more remote on moor or coast. I prefer city life, but I understand why many of those bringing up families and seeking a peaceful retirement should make such a choice.
  If the hon. Member for Totnes and his colleagues believe in choice—I think that they do—he must respect those who chose to move to join us in the many privileges that we enjoy. I hope that he also seeks to represent the interests of those most in need, particularly housing need, in his constituency.
  The hon. Gentleman will have noted paragraph 6.12 of the report from the panel that conducted the public examination of the Devon structure plan, which states:
  "Having regard to the various representations on this matter, the Panel find that there is no convincing evidence to conclude other than that restricting new house building would serve not to stop immigration but to significantly worsen the living conditions of those at the lower end of the housing market."
  The report continues:
  "the Panel fundamentally rejects the view that somehow under provision is not a significant problem. Under provision is likely to hit those most in housing need in the community and damage the housing prospects of the next generation."
  The projections for Plymouth predict growth, not from migration, despite the attractions of our city, but from changes in the household needs of the citizens of Plymouth. Meeting those needs will be challenging for us. The structure plan for Plymouth proposes that 6,800 dwellings should be built between 1995 and 2011. Plymouth city council has said that it will seek to provide those dwellings within its boundaries, but that is clearly a tough target. In all previous analysis, the council identified potential for 5,500 sites, and that figure has been based on existing allocations, estimates for conversions of properties into flats and windfall opportunities on small sites.
  An extra 1,300 dwellings on top of that known potential is also a tough target. The council is working hard to apply the Government's philosophy, which is identified in the White Paper "Planning for Communities of the Future". However, even with greater use of recycled

  317
  lands, it will still be pushed to accommodate 6,800 dwellings, especially because, where redevelopment of poor housing is to take place—often because that housing is unfit and poorly laid out and of an inappropriately high density—the aim will rightly be to reduce density and maintain our precious and, many of my constituents would say, too few, open spaces.
  One can say that some debates are timely, but I do not believe that of this debate. On 26 February 1999, the Devon structure plan was adopted by the five strategic authorities. They agreed that the housing proposals in the structure plan would stand, but there is also agreement that they should be closely monitored under the Government's provision of "plan, monitor and manage", as outlined in the White Paper. All five authorities are seeking to progress the structure plan positively. They are committed to a proper process of monitoring and review in the light of future events and the requirements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  At regional level, the planning guidance for the period to 2016 is being considered. That, too, will provide a proper framework within which the interests and concerns of our local authorities and the constituents of Plymouth, Sutton and of Torbay—as well as the interests and concerns of the constituents of the hon. Member for Totnes—can be properly addressed. I urge the hon. Member for Totnes to take an early flight, as I did this morning, on a clear day and to reconsider, in the light of the space that he would observe beneath him, the contrast between the vast spaces of his constituency and the high density of the population of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson).
  I reject the endorsement of the hon. Member for Totnes of the narrow-minded NIMBYism of some of his constituents, many of whom are the very same people who have sought to exercise their choice, as he did, to migrate to our beautiful county of Devon.
  12.4 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on raising this issue and on his masterly exposition of the current situation, particularly in Devon. The beauty of his constituency is second only to that of my constituency. I look forward to visiting his constituency, before it all disappears under concrete.
  As my hon. Friend explained, how typical it is of the Liberal Democrats to say one thing about the environment and do something quite different when they are in control. In my constituency, the local Liberal Democrats forced through planning permission to overdevelop Beachy Head, which is a major attraction for visitors to my constituency.
  Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is something rather incongruous about the position taken by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen)? Does he recall that a housing figure for Devon of more than
  318
  100,000 units was dictated by the previous Government? Devon county stuck to its guns and the Secretary of State has agreed to slightly more than 70,000 dwelling units.
  Mr. Waterson: I always think that my hon. Friend is noted for his congruousness. The very best of the hon. Gentleman's case is that his colleagues on the council have collaborated in those overdevelopments.
  I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for putting his finger on many of the central issues. He has long service in the House and told us some of the background to recycling land, which is nothing new. However, I suspect that his excellent book "Plums", which I read a long time ago, is out of print.
  My hon. Friend described how predict and provide had been replaced by plan and manage. How right he was that these figures should be treated not as targets, but merely as projections, and he drew attention to a central point— the Government's failure to implement their brown-field site policy.
  There is considerable expert and political argument over the projection of 4.4 million homes needed by 2016. We have heard that that figure may increase. However, the Government's view seems to be that that is the best available figure in all the circumstances. Conservative Members remain highly sceptical, particularly bearing in mind the fact that there are supposed to be 1 million empty dwellings in this country.
  Where are all those new homes to go? The Government still seem to be fumbling for a policy. In the meantime, there are constant encroachments on the green belt, often with the connivance of the Secretary of State. The worst example is the go-ahead given for 10,000 new homes on green-belt land near Stevenage. Nearer my constituency, the Secretary of State is forcing West Sussex to build 58,700 new houses by 2011. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes about the parlous situation in and near his constituency.
  Nationally, if new housing continues to be built on green-field sites at the present rate, an area the size of Suffolk will disappear under concrete by the time today's school leavers reach retirement age. The green belt must be protected if we are to avoid urban sprawl, and I am proud that, under the previous Conservative Government, the size of the green belt was doubled.
  A great deal of the Government's hopes are pinned on the development of brown-field or recycled sites, but there is growing evidence that their faith is misplaced. Their declared target is for 60 per cent. of new developments to be built on brown-field sites, which is a belated increase from 50 per cent after sustained pressure from Conservative Members, among others. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary laughs, but he may remember his description of a target of 60 per cent. as a "recipe for disaster".
  We have suggested two thirds of new development as a target and, according to the Select Committee, some witnesses suggested that 75 per cent. is feasible. Let us be fair and judge the Government on their stated target.
  Mr. Sanders: Is not the problem that brown-field sites tend to be where people are migrating from and green-field sites are in the parts of the country to which people are migrating? That is true nationally and in Devon, where the brown-field sites are in Plymouth.

  319
  People do not want to move to Plymouth, however, and the green-field sites are in the county, which is where people want to live.
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is being a little over-simplistic, but there is a problem of mismatch as he describes.
  Let us judge the Government on their stated target. The problem is that rhetoric and reality have parted company. The Government's performance in respect of brown-field sites is still limping along on a figure of 53 per cent. That is not so much urban renaissance as a new dark age, with concrete being poured indiscriminately.
  What has become of the draft consultation version of PPG3? The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), said on 3 February that it would be with us shortly. He is stretching the word "shortly" a little, but no doubt he will tell us when we will see it. What has happened to Lord Rogers and his task force? I am delighted to learn that they visited Stroud, and no doubt there have been other sightings of them; but when will they produce something with which we can grapple?
  We hear a great deal about a "sequential" approach to planning, but that in itself may cause delays and problems. The Under-Secretary may be aware of a study published recently by the Civic Trust and the House-Builders Federation, which focused on 54 potential brown-field sites identified as long ago as 1986. The study discovered that only 39 sites—72 per cent.—had been developed at all in the intervening time, and that only 29, or 54 per cent., had been developed for housing on either all or part of a site. It concluded:
  "The Government's target of 60 per cent. of new homes to be built on recycled or brownfield land will not be realised unless action is taken to learn from past failings and the process is improved and strengthened".
  The study helpfully lists a series of problems that arose in many of the case studies. It mentions the problem of contaminated land, and what it describes as
  "a lack of flexibility, creativity, technical and market knowledge in some local authorities",
  which, it says, can
  "hinder … public/private partnerships".
  The whole question of land assembly is often crucial to such developments. It is not a happy story.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Waterson: No.
  The Under-Secretary may also have seen "An Urban and Rural Renaissance", an excellent document produced by Shelter. According to the document,
  "Current planning and housing policies are failing to ensure the provision of sufficient affordable housing".
  Shelter makes clear just how many improvements in the planning system are needed to deal with the problems. All too often, that system fails us in terms of the identification and use of brown-field sites. Such studies are important, and worrying.
  In his remarkable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made an excellent point: he said that there should be an incentive for developers to build in towns,
  320
  and a disincentive for them to build in rural areas. I could not agree more; how sad that the Government, in the shape of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ducked the issue only yesterday.
  Perhaps the Under-Secretary has noted, and will comment on, an excellent proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). My hon. Friend has suggested a system of tradeable tokens, whereby a developer who built a home on a previously developed site—a brown-field site—would be awarded a token and, as well as obtaining planning consent, those wishing to build on green-field sites would be required to produce two such tokens before they could do so. That would easily, and with minimal administration and costs, deliver the two-thirds target to which Conservative Members currently aspire.
  Conservative Members are working hard—that is an example—to protect our environment and to come up with practical, constructive solutions to the problems that any Government will undoubtedly face in this regard. I can promise that we shall continue to drag the Under-Secretary and his hon. Friends to the House until they finally develop a proper and workable policy of their own, to replace the incoherent shambles that lies before us now.
  12.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate, and on his persistence; he has raised this issue before. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) observed, his was a remarkable speech, in which he made a number of valid points with which I wholeheartedly agree. He produced a passionate defence of the case for building in cities and regenerating them for the urban renaissance, and for the use of brown-field sites. I entirely agree with him, and hope to say more shortly about what the Government are doing in that regard.
  However, the hon. Gentleman showed a certain Jekyll and Hyde tendency, which was most obvious when he delivered what was probably the most emphatic endorsement of NIMBYism that I have ever heard in the House. I do not think that I have previously heard anyone describe "not in my back yard" as a good principle. I believe that I have quoted the hon. Gentleman correctly. He also slightly glossed over his own career pattern, which rather contradicts the course that he has urged on us. He wants us to ensure that there is no move towards green-field building, and to concentrate on brown-field sites. He forgets, however, that, as a former MP for a brown-field constituency in Liverpool, he has gone in exactly the opposite direction—to the green fields of Devon.
  Mr. Steen: Regrettably, the boundary commissioners completely destroyed my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree. Every one of my five wards went into a new constituency, which is now run by the Labour party. I would have stayed in Liverpool had I had that chance.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am tempted to say that I hope the hon. Gentleman will have an encounter with the boundary commission in the near future that will enable him to renew his acquaintance with brown-field constituents.

  321
  I am afraid that, in a number of respects, the hon. Gentleman did not fully recognise the extent of the changed agenda that the Government are already introducing, which is making a significant difference. I shall give the figures, but, for the moment, suffice it to say that Devon is a very good example of the flexibility of our new system—which, by the way, is "plan, monitor and manage": the word "monitor" got left out. It is working far better than the old predict-and-provide approach that characterised the last Government.
  The hon. Gentleman said that there was no scope for local authorities to trade housing targets or housing levels. There is, and the new system provides a very good framework. The hon. Gentleman has a particular problem with the household projections. He also has a problem with how the housing situation in Devon could be better managed. I shall take each point in turn. As he knows, we have changed our approach to establishing housing numbers. Our new draft PPG11—which was entirely misunderstood by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—sets out our proposals for improving the preparation and content of regional planning guidance. It represents an important step in the modernisation of the planning system, and reflects our commitment to decentralised decision making and integrated policy making to achieve sustainable solutions.
  The new arrangements give more responsibility to local authorities, through regional planning conferences, in the preparation of regional planning strategies. They should lead to increased regional ownership of the policies, and increased commitment to their delivery. Instead of the Government, the regional planning body will be responsible for preparation of the draft regional strategy, which will include proposing the amount of additional housing that will be needed in the plan period.
  The new arrangements provide a more open and inclusive process for the determination of planning issues at regional level. The new strategies, including the new housing figures, will be tested at a public examination before an independent panel, whose report will be made public. The procedure has been piloted in East Anglia, where a public examination of the draft planning strategy for the area was completed last month. The regional planning guidance for the south-west is still at the pre-draft stage. One of the key tasks of the new-style regional planning guidance will be to advise on the overall level of housing and its distribution within the region, with the aim of making full use of previously developed land.
  In assessing the housing provision required for the 15 to 20-year period covered by the strategy, we expect the regional planning body to work with other regional stakeholders to establish the level of housing required to meet the region's housing needs. In the making of that assessment, the Government's latest published household projections should be taken into account—that is perfectly logical and reasonable—but we are not insisting that they are targets, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. They are projections, and should be treated as such.
  Mr. Nicholls: The Minister has spoken of a policy shift towards planning, monitoring and managing. Is not the logic of that change in policy such that it should be
  322
  applied to the present situation in Devon? If things go ahead as planned, Devon will be transformed; it will be wrecked and ruined out of all recognition. The Minister has made a policy change on which I compliment him— now let him follow through the logic.
  Mr. Raynsford: Clearly, with any change of policy there needs to be an orderly progression from the existing procedure to the new one. That is what we are doing. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me when I come to Devon, he will see that the operation of the principles that underpin the Government's new approach is having a positive impact in Devon. I hope that he will recognise that.
  As well as looking at the Government's figures as guidance, not as a target, we expect regional planning conferences to undertake urban capacity studies to explore the implications of changing policies and standards, which would reduce the land take of new development while securing attractive residential environments.
  Against that background of need and capacity, the regional planning body should be able to take a realistic and responsible approach to future housing provision. It must be prepared to justify its views fully in public at the examination—that is fairly obvious. The structure plan and unitary plan authorities will, of course, be party to that process, so there is plenty of scope for them to negotiate and to discuss the apportionment between them.
  Mr. Steen: The problem is that the west country is run by the Liberal Democrats. They control the county council, the district council and the unitary authority, so it is the Liberal Democrats talking to each other.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman displays a curious degree of ignorance of local politics. Is he not aware that the distinguished city of Plymouth is a Labour-controlled authority? He appears to have a complaint about the process of democracy. We are all here courtesy of that process and we should respect the verdict of the electorate.
  The presumption is that, once the housing requirement has been established and confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State following the public examination, structure plans and unitary district plans should focus on the broad distribution and location of growth. The essence of the plan, monitor and manage approach is that both the assessment of housing requirements and distribution within the region should be kept under review. If there are signs of either under or over-provision, we expect both RPG and development plans to be reviewed accordingly. We need to work together in ensuring that the new approach is developed in as constructive a context as possible.
  I want to deal with the points that were made by the hon. Member for Totnes about the Devon structure plan and the county's proposed new settlements adjoining Exeter and Plymouth. As I have mentioned, household growth is a fact and it is for local authorities in each area to find the best possible solutions for managing the growth sustainably. We cannot turn our back on the need to house people, and I do not think that any hon. Member would suggest that.
  The Devon structure plan was not imposed by the Government; it was proposed and adopted by the local authorities on 26 February. That outcome shows that the

  323
  plan, manage and monitor approach is flexible, while maintaining our commitment to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. That approach is based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence.
  The structure plan has raised two main issues: the overall figures for new housing and proposals for two new communities, one near Exeter and the other near Plymouth. Obviously, I shall concentrate on the one near Plymouth. First, I shall look at the overall housing provision. Regional planning guidance figures were agreed by the authorities in 1994 under the previous Government. They indicated 83,000 extra houses in Devon between 1995 and 2011, based on 1989 household projections. The independent panel that examined the plan in public in 1997 tested it against more recent 1992-based projections. Unusually, those projections were lower than the 1989-based set, and the panel therefore recommended 79,000 extra houses, a reduction of some 4,000 on the previous figure.
  The five structure plan authorities published modifications in October 1998—at that stage, under the present Government. They proposed a lower figure still of 75,800 houses, 3,200 less than the figure that was recommended following the examination in public. There were two reasons for that. First, actual house building during the 1990s was well below the rates that were projected both in regional planning guidance and by the panel: during 1995–97, a period for which figures were not available to the panel, 2,100 fewer homes than the projected number were built. Secondly, it was felt that the achievement of Government objectives to reduce vacancies in the housing stock would absorb more of the extra households—an estimated 1,100 more.
  After careful consideration of those proposals in the light of our new policy, spelt out in "Planning for the Communities of the Future", the Secretary of State accepted that the county's proposal for 75,800 houses did not need to be raised. We accepted its case that lower than expected house building during the mid-1990s did indicate a lower requirement for the period to 2011. That should not be taken as a precedent for other counties because circumstances vary from county to county.
  Mr. Sanders: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I will in a moment.
  House building rates can be affected by a variety of factors—for example, land availability or other supply-side problems. The circumstances in Devon do not suggest supply-side limits to house building. In addition, the county level, 1996-based population projections that were published by the Office for National Statistics in December 1998 show a further small reduction in projected population growth for 1996–2006, which weakens the case for raising provision.
  Mr. Sanders: I want to clarify that point and get it on the record. Is the Minister saying that the amount of housing that has been accepted by the Government is less than was originally predicted under the previous Government and, therefore, that the comments of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) were less than accurate?
  Mr. Raynsford: Yes, I can confirm that, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman could not have drawn that conclusion from what I said. I thought that I had made it clear that that was the case.
  324
  We do not regard new communities as free-standing new settlements, as described in "Planning for the Communities of the Future." As proposed, they are distinct, compact new neighbourhoods close to, and with good links with the two cities concerned.
  Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am afraid that I cannot give way to the hon. Lady. I know that she is greatly concerned about the matter, but I have only three minutes left and I have important matters to cover. I am sorry.
  On the plan for Plymouth, no precise location has yet been proposed and no name has yet been given to the new settlement, but it is proposed that the development might be between half a mile and three miles from the urban edge of Plymouth.
  The independent panel endorsed the new community proposals as potentially the best way in which to secure balanced and sustainable communities with the proper level of services and facilities. The Exeter community is related to large-scale employment development and a rail freight terminal proposal. The Plymouth one is being developed to meet the need for accommodation for people from Plymouth, which was graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).
  The whole aim is, of course, to ensure that we concentrate development in areas where it is appropriate and sustainable, rather than allow indiscriminate development across a wide area of rural Devon, which clearly is the concern of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), whose comments on the proposals, from what I have seen, have been entirely responsible and appropriate. The alternative to new settlements would be indiscriminate and unsustainable housing development. I do not think that anyone would welcome that.
  The way forward lies in building on the positive options for meeting housing requirements and for protecting the countryside. There is far more common ground than is sometimes acknowledged. Everyone wants to see as much land recycling as possible and more sustainable patterns of development, to protect the countryside, to regenerate urban areas and to ensure that people are properly housed. The Government are developing that agenda as proactively as possible. There is much more work to be done to help authorities to develop that agenda.
  We have a full programme of revising the relevant PPG notes. We will shortly publish the draft PPG3, which will detail policies to underpin our recycling target. We expect authorities throughout the country, including authorities in the south-west, to do their bit to maximise land recycling. We are also working on other planning guidance notes, such as those on transport, and have published draft guidance on regional planning and development plans.
  The Government are acting positively, seriously and responsibly in dealing with an important agenda. That contrasts with the previous Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now turn to the next debate.

  Hornchurch Fire Station
  Mr. John Cryer: I thank Madam Speaker for choosing this debate, which is a very important one for the people in the area represented by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Romford (Mrs. Gordon). I also thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who will reply to the debate.
  I have been involved in the campaign to keep Hornchurch's second fire pump from even before the cut was announced—as there had been some indication that there would be such a cut. In the past three or four months, there has been a magnificent campaign— particularly by the Hornchurch fire fighters, who led the campaign, and by the people of Hornchurch—against the cut. A few weeks ago, we had a public meeting outside the fire station that attracted about 1,000 people, who were primarily from Hornchurch but also from Romford and Upminster. Previously, we had a public meeting that attracted about 200 people.
  I have received about 1,000 letters on the issue, including one recently from officials and representatives of the Royal College of Nursing, who object to losing the engine both on health grounds and because of the area's many nursing homes—particularly in the more far flung and vulnerable parts of the ground—and other health facilities, such as our two hospitals and many doctors' surgeries. Two particularly far-flung nursing homes are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster.
  Recently, Hornchurch fire fighters and I handed in to No. 10 Downing street a petition containing the names of 40,000 people who want to keep the second pump at Hornchurch. We also handed in to the London fire and civil defence authority, on Albert embankment, approximately 12,000 consultation leaflets that had been completed by local people, all of whom were against the cut and said that they were willing to pay more, in council tax and perhaps in other charges, to keep the fire pump in Hornchurch.
  All of those representations have been ignored by the London fire and civil defence authority, which has treated the people of Hornchurch contemptuously. Tony Ritchie, the authority leader, and other authority members have simply brushed aside the opinions of the people of Hornchurch and those living in other parts of the ground, saying, "We're going to get rid of the pump anyway." They have been absolutely contemptuous.
  Hon. Members should remember that since 1986, 63 pumps have been cut from Greater London fire stations, 14 of which have gone since the Docklands bomb—on a night when the London fire authority was pulling in pumps from as far away as Essex and Surrey. The cuts make us wonder whether we could cope in London if there was another, similar massive disaster. In addition to previous cuts, the LFCDA is planning to cut another five pumps across London. Today, however, I am dealing specifically with the Hornchurch pump.
  The London fire authority has a £5 million reserve in the bank and, in the current financial year, an underspend of £6.5 million. Very likely, there will be an underspend
  326
  also in the next financial year. I therefore cannot understand why the authority insists on cutting the Hornchurch pump or the other four pumps. I shall certainly watch the future career of Tony Ritchie with great interest.
  My ground of Hornchurch is one of the biggest—the second biggest—in Greater London. We have had two appliances since 1936, when Hornchurch was still a village. Many older people in the area still refer to Hornchurch as a village. In 1936, both Rainham, in the south, and Upminster were also tiny villages. Since 1936, there has been an enormous expansion not only in the population, which has increased many fold, but in roads. We now have the M25 and the A127, on which the Hornchurch pumps spend a great deal of time. Hornchurch's pumps spend a lot of time covering the A13 and the A12 also, although they are not in our ground. All of those roads are hugely busy, particularly at rush hour, taking people in and out of London.
  There has also been enormous industrial development in the ground. The Fairview estate, for example—which is in the south of my constituency—often has to be covered by the Hornchurch pumps. Ferry lane, which also is in my constituency, frequently has fires and problems that must be attended by our fire brigade. All those developments—including increased industrialisation— have occurred in the past 50 years.
  Traffic jams on the big roads—particularly the A13, A127 and M25—often entail enormous tailbacks. People leave the main roads, go on to back roads that they do not know very well, drive too fast and have accidents. Therefore, there are major problems on the back roads that also have to be attended by the Hornchurch pumps.
  In the past few years, risk categorisation in the borough of Havering has been greatly reduced. At one time, parts of Romford were A risk, and Hornchurch was generally B risk. Now, the ground has nothing but C and D risk areas. That is unfair. Even on the basis of current risk assessment, there is no reason why Hornchurch and Romford should not be categorised as B risk. Arguably, parts of Romford should be classified as A risk.
  Currently, the Home Office is conducting a fire cover review. I argue today—as I did in a previous debate on the subject—that, until the review is completed, there should be a moratorium on cuts in front-line fire cover in Greater London. I hope that the review will recommend using risk-based assessment. However, until the review is finished, we shall not know the future basis of fire cover. I believe that the use of risk-based assessment will ensure that there will be at least two pumps at Hornchurch for ever and a day.
  In the past two years, the number of two-pump call-outs at Hornchurch has increased from 396—in 1997—to about 430 last year. There is not yet a definitive figure for 1998, but it will be at least 430. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in the number of two-pump calls, which is the crucial factor when considering cutting the second pump at Hornchurch fire station. Last year, the total number of calls was 1,410—not 960, as the fire authority claimed—which includes calls to fires in other grounds.
  I put those figures to the authority leader, Tony Ritchie, but he failed to respond to them. At a meeting well before Christmas, I told him the figures; he failed to respond. Shortly before the meeting at which the authority decided to proceed with the cut of five pumps, I again gave him

  327
  the figures; again, he failed to respond. If he is prepared to treat a Member of Parliament like that, I wonder how he treats members of the public who approach him saying that they do not want any more cuts in the fire service. It makes the mind boggle.
  In the past two years, the number of fire deaths in London have increased by one third. I cannot believe that that crucial fact—the huge increase in the number of fire deaths—is completely unconnected to the fact that there have been so many cuts in the London fire service. If we continue cutting, we shall have more loss of life and more serious injury.
  Only last night, I discovered that—according to Hornchurch fire fighters—on Saturday, 30 January, Hornchurch was without fire cover for three hours: the station was empty, the pumps were out and no cover was provided by other stations. If Hornchurch is already going without fire cover for three hours on a Saturday—which is surely one of the station's busiest times—I should think that even the idea of cutting Hornchurch's second pump is simply dicing with death.
  I have a strong personal view on the matter. My family lives in one of the more vulnerable parts of the ground, in Upminster. I do not want to see our home going up in smoke—and cutting the second pump would put families like mine at risk. I cannot see how we can continue to cut fire pumps from across Greater London and expect that there will not be an increase in deaths and injuries. The slogan of the Fire Brigades Union for many years has been "Cuts cost lives". That encapsulates what I am saying today. We cannot afford any more cuts and we certainly cannot afford to lose the fire pump at Hornchurch. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's response.
  12.40 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on securing this debate and I endorse and support what he has said. Hornchurch fire station serves part of my constituency, as my hon. Friend said, and in particular Emerson Park, Cranham, Upminster and part of Harold Wood. That is a large area. In terms of area covered, my constituency is one of the largest in Greater London. It is no coincidence that Hornchurch fire station serves such a large area.
  My constituents are very concerned at the chief fire officer's recommendation, which has now been endorsed by the London fire and civil defence authority. I share their concern. Like my hon. Friend, I live in the ground covered by Hornchurch fire station. I have been inundated by representations and messages of support for the campaign against the decision. My postbag is full of complaints from constituents; I am lobbied every time I walk down the high street and my friends and neighbours constantly raise the issue with me. It is a big issue in the area.
  I had the opportunity to speak in an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago on the London fire services obtained by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). I raised a number of points to which my hon. Friend the Minister helpfully said that he would respond in writing. I look forward to his response. I shall not repeat those points today, as I know that time is short, but I take this opportunity to request an early meeting with
  328
  my hon. Friend the Minister to make further representations to him on behalf of my constituents, who are very worried. In the mean time, I urge him to consider the enormous number of representations that I know are being sent to him and to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  There is a strong case for a postponement of the decision. I know that the risk-based assessment for fire cover is being reviewed. Changes in the London emergency services will come about as a result of the Greater London Authority Bill. I know that the finances of the LFCDA could tide us over until those changes happen.
  Hornchurch does not merely provide direct fire cover. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch said, the area is surrounded by the M25, the A13 and the A127. They are busy roads and there are numerous accidents on them. The firefighters tell me that they are constantly called out to road traffic accidents on those roads. They are frequently able to save lives because advances have been made in ambulance services and improved treatment can be given to accident victims. My concern is that a reduction in the number of fire appliances will not only reduce the fire cover but reduce the number of incidents that the fire service can get to quickly to save lives.
  The chief fire officer's recommendations are based on minimum cover. I believe that we should strive not merely to achieve minimum cover, but to obtain better cover for the area. A reduction in the number of fire appliances in Hornchurch will affect not only the ground but other parts of the area, including Romford, Dagenham and Wennington, which are covered by Hornchurch when local services are called out to emergencies. Our constituents' genuine concern is important. As the Members of Parliament representing the area, we need to emphasise that to Ministers. With all that in mind, I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's reply.
  12.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on securing this debate on Hornchurch fire station and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on his speech. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is aware that this Minister is always willing to meet right hon. and hon. Members if they have a problem, as they perceive it, in their constituency. He may not be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch has already written to me asking for a meeting, and in a letter of 8 March I responded saying that I would be willing to meet him. If the arrangements have not been completed, they are certainly under way.
  As hon. Members will know, there was a serious, tragic and horrific fire in Chingford last week. Our sympathies go out to all the friends and relatives of those who died in that fire. The cause is very suspicious and arson is strongly suspected. Regrettably, arson has increased considerably. In the past decade, 1.7 million fires have been started deliberately, causing 22,000 injuries and 1,100 deaths. We shall be publishing shortly the outcome of a Home Office review, which has examined the current arrangements for combating arson and will recommend a range of new measures arising out of that.
  Hornchurch appliances were not called to the Chingford fire so I can now turn to the subject of today's debate. I fully understand the concern that my hon. Friends have

  329
  expressed today and during last month's debate on the London fire service, about the proposal by the London fire and civil defence authority to remove a fire appliance from Hornchurch fire station.
  As I said last month, we have good reason to be proud of the fire service in this country. It achieves consistently high standards of performance, often in difficult and hazardous circumstances. The fire service's high level of performance in responding to fire calls has been confirmed year after year by the Audit Commission. So it is with good reason that the fire service is highly regarded by the public, both in Hornchurch and elsewhere in the country. The key point to stress is that the statutory responsibility for the provision of an efficient fire service rests with the fire authority, and, in the case of Hornchurch, with the London fire and civil defence authority.
  It is for the authority to keep its fire cover provision under review and to set a budget that will allow it to meet its statutory and other obligations and, in particular, to provide a service that meets the national standards of fire cover. However, under section 19 (4) of the Fire Services Act 1947, the fire authority cannot reduce the number of fire stations, fire appliances or fire-fighting posts without the express permission and consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  My right hon. Friend has a specific role in considering section 19 applications. He will grant approval only if he is satisfied on three counts. The first is that the proposals have been sufficiently widely publicised, in sufficient detail and with adequate time to enable any interested party to make representations. The second is that the representations have been considered by the fire authority. The third is that Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services advises that the national standards of fire cover will be maintained if any of the proposals were implemented.
  There is no statutory requirement on the fire authority to consult, but my right hon. Friend and I consider it important that proper consultations are undertaken. Once a section 19 application has been made, we will also take into account representations made to us direct. We will consider and reflect carefully on the points made by my hon. Friends today. Our primary concern is the maintenance of the national fire cover standards. Successive Secretaries of State have interpreted the duty to provide an efficient fire service against those standards.
  At the beginning of this month, we received the authority's application to remove the second pumping appliance from Hornchurch and from four other fire stations around the capital. We are seeking advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services on the authority's proposals. We shall ask the inspectorate to look carefully at the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and any that other hon. Members, organisations or individuals may make. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not approve any proposal unless we are entirely satisfied that national fire cover standards will be maintained.
  The authority's latest proposals result from a review of its fire cover. All fire authorities are obliged to review the fire risks in their area regularly against the national standards to ensure that the brigade's deployment
  330
  of resources is updated in the light of changing circumstances. That is not contentious. Most people agree that it is sensible to do so.
  It may be helpful if I explain the national standards in a little more detail, because they were an important part of my hon. Friend's speech. The standards are not just nationally recommended; they are nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland, which are constituted under the Fire Services Act 1947 to represent fire service interests in advising the Secretary of State. The standards lay down terms for the number of appliances and also the speed of response in the initial attendance to a fire. They rest on four main standards of service, which depend on the risk category of the area, and assume for each category that a predetermined number of fire-fighting appliances should attend within a specified time. The area served by Hornchurch fire station has been assessed as 55 per cent. C risk and 45 per cent. D risk. My hon. Friend has suggested that Hornchurch should be reclassified as B risk.
  Under the national standards, a brigade should aim in normal circumstances to meet the following response times: in a B risk area, one pumping appliance to arrive in five minutes and one within eight minutes; in a C risk area, one pumping appliance to respond to the incident within 10 minutes; and in a D risk area, one pumping appliance to respond within 20 minutes.
  In considering the section 19 application, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will want to be assured by Her Majesty's inspectorate that the area has been correctly categorised for fire risk and that, if a pumping appliance was removed from Hornchurch, the brigade would continue to meet the above standards.
  In 1995, the Audit Commission recommended that there should be another review of the standards of fire cover. The commission recognised that no fundamental change should be considered without careful research. That recommendation was taken forward by a further joint committee of the advisory councils. Its report "Out of the Line of Fire: Modernising the Standards of Fire Cover" was published in July 1998.
  The advisory councils have endorsed the report's conclusions in favour of risk assessment as a more flexible approach to planning fire cover that explicitly addresses the risk to life. Pilot trials are in hand with a number of brigades, including London, to confirm the practicality of that approach and, if successful, what the arrangements for implementation should be. However, that is a longer-term project. In the mean time, the existing standards of cover continue to apply.
  When the authority set its budget for 1999–2000 on 18 February, it had to take into account the local government finance settlement and the implications for its reserves and assess what savings it should seek to make. The local government settlement provides a £143.6 million overall increase in the fire service element of total standard spending in England—an average annual increase of 3.5 per cent. over the next three years. That includes £ 47.1 million—3.6 per cent.—for 1999–2000. London's share is an above-average increase of £9.9 million—3.8 per cent. That follows an increase of 5 per cent, in 1998–99. The settlement, which I am proud of, acknowledged future funding pressures, notably on

  331
  pensions and training, which were identified by fire service interests. It should help fire authorities to plan ahead on a more stable funding basis. The settlement has also set the fire service a challenging efficiency target of 2 per cent. a year. The best value initiative should play a key role in assisting fire authorities achieve that target.
  I shall reflect carefully on the points that have been raised in the debate. There are matters of significance and concern that we have to take into account.
  It might be worth spending a few minutes on our approach to community fire safety. We want progress to be measured against our commitment to community fire safety. To that end, we have publicly set a target of reducing the average number of house fire deaths by 20 per cent. over the next five years. That move towards prevention is a step change for Government policy and for the work of brigades. Prevention work should be regarded as the first line of defence against fire. The vast majority of fatal fires are accidental and therefore preventable. However, the speed with which fire spreads and smoke kills often means that no matter how quickly the brigade arrives, it can be too late.
  In this financial year, we have provided an extra £ 12 million to the fire service in England to undertake community fire safety work, thus implementing a key recommendation of the Audit Commission report on funding fire prevention. We have also recently established a national community fire safety centre, which will take forward the objective of reducing fires and casualties and act as a resource for fire brigades in England and Wales. I announced last December that we would be providing the new centre with £14 million of funding over the next three financial years to run high-profile safety campaigns in conjunction with every brigade. We have also conducted a major national smoke alarm television campaign for fire brigades, including London, to make sure that every householder has a smoke alarm and maintains it properly.
  It is disappointing that house fires and fatalities in London have increased, particularly when other metropolitan brigades have been able to achieve significant reductions in recent years. However, the brigade is not alone in seeing such increases and the national trend has been upwards since 1994.
  We recognise that without intervention the projected trend for house fires is set to increase. We are not prepared to let that situation arise and have therefore put in place a wide range of measures to reduce the number of house fire deaths. We are working closely with London and other brigades to ensure effective community fire safety arrangements. Whatever the outcome of the Hornchurch proposals, I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch and for Upminster will support us in our endeavour.
  As I have said, we shall reflect carefully on the points that have been made in this debate and seek advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services on the section 19 application and all the representations that have been made. We shall not approve any application unless we are entirely satisfied that the national fire cover standards will be maintained and the safety of the public in Hornchurch and elsewhere is assured.

  DNA Sampling
  12.59pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns about the use by the police of DNA samples collected during their investigations for the purposes of subsequent investigations, and others taking place at the same time.
  My concern about the issue arises from a tragic situation in my constituency—the story of Louise Smith. On Christmas eve 1995, Louise left home with her friends to go to a local nightclub, and did not return home. On Christmas day, Louise's family reported to the police that she had not returned home, and thus began a difficult and protracted investigation.
  About three weeks later, a search was conducted for Louise's body, and more than 10,000 local people took part. The fact that so many people turned out showed the strength of feeling in the community, the solidarity with Robert and Gill Smith—Louise's parents—the sense that any parent would dread to be in the same situation and the desire simply to do something to help. I understand that my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Northavon took part in the search—not with high profile or fanfare, but as a member of the public. That is a tribute to his decency.
  Sadly, no body was found, and the agony and uncertainty went on until the middle of February 1996, when two boys playing in a local quarry discovered Louise's body, which had been carefully hidden. The police inferred from that, and from other circumstances, that the murderer was a local man, or certainly a man with strong local connections. Thus began a murder hunt which was to last for many months.
  As the body had been found—and despite the circumstances—it was possible to obtain a DNA sample, although it was some eight weeks after Louise had died. I gather that such a gap was almost unprecedented. As a result, Avon and Somerset police felt that they were able to use DNA methods to try to track down the killer.
  One of the first things to happen was that a number of people recognised a photofit of the suspect that was issued, and a DNA test was undertaken on that person. The DNA test proved innocence. In other words, someone who, under other circumstances, might have been pursued by the police, was eliminated from their inquiries early on. By April 1996, 400 DNA tests had been carried out on local men. By November 1996, that figure had reached 2,000, and, by Easter 1997, more than 4,500 DNA samples had been taken from local men who had volunteered, if only to be eliminated from inquiries.
  In March 1997, a man named David Frost was swabbed for a DNA sample—not locally, but in South Africa. He was a local man, but was in South Africa. The DNA samples matched. He came back to the United Kingdom, was arrested at Heathrow airport in April 1997 and was charged with murder. In the way of these things, it was not until February 1998 that the case came to court. At the last minute, he changed his plea to guilty, and he was sentenced to 14 years on a tariff.
  The process, sentencing and so on raised wide issues that are beyond the scope of this debate, but the point made to me by the family—which I fully accept—was that the majority of those tested were not suspects in the

  333
  inquiry. Even David Frost, the killer, was not a suspect when originally asked to give a DNA sample. On the other hand, serious suspects were arrested and swabbed during the inquiry, but were quickly eliminated because of DNA testing.
  The key issue is the use of those DNA samples, and what happens to them after the inquiry. My understanding of the law and the practice is that the only DNA sample that may be retained is that of the killer. By law, all the other samples that were offered must be destroyed. I understand that another inquiry was going on at the same time elsewhere in the south-west, and that the police were prohibited from using the samples collected in one inquiry for use in the other.
  Superintendent John Newman, in addressing the Police Superintendents Association conference in September of last year, said that the inquiry was one of the largest that Avon and Somerset had undertaken. With regard to the DNA samples, he said:
  "The murder inquiry quickly became one of the largest ever inquiries conducted in Avon and Somerset"
  and said that the inquiry as a whole cost well over £1 million. He added:
  "It also involved the largest ever intelligence led mass screen".
  I understood that to mean that not all the men in the local area were swabbed, but that the police used their intelligence and what they could work out about the killer to screen and select a smaller number of men. None the less, more than 4,500 swabs were taken.
  Each individual swab costs £37.50 to analyse. Added to that are the costs of cool boxes, polaroid film, fingerprint examinations and cameras, and the cost comes to about £41 per item. When that is multiplied by more than 4,500 swabs, the cost comes to between £200,000 and £250,000.
  The Minister will understand why the family were dismayed to learn that all that police time, money and effort—although it helped to identify the killer—resulted in the swabs and the information being destroyed. They could not be used by the police in other inquiries at the same time, or in subsequent inquiries.
  Clearly, the police's view was that they had spent a large amount of money on the inquiry, and they did not regret a penny of it because of the outcome. On the other hand, money must be best used and should not be wasted. One might ask whether this situation will arise again, and God forbid that it should. However, another young girl was murdered recently in a neighbouring area, and another police inquiry was launched. It is not stretching credibility too far to imagine that we might have to go through the whole process again. This would put a burden not only on the police and their resources, but on the good will of the local population. As I have said, there is tremendous good will towards the family.
  Many people would sensibly say that, if they willingly came forward and offered a sample, and if they were offered the positive choice—with no pressure—of giving their consent to the sample being retained for future use by the police, their wish in that respect should be honoured. When they realised that the samples had to be destroyed, the family wanted to do something about it.
  With the backing of a local newspaper, they launched a petition, which I presented to the House last night. The petition points out the waste of police and public time and
  334
  money if samples are destroyed. The petition calls upon the House of Commons to seek amendment of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—our initial guess at how we might achieve success. I hope that the Minister will advise me whether that is the case, or whether a change in police practice or paperwork—or some other means—could achieve the outcome.
  Indicative of local support for the family and the campaign is the fact that more than 9,000 local residents—principally from the Yate-Chipping Sodbury area, but also from around the country—signed the petition. It is easy to get signatures for a petition about the closure of a local hospital because the issue is simple and easily expressed. This, as will be apparent, is a complex and sensitive issue, and the family have spent days in shopping centres, gathering petitions. They have gone over the matter again and again because they feel passionately that something is wrong.
  I pay tribute to Robert and Gill Smith—Louise's parents—and to the family for the way in which, through dreadful circumstances, they have tried to seek the good and the positive. They have behaved with dignity throughout. Since Louise's death, the family have tried to support and help the police in dealing with the victims of crime. Their experience was that the police were supportive and helpful but that they were inexperienced and did not necessarily know how to handle people who had suffered the death of someone close to them. I pay tribute to what the family have done in trying to turn things to the good and to their efforts in getting up the petition.
  I am grateful to the Minister both for responding to this debate and for his generosity in being willing to see the family briefly later today. I ask him to respond to a heartfelt plea from the family and from me. One small change, whether in practice or in legislation, could mean that police time is not wasted and that maximum use is made of the efforts of volunteers and the general public. It is a matter of common sense that action should be taken.
  1.11 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I want to take this opportunity to extend my sympathy to the parents of Louise Smith, the victim in this tragic case. The facts of the case make a powerful argument for the use of DNA testing, which led to the conviction of the perpetrator of that dreadful crime. The officers responsible for the arrest and the investigation are to be congratulated.
  The way in which the whole community—about 10,000 people, as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said—came together to assist in the initial search is a prime example of the commendable solidarity and community spirit that one would like to be spread more widely, as a sign that each and every one of us takes responsibility for the welfare of others.
  DNA technology is a vital intelligence tool that we want the police to have at their disposal. It is changing the face of criminal investigation in much the same way as fingerprinting did at the turn of the century. The opportunities that it creates for advancing the battle against crime are to be embraced.
  The Forensic Science Service has been operating a national DNA database on behalf of the police since 1995. It currently holds about 490,000 profiles of suspects and

  335
  offenders and 49,000 profiles from crime scene stains. Advances in technology have increased the number of investigations in which DNA plays a part. It can help to reduce the time taken to identify suspects and plays an increasingly important role in subsequent trials.
  The Forensic Science Service has performed a real public service in advancing DNA techniques, making the tests increasingly sensitive to smaller amounts of material. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that, despite the seven or eight weeks that had passed since the body was hidden, it was still possible to take samples that were to prove so helpful in bringing to book the perpetrator of this awful crime. We can now identify an individual's DNA profile from a fleck of dandruff or part of a hair root. We are keen for this investigative tool to be developed and used further.
  The circumstances under which DNA can be taken and the arrangements for the destruction of samples are broadly the same as for fingerprints and are dealt with in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which was amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The database is also registered with the Data Protection Commissioner.
  DNA profiles are retained in a searchable form on the national database only if the suspect is convicted or cautioned for a recordable offence or if action against an individual is on-going. If an individual has been eliminated from an inquiry, the law as it stands requires that a DNA sample must be destroyed; and if the same individual is subsequently involved in another inquiry, samples have to be retaken and another entry made on the national DNA database.
  Mass screening is used only in the most serious unsolved cases. It involves the taking of voluntary samples—skin cells from inside the mouth, or head hair— from a targeted section of the population. The profiles are then compared against a sample from the crime scene to see whether there is any match. If a match occurs, the police are advised, and the donor is asked to provide a blood sample, which is then tested against the crime scene sample, and if that confirms the result of the mass screening sample, the police can pursue their inquiries with a probable suspect.
  There have been 110 mass screenings to date. The mass screening following the murder of Louise Smith was the largest ever undertaken, involving the analysis of more than 4,500 samples, and it resulted in a successful conviction. Mass screenings can result in the identification of a suspect when all other investigative techniques have failed. The advantage is that only a targeted section of the population need be screened—for example, local men in a specific age range—and the innocent can be quickly eliminated, as was the case in the murder of Louise Smith. The samples are put not on the national DNA database but on a dedicated mini-database, established solely for the given inquiry. If the profiles show no match, the samples are destroyed.
  In some circumstances, either because of geographic location or because certain individuals fit the profile of possible suspects in more than one investigation, individuals may be approached a number of times to act as donor volunteers in mass screenings. That is one effect of the safeguards afforded by the current legislation.
  One can well understand why the family of Louise Smith should feel as they do, as the hon. Gentleman said, about the time and expense that could be saved by
  336
  retaining DNA profiles. It is an important issue that is certainly worth exploring, and I welcome the opportunity to do so, but the advantages of retention have to be balanced against proper legal safeguards and wide-ranging concerns, and fundamental civil liberties issues are involved.
  It is important to ensure that any changes do not discourage volunteers from participating in mass screenings. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the importance of that because, if Louise Smith's killer had refused to participate in the screening, the matching of the sample could not have led to his conviction. A dangerous and wicked man was taken out of circulation for a very long time. The Home Office must have the balance very much in mind when considering those issues.
  The voluntary retention of DNA profiles on a separate database is already under consideration in a wider review of the legislation in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 relating to fingerprints and samples to ensure that it reflects recent technological advances. That is something on which I can give the hon. Gentleman some assurance— I think that he was about to raise that matter. We are considering the voluntary retention of DNA profiles, on a separate database, in the context of a wider review of the legislation as it relates to fingerprints and samples.
  The current database is expanding rapidly and was designed to hold up to 5 million profiles. Although PACE enables samples to be taken from anyone suspected, charged or convicted of a recordable offence, the police currently restrict themselves to taking samples only in cases of burglary, sexual or violent offences. That represents the best use of resources by focusing on cases where DNA evidence is most likely to be of value.
  Mr. Webb: The Minister raised an option that I had not thought of—the retention of the samples on a separate database. Can he give some idea of the time scale in which the review of PACE might be concluded?
  Mr. Boateng: The review is under way. We are balancing the issues that I described and, in due course, we shall arrive at conclusions. Our concern is to make available the best and most robust basis for the successful detection and prevention of crime, so we are proceeding with all due expedition—of that, the hon. Gentleman can be sure.
  The establishment of a truly national DNA database for the population as whole raises fundamental questions. There is a strong analogy with fingerprints, which uniquely identify individuals, but we do not require every individual to have their fingerprints on record. One could argue that that would be useful, but we do not do it for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
  Therefore, before we take any step towards establishing a national database, we need to consider carefully the balance of the rights of the individual and its desirability and practicality. Although developments in the technologies required and the ability to search large databases mean that such a database is becoming technically feasible, the concept still raises fundamental questions, such as the balance of individual rights and the cost, which need to be addressed.
  However, the Forensic Science Service is working closely with the police service, to develop a joint strategy with the Association of Chief Police Officers, to realise

  337
  fully the potential of forensic science to support criminal investigation and the detection and reduction of crime. Increasingly sensitive techniques are being developed to allow DNA profiles to be extracted from small crime stains, enhancing the ability of the police to bring criminals to justice. We are committed to taking all steps necessary and making the best use of new technologies to that end.
  This has been a useful debate. It has given the House the opportunity to express its determination to ensure that we develop new technologies in a way that will benefit the police and the detection and reduction of crime. The care and concern that the family of Louise Smith have taken subsequent to her tragic death to be supportive of the police and mindful of the importance of gathering public support behind the steps that need to be taken to develop to the maximum the new technologies are to be commended. They have performed a great service by raising the profile of the issue with the public, not least in collecting the 9,000 signatures to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Ultimately, if there is to be a change in legislation, it will need to be supported by the public. It will also need to be seen to be supportable in terms of the balance of civil liberties and the rights and interests of all concerned and of a sufficiently large number of people volunteering to allow samples to be retained to make it meaningful— as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, were the number to fall below a certain critical mass, the value of the exercise would be destroyed.
  Therefore, it has been enormously valuable that the family of Louise Smith have raised the issue as they have. The hon. Gentleman has also done the House a service in bringing the matter before us. I look forward to meeting the family to express in person my appreciation of what they have done. The case in question highlights the benefits of DNA evidence. It also highlights the importance of using the best and most readily available technologies to that end and the importance of intelligence expertise in the analysis of crime in the hands of our dedicated police service as a way to identify where and how such techniques might be used. The fact that Louise Smith's murderer was brought to justice stands as a tribute to the police and the public.
  We began with Louise's case and it is right that we should end with it. We should all express a determination to ensure that her tragic death and the loss that her family suffered is something from which we can draw lessons to prevent the loss of other lives, with all that that would entail for other families. The House will wish to join me again in expressing my deepest condolences to Louise's family.

  Heathrow
  1.27 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: I start by thanking Madam Speaker—through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—for allowing this Adjournment debate on night flights into Heathrow, which is a subject that is near to the hearts of all those in the Thames valley and perhaps also now to Madam Speaker.
  Two thirds of a million people suffer directly under the flight path from night flights into Heathrow, but I shall choose just one constituent, whose letter reads:
  "I have been living in Putney for the last two years and it is only recently that my husband and I seem to have been woken up at early hours in the morning with the noise of planes. They have become extremely infuriating and indeed very stressful. Over the recent Bank Holiday weekend I was woken up early at 4.20 am by a plane and they seemed to be coming in by the minute. In my sleepy state I made notes of the times they came in. The first was 4.20 am and then a succession at 4.21 am, 4.22 am, 4.30 am, 4.34 am and 4.35 am. I have been woken up many times with these early morning flights in the last two months. Isn't this the time when a person is in their deepest sleep? Perhaps because it has been so hot we have had the windows open wider whereas before it may have been possible we did not hear them as clearly because we had the windows closed. What are we expected to do—not breathe? What I would like to know is where in the world are planes allowed to fly over residential areas from 4.00 am onwards? I would greatly appreciate an answer to this question.
  I am rather ignorant at this stage as to who the Chairman of the BAA actually is or the parties involved. I wonder if you could provide their names and addresses. I would like to go and park my car outside their homes at 4.00 am every morning, and blow my horn. I wonder how they might feel?"
  I am not suggesting that my constituents should do that, but it shows the strength of feeling of law-abiding citizens.
  The second stage of the Government consultation has just closed and the timing of this debate is to ensure that the Minister has a chance to hear what is being said unanimously by the people and their Members of Parliament who live in the afflicted area: "No more night flights."
  The first stages of the consultation clearly emphasised that view. Only the airline industry wants the status quo— or worse. As a representative of the people of the Thames valley, I must ask the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to represent the people, not the industry. The curfew requested by HACAN of 11.30 pm to 6 am seems eminently sensible, and I proposed it in my Adjournment debate of 28 October 1997.
  The second stage consultation document of November 1998 asked for ways to deal specifically with noise from Heathrow night flights. Regrettably, its proposals would merely share the noise around the area. However, for my constituents' sake, I must back the idea of moving towards an easterly preference for landing. That would mean landing from over Windsor and to the south of Windsor wherever possible. I propose that runway alternation should be used to share the noise damage further.
  The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) established in his Adjournment debate on 24 July 1998 that the Cranford agreement does not exist, and that the northern runway can be used as well as the southern one. I understand that BAA has no problem with the easterly preference or with runway alternation. A decision on that rests, of course, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London.

  339
  I suggest that alternation should cease between 6 am and 7 am to allow both runways to be used to take flights arriving after the curfew from 11.30 am to 6 am that I have also suggested. The hon. Member for Windsor argued in his Adjournment debate for retention of the status quo, which would protect his constituents and the people of east Berkshire. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who cannot be here today, has asked me to make it clear that she, too, supports the status quo.
  I must point out, however, that 580,000 people suffer from the westerly preference because they live directly under the approach path, and much larger numbers are also affected. Some 64,000 suffer from the easterly preference. Those figures come from the House of Commons Library. Clearly, my suggested changes would share the damage more equitably.
  However, part one of the consultation document and its appendices contain the crucial argument for why night flights must continue. It is the economic argument that if flights were banned, they would go elsewhere in Europe. The pre-eminence of Heathrow—the busiest airport in Europe—would be undermined, and there could be job losses.
  My hon. Friend the Minister made that case in her responses both to me in 1997 and to the hon. Member for Windsor in 1998. The airlines do not want to change their schedules. However, another Putney resident wrote to me:
  "British Airways has four flights from the Far East landing between 04.55 and 05.35. I know from my own experience that these overnight flights are very convenient and that later landings would require take-offs well after midnight in the Far East. This should not be a problem with the new Hong Kong airport or Australasian flights refuelling there. These early morning landings should only be allowed into Stansted, thus stimulating connecting flights from there."
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one argument advanced by the airlines for early morning arrivals is the lack of terminal space a little later in the morning, which makes it difficult to unload large aircraft that arrive after 6 am? Does he agree that if terminal 5 went ahead, one of the major arguments offered by the airlines to support continuing early morning arrivals would disappear?
  Mr. Colman: I am interested in that point, which I have not heard before. When I returned recently from the United States on an early morning flight, I was put on an isolated stand and bussed back to the terminal, so I do not believe that that is a problem. More isolated stands could be used after 6 am.
  My constituent's letter continues:
  "British Airways also has five flights from the eastern USA landing between 05.35 and 07.00. Flights from New York are scheduled at 7 hours. From my experience"—
  and from my own—
  "of flying this route, the jetstream can reduce this to as little as 5 hours, making the landing times even earlier. Later evening flights out of the East Coast"—
  from, say, 9 pm onwards—
  "would be advantageous to passengers in avoiding rush hour traffic, take-off congestion and a more natural time to go to sleep."
  Clearly there are answers to the problem of re-scheduling night flights, if the airlines wish to apply them.
  340
  Appendix E of the consultation document notes the night restrictions at foreign airports, and that seems to be the nub of the economic argument. If Heathrow closes at night, and if there is no ban on night flights into Paris Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schipol or Frankfurt-am-Main—as at present—Heathrow will lose out. The argument is, therefore, that Heathrow must have its night flights.
  May I ask the Government to take up the matter with our European Union partners at the next intergovernmental meeting, and to seek a ban on night flights across Europe? I cannot believe that that is impossible to achieve. We are truly in a zero-sum game: if no European airport will accept flights during the night, no single airport will suffer. I note from appendix E that Tokyo Narita airport and Sydney airport close to all traffic through the night from 11 pm to 6 am. It can be done.
  I pray in aid two further points. First, as long ago as 1995, the European Parliament in resolution A4–0012/95, section 5b, called for
  "harmonisation and strengthening of legislation governing aircraft noise in areas adjacent to airports, including legislation on night flights."
  Secondly, the draft manifesto for the European elections of the Party of European Socialists was agreed in Milan last week, and commitment 11—"Ensuring a Health Environment"—states that
  "pollution does not respect national boundaries. We can only deliver a sound environment if we work together to raise common standards."
  I appreciate that change will take time, so I have various suggestions for action while we await a pan-European ban as the outcome of the second consultation. First, I suggest an immediate ban on night flights from 11.30 pm to 4 am to reflect current unspoken practice, and to establish a principle in favour of a ban using the powers of my hon. Friend the Minister under section 78(3)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
  Secondly, I suggest a change in the time period for all other restrictions, to run from October 1999 to October 2000—not October 2004—to enable time for a European night flight ban to be agreed by the new European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Thirdly, I suggest that the night-time ban could come into effect across Europe—including Heathrow—in October 2000. It would be a fitting symbol of the millennium, putting people ahead of a spurious zero-sum game of economic interests.
  I commend my proposals to the Minister. I do not expect an immediate reply, but I hope that they may provide a basis for the decision that the Government will take on the future of night flights into Heathrow.
  1.39 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate on an important issue that has occupied this House on two recent occasions—on 24 July last year in a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend), who is in his place, and before that on 28 October 1997, in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney when we considered day-time and night-time noise.
  The main issue at night is of course interference with sleep and the distress and annoyance that can cause, which is a problem not only for the constituents of my

  341
  hon. Friend the Member for Putney, but for thousands of people who live around Heathrow and under its principal flight paths. Heathrow, of course, is not unique in that respect. My hon. Friend referred to the Government's two-stage consultation on future night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. Our aim has been to make consultation as open and accessible as possible, and for that reason we decided to proceed in two stages.
  The preliminary consultation paper issued in February last year sought views on all aspects of the present regime introduced in 1993, including the underlying principles. After careful consideration of all the responses, on 10 September last year I decided that the movement limits and noise quotas for the three airports for summer 1999 should be the same as they were for summer 1998. In November we issued a second consultation paper inviting comments on the Government's proposals for future restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, to ran from 31 October 1999 for five years until the end of the summer season in 2004.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, the second consultation paper also considers a range of options for changes to the preferential use of Heathrow's runways at night, which follows up on the trials of night-time runway alternation. The Government have not reached any view on the many options outlined in the second consultation paper, but we believe it right that those issues should be examined thoroughly before any decision is made.
  The closing date for the second consultation paper was 12 February 1999, and the process of logging the many responses and studying them is under way. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and the House will understand that I cannot comment today on the responses we have received or on the decisions we may reach in the light of them.
  Night flights have never been banned at Heathrow. Restrictions were introduced in 1962 in recognition of the disturbance caused to local people by the first generation of jet aircraft. Those very noisy aircraft have long since been banned from United Kingdom and other European airports and the process of phasing out the second generation of jets certificated to ICAO Chapter 2 standards is well under way and will be complete by the end of March 2002. In setting restrictions on night flights, successive Governments have sought to strike a balance between the impact such flights can have on people living around airports and the need for airlines to operate services at night, taking account of the user and the economic benefits they bring.
  Mr. Hammond: I recognise the Minister's arguments about the economic benefits of night flights, but may I suggest a way in which we might reduce the problem a little without any serious economic impact? The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) mentioned the earlier than scheduled arrival of flights, especially from the USA, as one of the problems that contributes to early morning disturbance. I understand that flights arriving early are required by Civil Aviation Authority regulations to land immediately. The airline does not have the option of holding that flight away from the airport so that it lands
  342
  at the scheduled time which is, after all, the time that the passengers expect to arrive. It does them no good to be dumped on the ground up to two hours early.
  Will the Minister consult the CAA to see whether it is possible to change the guidance so that early arriving aircraft could be held, perhaps over the Bay of Biscay or somewhere convenient, so that they arrive after the curfew deadline and do not contribute to the noise nuisance?
  Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting proposal. As a nervous flier, the idea of going round and round the Bay of Biscay for two hours before my aeroplane was allowed to land at Heathrow, after a long international flight, fills me with horror. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's request, but his proposal could lead to gross unfairness. Many aircraft arrive early due to conditions over which no one has any control—not least the winds—and that could cause difficulties.
  Mr. Colman: The concept of planes circling over the Bay of Biscay also fills me with horror, but my hon. Friend the Minister might wish to consider a slightly different proposal. When flight plans are logged at, for example, Kennedy airport in New York, and they show that the flight will take five hours, not seven hours, the plane could be held on the ground for two hours to ensure that it makes the time at which it is due to arrive. That could perhaps be achieved through co-operation.
  Ms Jackson: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, I have no jurisdiction over the flight plans at Kennedy airport. The USA is an independent, sovereign state. I can examine the issue, but I have no jurisdiction in the area.
  The present restrictions specify a night period, 11 pm to 7 am, during which time the noisiest aircraft may not be scheduled to land or take off. In addition, from 11.30 pm to 6 am, the night quota period, aircraft movements are restricted by a movements limit and a noise quota. The noise quota is a supplementary measure designed to encourage the use of quieter aircraft. Aircraft count against the noise quota according to their quota count— or QC—classification, with the noisier the aircraft, the higher its QC. The movements limits and noise quotas are set for the season as a whole: they are not sub-divided across the hours of the night or between types of services, and airlines may operate services as they wish within the limits and quota available.
  The Government's main objectives in carrying out the current review of the night restrictions are, first, to strike a balance between the need to protect local communities from excessive aircraft noise levels at night and to provide for air services to operate at night where they benefit the local, regional and national economy.
  We recognise that local environmental expectations may be changing, as may the commercial interests of the airlines. Our second objective is to take account of the competitive factors affecting UK airports and airlines. Our third objective is to take account of the research into the relationship between aircraft noise and interference with sleep, including any health effects, and the fourth is to safeguard improvements in the noise climate in the night quota period since 1993, which we are proposing to do by reducing the noise quotas to nearer the level of current usage. The fifth objective is to encourage the use of quieter aircraft at night, and the sixth is to put in place at

  343
  Heathrow and Gatwick arrangements which will bring about further improvements in the night noise climate around the airports over time.
  In pursuing the last two objectives, it has not been possible in the Government's proposals for Heathrow to make as much progress as we would have wished. Most aircraft using Heathrow are already modern types with many years of service ahead of them and, of course, there are tight constraints on runway and terminal capacity at the south-east airports.
  It is not possible in the time available to cover all aspects of the Government's many and detailed proposals contained in the second stage consultation paper. However, among the main ones relating to Heathrow are proposals to maintain the QC system and seasonal movement limits supplemented by noise quotas; to reduce the seasonal noise quotas for Heathrow to nearer the level of current usage in order to safeguard the improvements in the noise climate in the night quota period since 1993; subject to the proposed review of the QC system, to ban aircraft classified QC4 from being scheduled to land or take off during the night quota period from the start of the 2002 summer season; to extend the restrictions on very noisy aircraft classified as QC8 to match those already in place for the noisiest types classified as QC16; and to reduce end-of-season flexibility by half. However, it is not proposed to introduce a complete ban on night flights as that would fail in our objective of striking a balance.
  Aircraft noise at night and during the day remains a contentious subject. We freely acknowledge that. Unfortunately, despite the great improvements made over the past 30 years, it is likely to remain so. I announced on 27 February last year that we are commissioning a research trial into the impact of aircraft noise at night. We are particularly interested in the scope for research into sleep prevention: that is, delay in getting to sleep at night and the difficulties of not being able to get back to sleep after being awakened in the early morning—a problem mentioned by my hon. Friend as being the experience of his constituents. However, we should not underestimate the complexities of such research, or the length of time it may take.
  The difficulties of scheduling intercontinental services is a significant factor in the present pattern of early morning arrivals at Heathrow. The night curfew at Hong Kong's former airport Kai Tak was often said to contribute to that, but it was far from being the only or the most important reason. We do not expect the pattern of movements to change radically now that Hong Kong's new airport at Chek Lap Kok has opened. Such services and similar ones cross many time zones, which limits their scheduling window for making suitable connections with other services. In addition, many services are now able to complete their journey non-stop owing to technological improvements and shorter routings, which means that they arrive earlier. There are now few departures from Heathrow during the night quota period, but some that take off just before our restrictions begin land at sensitive times at other international airports as a result.
  In his own inimitable way, my hon. Friend referred to the fact that other comparable European airports have tougher night restrictions, but that is usually not the case at European countries' principal international airports— indeed, most have less severe restrictions and few have any restrictions at all on the number of chapter 3 aircraft
  344
  that may operate at night, as we have at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. In addition, most European cities are one hour ahead of London—an advantage that might go some way to explain why there is little interest in Europe in establishing common standards for night restrictions. In respect of my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion regarding the European Parliament, it is unlikely that an agreement of that sort could be achieved in less than 12 months.
  My hon. Friend focused on aircraft landing at Heathrow in the early morning, from 4 am onwards and sometimes earlier. That is understandable, given that such flights now constitute the substantial majority of night flights at Heathrow. They fly over Putney and neighbouring areas when the wind is from the west, and over Windsor and adjoining areas when the wind is from the east. Internationally agreed standards and safe operating practice require that landing aircraft follow a stable straight-in descent aligned with the runway, which precludes dispersal of noise once aircraft are established on the airport's instrument landing system, normally at a distance of between 8 and 16 nautical miles and between 10 and 20 nautical miles at night.
  My hon. Friend is aware of and referred to the trial of runway alternation at night for landing aircraft carried out by BAA for the Heathrow airport consultative committee. The results were summarised in our second consultation paper. The survey of local opinion organised by HACC indicated that there was a balance of opinion in favour of the procedure's introduction on a continuous basis. The Government have invited further views from the wider area likely to be affected, and opinions on some of the practical difficulties of applying it during the hour from 6 am to 7 am.
  We have also asked for views on the operation of the 5-knot westerly preference at night, which has caused concern for people living to the west of Heathrow. Westerly preference is a noise amelioration procedure introduced in the 1960s to reduce the number of aircraft taking off over the more densely populated areas to the east of the airport. It is generally recognised to be an effective noise amelioration measure during the day, but because the pattern of night flights has changed since the 1960s and there are seldom take-offs between 11.30 pm and 6 am, but more landings between 4 am and 6 am, maintaining the procedure at night might now be having the opposite effect of increasing overflight of the most densely populated areas east of the airport.
  The Government consider it necessary to review the use of that procedure at night, as well as the related issue of night-time runway alternation. However, the Government have not formed any view on the matter; at this stage, we do not favour any one option over another, including the status quo. All responses will be taken into account, including views on which options would provide the greatest benefits overall, which would provide the greatest improvements over the current arrangements, and what would be fair and equitable, taking account of operations during the day as well as at night.
  Mr. Michael Trend: The Minister speaks of possible improvements. I listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who spoke well on behalf of his constituents. Governments have the power to inflict misery on or bring benefits to the people of this country, but this is not a simple numbers game, or a question of west London versus east Berkshire.

  345
  Benefits might accrue from any change in the night flight regime, but they would be far outweighed in the balance by the certain misery that would be visited on the people of east Berkshire. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I remain implacably opposed to any change whatsoever. Because the people of east Berkshire have always had the worst of the take-offs, now that the balance has changed it would be wrong to change the balance of misery and benefit between the two communities. The effect on us would be so much worse and far outweigh any possible benefit that might be achieved in west London.
  Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman makes the argument on behalf of his constituents—a duty which he has fulfilled with persistence and dedication. I congratulate him on that, but I am sure that he accepts that it would be totally improper for any Government to enter into a wide-ranging consultation process on the issues before us, but to fail to take into consideration the responses to that consultation document. We shall fairly and intensively scrutinise all the responses we received.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Putney referred to the commercial aspects of the area we are debating. It is undoubtedly true that Heathrow airport is a major national asset. It occupies a position of central importance in international trade and communications in Europe and in the UK economy. It is the busiest airport in Europe and
  346
  the busiest international airport in the world: in 1998, it handled 60 million passengers, 35 per cent. of whom used the airport as an interchange point. It is currently used by more than 90 airlines serving 200 destinations world wide; and it is the UK's largest port in terms of value of trade handled. It provides 57,000 jobs directly and a further 25,000 indirectly in support services; those jobs benefit all those who live around the airport and contribute to the prosperity of the country as a whole.
  People living near Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted want to enjoy reasonably quiet nights. Successive Governments have consistently recognised the need to ensure that people living near those airports are not exposed to excessive numbers of aircraft at night. The current Government also recognise that need, believing it both right and necessary to set restrictions on night flights at those airports and, in so doing, preserve a balance between environmental, aviation and economic interests while taking account of changes in public expectations and in the commercial needs of airlines.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and all those who have participated in the debate for giving the House the opportunity this afternoon to consider the issues and, in conjunction with all the responses we have received to the consultation, helping the Government to reach decisions on those difficult and complex issues.
  It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o 'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Education Projects
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What percentage of resources her Department targeted on educational projects in the last year for which figures are available. [73829]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): One of the key international poverty eradication targets is to secure primary education for all children in the world by 2015. Education is therefore of crucial importance in the work of our Department. In 1997, we spent 11 per cent. of our bilateral programme on education. Our contributions to the European Community and other multilateral organisations also supported their education programmes. We will publish an education policy paper later this year.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will recognise that basic education plays a crucial role in ending the cycle of poverty. He will also recall that a world conference in Thailand nine years ago set a target of achieving basic education for all the children of the world within 10 years. Yet 125 million children of primary school age do not currently receive any education. Does my hon. Friend think that other Governments share our belief that we should do much more to try to end the cycle of poverty and get children educated?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that the targets were agreed internationally at United Nations conferences, and some Governments, such as ours, have signed up to them. As we set out in our White Paper, the Government have adopted those targets within our programme and we are encouraging not just other Governments but international organisations to sign up to them in an attempt to achieve universal primary education by 2015.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Are the Minister and the Secretary of State aware that this week's Comic Relief campaign supports education projects in Uganda and Kenya that are delivering primary education to girls— in particular, in Uganda and to the nomadic peoples of Kenya? Will they consider joining hon. Members on College green at 3.45 pm this afternoon for the Comic Relief parliamentary red nose day photo call?
    Mr. Foulkes: Some people have suggested to me that I do not need an artificial red nose. I had the pleasure of chairing a meeting this morning at which Tony Robinson was a participant. We strongly support the work of Comic Relief. The Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have met organisers on several occasions, and we are grateful for the way in which they highlight the kind of work in which we are involved. Uganda is one of our biggest programmes: we have committed £67 million to education in that country. We therefore agree with everything that the hon. Lady has said.

    Debt Relief
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If she will make a statement about the development of anti-poverty programmes in poor countries arising from the availability of resources from international debt relief. [73830]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Debt relief provided under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative has substantially reduced the debt owed by poor countries. However, because only a small proportion of the debt was being serviced previously, there has been comparatively little effect on Government budgets—particularly on the ability to spend on anti-poverty programmes.
    Faster and deeper debt relief is required to tackle poverty effectively. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have proposed increasing the level of debt cancellation to $50 billion by 2000 and ensuring that the money released from debt service payments is used for poverty reduction purposes. We will seek support for those proposals at the International Monetary Fund-World bank meeting in April and at the G8 summit in June.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very positive reply. In that connection, will it be possible to take on programmes such as the Uganda poverty action programme and give further concessions to heavily indebted countries that can show that 85 per cent. or more of their debt relief will be used for poverty reduction programmes? That would allow other targets, such as reducing absolute poverty by half and infant mortality by two-thirds, to be accomplished by 2015.
    Clare Short: I absolutely share my hon. Friend's objective. Uganda was the first country to receive debt relief under the HIPC initiative and had a considerable write-down of debt, but because the formula is based on the ratio of export earnings to debt and because coffee prices fell, the country is no better off. Although the debt relief helps Uganda's commercial reputation, it has not helped the Government to spend on poverty. The review that we agreed with the IMF and the World bank will try to sharpen the connection to poverty programmes and provide deeper debt relief if there will be a benefit to those programmes, which is what my hon. Friend is asking.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I very much commend and support the Government's initiatives, which follow those of the previous Government, in trying to tackle debt in the poorest countries. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that one problem is that much of the debt is serviced by financial institutions which, in turn, have creditors, and that that must be sorted out? Even if that problem is solved, it would, to a certain degree, dissuade creditors from supporting anti-poverty programmes in future.
    Clare Short: There are some 40 countries in the HIPC initiative for the very poorest countries. Their present debt is not commercial: if they ever had commercial debt, it has been written off because banks do not want to carry non-performing debt for a long time. Their debt includes debt to export credit agencies of Governments, and in countries other than our own, aid debt—we have already

    349
    written off all ours—and debt to the World bank and the IMF. In the past, the World bank and the IMF never wrote off debt; this is the first time, which is why they are determined—and we agree—that it should be done responsibly so that Governments do not take on new wasteful contracts and get into a mess again.
    The Paris Club deals with the export credit debt, and has in the past agreed to write off up to 67 per cent. of that, often for commercial reasons so that new contracts can be made. Under HIPC, that write-off increases to 80 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's point is important because sometimes the aim of debt relief is to get new contracts. That will not help the poor. We want to manage debt relief so that it is conditional on Governments spending the proceeds on better programmes for the poor.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: If she will take steps to require that debt relief for developing countries is conditional on (a) respect for human rights, (b) promotion of democracy and (c) a reduction of expenditure on weapons. [73831]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative is conditional on the countries adhering to a reform programme agreed with the International Monetary Fund. We have been working since May 1997 to ensure that IMF programmes in developing countries focus more clearly on poverty reduction and defence expenditure at an appropriate scale. The current review of HIPC, which we got agreed at the previous World bank and IMF meeting, encourages more respect for the human rights of the poor. Democratic and accountable government is essential for the promotion of development.
    Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. She answered my question to my complete satisfaction, so with your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall sit down.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Sadly, I cannot do the same, but I support the Secretary of State's recent comments on debt relief and congratulate her on those. Does she agree that Nigeria, which is home to one fifth of all black Africans, has a crippling debt burden of roughly $30 billion and has taken huge strides towards democracy in the past six months, is now a high priority for urgent and substantial debt relief by the donor community?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the changes in Nigeria are fantastically good news and will allow it to re-enter the democratic community. It faces very great problems. The growth of poverty means that Nigeria—which should, with all its oil wealth, be a wealthy country—probably has a GDP of only $200 a head, so it is a very poor country. It is massively indebted and does not even know at present how much its debt is. We are providing support to help Nigeria to work out how much debt it has. The whole international community will then have to try to help Nigeria to have good-quality Government and to squeeze corruption, which is terribly bad, out of the system. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have to help Nigeria, but we cannot provide unconditional debt relief. That must be part of the reform process that helps the poor and deals with corruption.
    Mr. Streeter: I agree with much of what the Secretary of State said, but may I urge her to go further?
    350
    If President-elect Obasanjo does commit himself to anti-corruption measures and good governance, does the Secretary of State agree that because of our historic links with Nigeria, we have a vital role to play in pressing the case for multilateral debt relief in the international community? Will she undertake to play a leadership role, so that when the new Government take over in May, 120 million Nigerians can be given a fresh start and a new chance?
    Clare Short: I said that I agreed with the hon. Gentleman that we must help Nigeria, but it would not help the people of Nigeria if debt relief were given too easily, without the proper reforms and without dealing with corruption. The problem of corruption in Nigeria is very bad. It is entrenched throughout the system. We must help the best forces in Nigeria to reform the country so that it gets efficient governance. Debt relief will be part of that, but it must be conditional on progress in dealing with corruption.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend considered the problem that arose during the period of the Tory Government, when debt relief resulted in the top four clearing banks—NatWest, Lloyds, Barclays and the Midland—getting about £5 billion to set off against so-called irrecoverable debts? We all support the idea of debt relief. Can she do it without lining the pockets of those at the top four clearing banks?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend makes his own point. I know that in the past he has spoken expertly on debt relief in the context of the commercial banks. The World bank and the IMF are public institutions, not private ones. Export credit guarantees are Government insurance for private sector contracts. Sometimes the private sector unwisely pushes contracts on Governments which they cannot afford, and the public sector ends up bailing out. When we deal with debt relief to get countries going again, we should look at what kind of projects are getting export credit guarantees, and make sure that things are done more sensibly.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: The conditions that have been mentioned are important, but is it not also important that there should not be double standards? For example, is it not the case that the United Kingdom exports significant quantities of arms to Turkey, and that a large part of those arms are used in the terrible repression of the Kurds? Does not Turkey have an appalling record on human rights? Should not the standards that the Secretary of State mentioned apply equally everywhere, in developing as well as in developed countries?
    Clare Short: We do not have a development programme in Turkey, so I have no part in objecting to arms licences for Turkey. The hon. Gentleman may be right; he may be wrong. I do not know whether Britain is selling large-scale arms to Turkey. We need to get international agreement to more stringent rules for arms sales, and be much tougher on sales to developing countries that cannot afford large-scale arms purchases. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I am sorry, I have no detailed knowledge of Turkey.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Robert Syms: If she will make a statement on the future of the assistance programme for Zimbabwe. [73832]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are reviewing all our bilateral programmes in order to implement our White Paper priorities. For the first time, the Government are publishing these programmes, following a period of consultation. Our country strategy paper for Zimbabwe will be published shortly. The strategy will focus on reducing poverty in Zimbabwe which, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, is increasing desperately. Copies of the Zimbabwe paper, like all our country strategies, will be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Syms: Does not the Secretary of State consider Robert Mugabe's attempts to take over some of the most productive land and farms in Zimbabwe to be economically damaging and a form of political bullying, and not very new Labour either? Should we not consider shifting our aid to countries in Africa that are pursuing more sensible economic policies?
    Clare Short: We have discussed the matter in the House on a number of occasions. I have always made it clear that we are extremely worried by many of the things that are taking place in Zimbabwe and many of the Government's actions. However, we do not consider it right to close down programmes that bring direct benefits to poor people in Zimbabwe because the Government's behaviour is undesirable.
    We believe, as does the farmers association in Zimbabwe, that there is a strong case for land redistribution, but it must be done properly and transparently, so that poor farmers get a chance to farm and their children can go to school, and the land should not be redistributed to those who find favour with the Government. We and other donors have joined together and said that we will not support any land redistribution unless it is done properly and transparently, in a way that will bring benefits to the poor.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever repugnance we may feel about Robert Mugabe's regime, with its unnecessary war, its human rights record and its treatment of its own people, it is none the less right for the international community to recognise humanitarian problems, such as infant mortality, child malnutrition and the need for fresh water? Does she further agree that the people of Zimbabwe should not be punished for the folly of then-own leadership?
    Clare Short: I agree with my right hon. Friend, who draws attention to a constant dilemma in our development work: we want good Governments to work with, but what do we do when some of the poorest and most oppressed people of the world are living under bad Governments? We cannot turn our back on them. We have to try to find ways of bringing some relief and change in their country so that they get good government. Zimbabwe is a highly educated country with great natural resources and there is no reason why it should not be doing very well
    352
    economically, so some of the recent failures of governance are a great tragedy. I refer in particular to the fact that one in four adults in Zimbabwe has HIV: the 20-year gain in life expectancy brought by development has been wiped out by the decimation brought by HIV.
    Mr. John Bercow: I respect the right hon. Lady's humanitarian motives and I accept the importance of trying to protect that aid which is directly related to the relief of poverty and hardship, but does she accept that it is important to identify a specific mechanism by which that anti-democratic Government can be punished, at a time when it is pursuing an irresponsible and adventurous foreign policy and when people in the capital are rioting against corruption and incompetence? Can she identify a specific mechanism to punish the President, not the people?
    Clare Short: That problem arises in Zimbabwe and many other countries. The hon. Gentleman is right that, in the past, too much aid went unconditionally to Governments who were not interested in reform. Such money is simply wasted and does not benefit the poor. Therefore, in all our programmes, we want to back reforming Governments. Where there is no reforming Government we look for ways in which to bring some assistance to the neediest people, but there will be no major development in such a country. We try to use our influence in that way throughout the world. But, wherever possible, we try to encourage Governments to be reformers, not just to put ourselves in a comfortable position, but to try to achieve change that will bring benefits to the people.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What assistance she will provide to the five central European, first-wave, EU applicant states in the period between the reduction of the know-how funding provided to them and their accession to full membership of the EU. [73833]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We shall continue to provide substantial support for the states that are seeking membership of the EU, principally through multilateral channels, particularly the European Union. From 2000, EU funds to support accession will total more than £2 billion per year. The British share of that will be approximately £300 million.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I welcome what my hon. Friend says, but my question concerned the know-how fund, which is moving eastward. I urge my hon. Friend to reconsider the position because the know-how fund is a gilt-edged investment for the UK in terms of good will. In addition, the UK can make a unique contribution to those countries seeking to achieve the acquis in time for their accession to the EU, but only through the know-how fund.
    Mr. Foulkes: I suppose that it would have been a bit optimistic of me to think that my hon. Friend would follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
    We recognise that we can provide a great deal though the know-how fund, but substantial sums can and should be provided from the EU, through PHARE—Poland and

    353
    Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy—the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European investment bank. From next year, an extra £1 billion will be available through the pre-accession instrument for structural policy and the special accession programme for agricultural and rural development— typical EU titles, I am afraid. Therefore, substantial sums are going. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise, further to earlier questions, that it is vital to achieve the targets for poverty eradication by 2015, and we must not take our eye off that important target.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister knows that there is no danger of my following the example of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
    The Minister will agree that it is becoming apparent that the successful accession of the central European applicant states requires even more assistance than was at first envisaged. The average wage in the United Kingdom is seven to 10 times more than that in the five first-wave countries, so does he agree that there is potential for vast economic migration? Despite his announcement of £2 billion-worth of substantial support, what specific proposals has he to reduce that gap and the poverty levels in the five former communist countries? We must ensure the success of enlargement, which hon. Members in all parts of the House want to achieve.
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady would be the first to recognise that Britain has made an acknowledged contribution to supporting transition. It is remarkable that, partly with our help, five countries that were communist only a decade ago are negotiating to join the European Union. That is a tremendous step forward. Our policy is to support those countries, particularly those experiencing the social effects of transition, which can be very difficult, especially in relation to unemployment. We are moving our support in that direction to ensure that they are ready to become full members of the European Union.

    EU Development Aid
    Mr. John Wilkinson: When she last met the EU Commissioner for overseas development aid to discuss the priorities of the EU development aid programme. [73834]
    Mr. James Gray: What steps she will take to ensure value for money in the EU aid budget. [73837]
    Mr. Tom Levitt: What action her Department is taking to ensure that a greater proportion of EU development assistance is allocated to the least developed countries. [73841]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I met Commissioner Pinheiro at a ministerial meeting in Dakar on 8 and 9 February to discuss successor arrangements to the Lomé convention. I had wider discussions on the EU's development efforts—including value for money and redirecting resources to the poorest countries—with Commissioners Pinheiro and Bonino and my EU colleagues at the Development Council in November.
    354
    I gave them a clear chart showing how distorted current spending is. I expect to see most of them again in Berlin next week. I am doing everything in my power at all such meetings to achieve a commitment to more effective EU development programmes that are focused much more on the poorest countries.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Did the right hon. Lady give Commissioner Pinheiro a copy of the first report of the Select Committee on International Development on the future of the EC development budget? The report states quite clearly that
    "the Commission has no intention of allowing 'the war against poverty to figure among the top priorities of international relations.'"
    Is it not disgraceful that the European Union should be the vehicle for so much of our external assistance when it disburses only 41 per cent. of the external assistance programme to the poorest countries, whereas the United Kingdom disburses no less than 70 per cent? Therefore should we not, for the financial perspective 2000–2006, say to the European Union, "We will do it ourselves and make sure that the poorest countries benefit."?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman almost completely. The Select Committee report was excellent, and I did not have to take it to Commissioner Pinheiro. He knew that it was coming and had already obtained a copy, and was somewhat sensitive to the criticism, which shows that the report is a valuable piece of work. I also agree that the skew of EU programmes against the poorest countries is an absolute scandal and a disgrace. I do not want just to blame the previous Administration, but I think they could have done more, and we are trying to achieve some reform.
    I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should impose on the next settlement conditions that try to achieve much better programmes. It is worth allowing the EU to have development programmes, because no country can work in every country, but we need a big improvement in performance. The current situation is completely unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Gray: For a second or two I was encouraged by the fact that the Secretary of State seemed to agree with my hon. Friend about how important it is that the United Kingdom should decide how the £700 million is spent, but I was rather disappointed by the second half of her answer. Is she not worried about the strength of criticism, from the non-governmental organisations in particular, about the fraud and corruption, the mis-spending and the EU bureaucracy which are bogging down British taxpayers' money? That money is not getting through to the poorest people in the world.
    Clare Short: I am not worried by the strength of NGO criticism; I am trying to get the NGOs to voice their criticisms more loudly. I am doing my best to encourage British NGOs to work with NGOs throughout the European Union to achieve a united and stronger voice of critical public opinion across the EU, and to achieve an improvement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the

    355
    current situation is not good enough. We need much louder demands in all our Parliaments and from our publics for an improvement, which could easily be made if there was enough will to achieve one.
    Mr. Levitt: My right hon. Friend has given us a helpful answer in respect of the Council of Ministers. Will she now build on that, and tell us what contact she has had with Members of the European Parliament with the aim of focusing EU aid more effectively on the poorest countries?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The European Parliament now has a much greater say in the budget. We have been working hard to make allies not only in non-governmental organisations across Europe, but in the Parliament. We want much stronger pressure to be applied to the Parliament for an improvement in programmes.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visited the Parliament a couple of months ago, and I have visited it twice. I have also paid a visit to the Development and Co-operation Committee. We are working hard at finding allies in order to secure improvements.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that she is doing to aid poorer countries overseas. In the context of the negotiations with the European Commissioner, however, will she have regard to the work of the Council of Churches in the United Kingdom, which is also working hard to help people in those poorer countries, with health and education in particular?
    Clare Short: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are working a good deal with the Churches, both in the debt campaign and in the attempt to initiate a worldwide Churches campaign demanding that the Governments concerned meet the international poverty eradication targets subscribed to—in theory—by all countries.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that the Churches do great work, but there is more that we can do together.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the Secretary of State agree that trade must happen along with aid, so that people in third-world countries can help themselves? Will she join me in trying to persuade the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that President Clinton should in turn be persuaded to call off the war against the small countries of the eastern Caribbean over the banana trade?
    Clare Short: I agree: the developing countries must escape from the need for aid through the ability to trade, to build up their economies and to stand on their own two feet. The more chances that we can provide for them to do that, the better.
    I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that the conflict over bananas is very serious and worrying. The banana trade, so important to fragile Caribbean economies, is at stake; but so is a rules-based system for international trade. If we lost that system and slid back into protectionism, the whole world would pay a huge price.

    Maternal Mortality
    Barbara Follett: What measures her Department is taking to help reduce maternal mortality in the developing world. [73835]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Pregnancy remains a life-threatening condition for millions of women in poor countries. The injury and loss of life is a tragedy for the women concerned, and usually results in desperate poverty for their children. It will be very tough to meet the internationally agreed target of reducing maternal mortality by 75 per cent. by 2015. We are working to reduce maternal death and injury in our programmes in around 20 countries; we are also collaborating with the World Health Organisation, the World bank and other United Nations agencies to strengthen the international effort.
    Barbara Follett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United States is currently unable to meet its obligations to the United Nations because of internal resistance to UN family planning programmes? The equivalent of four jumbo jet loads of women are dying from pregnancy-related causes in the developing world every day of every year. Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to break the deadlock?
    Clare Short: It is certainly worrying that the greatest power in the world is not paying its dues to the UN system, at a time of globalisation when we need a stronger and more effective United Nations. As my hon. Friend will know, President Clinton has tried to persuade Congress to pay those dues. I feel that we must do all in our power to back him, because we need the UN backed by the United States of America.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in many of the countries that we are discussing, a number of the threats to maternal health stem from religious and cultural taboos? Will she assure me that her Department is working with theologians throughout the world—especially Islamic theologians—to ensure that the Koran, which is actually a very women-friendly gospel, is interpreted as such in many countries where the oppression of women causes a good deal of maternal mortality?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that nothing in the teaching of Islam says that women should be second-class citizens, or justifies anything like female genital mutilation. There is no question about that; all Islamic scholars will tell us that.
    The problems of women throughout the world are the result not only of prejudice under Islam—often, there is simply neglect in basic health services—but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are challenging all such prejudice, including that of some of the fundamentalist Churches in the United States, which call themselves Christian. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [73859] Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Robertson: Given the Prime Minister's motion to the House on 3 February stating that the Government had a commitment to protect the green belt and open countryside, and to increase the number of houses that were built on brown-field land, does he still support that policy? If so, given that my constituency of Tewkesbury has few brown-field sites, can he tell me why his own inspector proposes in his report that a disproportionate number of houses be built in Tewkesbury, and that thousands of houses be built on the green belt, on green fields and in the open countryside? Is that not yet another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another, just as in yesterday's Budget?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman did not decide to raise the Budget, did he? I am surprised that he did not welcome the fact that, thanks to—
    Mr. Robertson: Answer.
    The Prime Minister: I will come to the question in a moment, but thanks to—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to talk about the Budget at all. Eleven thousand families in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are better off as a result of yesterday. As for the green-field and brown-field sites, Labour is the party that, in government, has raised the amount of building that there has to be on brown-field sites. We have changed the policy that was left to us by the earlier Government.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: May I say how welcome was the boost for businesses and jobs in yesterday's Budget? But my right hon. Friend will be aware that, if duty free is scrapped, some 5,000 jobs in Kent and Medway will be at risk. Can he give an assurance to the House and to the people of Kent and Medway that the retention of duty free will be at the top of his agenda when he meets European Union Ministers later this month?
    The Prime Minister: It has been at the top of our agenda. We have made a certain amount of progress in order to get an extension of the regime, because the successor regime simply is not good enough for our country and, indeed, other countries in the European Union. My hon. Friend will know that the problem we have is that the previous Government agreed to the abolition of that scheme. None the less, like many other problems that were left to us by the previous Government, we are sorting it out.
    Mr. William Hague: Now that we have the figures behind the propaganda, will the
    358
    Prime Minister explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to make it clear in his Budget speech yesterday that his changes to national insurance contributions mean a tax rise for self-employed people of £240 million?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong: we announced all the changes yesterday. As a result of our changes, there is a net tax cut for everyone— direct taxes of £9 billion.
    Mr. Hague: The Chancellor made no reference in his speech to the tax rise of £240 million. Does the Prime Minister recognise that, when we look at the figures, and I do not know whether he has looked at the Government's own figures—normally he does not look at them—we see that all the tax reductions for companies, first-year capital allowances and so on are more than cancelled out by that one single measure, the cost of which the Chancellor did not refer to in his speech? Does that not illustrate not only that the presentation of the Budget was inaccurate and misleading, but that, for every trumpeted tax reduction, there was a corresponding stealth tax increase?
    The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that yesterday, and he is wrong when he says it today. Today, he should have read the Budget figures more carefully. [Interruption.] I have them here—at page 14—and they show a net tax cut of £4.5 billion. It is there in the Red Book, right in front of his nose.
    Mr. Hague: I do not know whether it is more worrying that the Prime Minister does not know the truth, or that he is not prepared to admit it. So—given that he has been looking at some of the figures—let him answer this central question: what is the total tax increase for the coming year, in pounds, as a result of the Government's Budgets to date?
    The Prime Minister: There is a net tax cut of£4.5 billion. That is what the right hon. Gentleman seems unable to handle. He seems unable to handle the fact that we are cutting taxes. Furthermore, he and his spokesmen have been touring the television studios, relying on the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to say that a whole series of people are worse off because of the Budget. He may like to know that, this lunchtime, the IFS has reissued its figures, which show that every tenth of the population— the top 10 per cent. as well as the bottom 10 per cent., and every 10 per cent. in between—is better off because of the Budget.
    Mr. Hague: Oh, now, let us cut the waffle and the propaganda, and let us have the answer to the question that I asked—this is Prime Minister's Question Time. What is the total tax increase for the coming year as a result of the Government's Budgets to date?
    The Prime Minister: There is not a tax increase— [Interruption.] No, I am afraid that I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a tax increase. Tax is falling by £4.5 billion net. The average family is £740 a

    359
    year better off. The average pensioner is £240 a year better off. In total, 20 million families are better off. They are better off under Labour.
    Mr. Hague: What is the total tax increase for the coming year, in pounds, as a result of the Government's Budgets to date?
    The Prime Minister: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would simply listen to what is being said to him. We are cutting net taxes. The l0p rate is a tax cut. The national insurance rate is a tax cut. The basic rate is a tax cut. We are putting up child benefit. We are putting up people's children's credit. Pensioners are getting an increase. Labour is the party bringing down taxes for every single family that has had them put up by the Tories.
    Mr. Hague: So the right hon. Gentleman does not want to answer the question. The actual answer—easily arrived at with the Treasury's own figures and a calculator, and easily arrived at by the House Library in the figures that it produced last night—is that the total tax increase in the coming year as a result of the Government's Budgets to date is £7,100 million. In the following year, the increase is £10,500 million. The right hon. Gentleman does not want to admit that because, when they said no tax increases at all at the general election, they lied to the people of this country. With his pick-pocket Chancellor and his stealth taxes, taxes have gone up, are going up, and are going to carry on going up.
    The Prime Minister: Not merely is the right hon. Gentleman wrong—as the table on page 154 of the Red Book shows, the tax burden is falling next year, not rising—but, comparing current tax tables with the Conservatives' planned taxation, as outlined in their last Budget, taxes will be lower at the end of this Parliament than they would have been as planned by the Tory party. He is going to have to get used to one or two very simple facts. This is the Government who sorted out the huge debt left us by the Conservatives. This is the Government who have curbed inflation, which was rising under the Tories. This is the Government who have given us the lowest interest rates and mortgage rates for more than 30 years. This is the Government who have given the best deals for pensioners year upon year. This is the Government who have got tax for ordinary families down below 20 per cent. This is a new Labour Government delivering economic competence and social justice together. What a contrast and what an improvement on the old Tory years.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Given not only the assistance to the over-50s seeking employment, but all the other measures in the Budget, does my right hon. Friend feel that more members of the shadow Cabinet may feel encouraged to follow the example of the shadow Foreign Secretary and spend more time with their finances?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know quite how many members of the Opposition Front-Bench team will benefit from our proposals, since they seem to have many different sources of income, but if I could simply say— [Interruption.]—not that I am suggesting that there is
    360
    anything wrong with that at all. Our proposals for helping the over-50s back into work will deal with the fact that one third of the over-50s below retirement age are not in work. I believe that many of them would like to work if they were given the chance to do so. The new package will help them.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Of course I am delighted that yesterday's Budget contained so many Liberal Democrat measures, but why did the Chancellor leave out the most important one? Is it not clear that, by deciding to cut income tax by a penny next year, the Government have revealed that their real priority is undercutting and wrong-footing the Tories, when it ought to be education?
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what I take to be a compliment on the question of Liberal Democrat policies. Perhaps that is a good reason for people to vote Labour rather than Liberal Democrat in the forthcoming election.
    On the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about 1p, it is important to recognise that we have delivered not just the basic rate cut, but the largest single increase in public service spending over three years that this country has seen in our schools and hospitals. We understand that it is important to give incentives to people to work and to target help on hard-working families, as well as putting a substantial investment into our public services.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister is simply wrong in that. There was not a single penny extra for public services in yesterday's Budget. There was recycled money from previous decisions. The Prime Minister had a clear choice: it was education or politics, and he chose politics. May I bring the Prime Minister's attention to the situation in Scotland? This Labour Government have cut in real terms the amount of money put into education in 29 of the 32 Scottish councils. Even after the Budget and even after the end of this Parliament, the Labour Government will have put less money into education in those councils than the Tory Government did three years ago.
    I have a very simple question for the Prime Minister: on the eve of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, is he saying not only that the Scottish people will not be able to raise their taxes to spend the money on better schools, but that now they must follow him in cutting them?
    The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Gentleman put to me the 29 out of 32 authorities, I went back and looked at the figures. He is comparing budgeted figures with outturn figures, and is doing so wrongly. I can give him the true figures. Education spending in Scotland is increasing by 15 per cent. It is not being cut as he says.
    As for the right hon. Gentleman's strictures on lowering the basic rate of tax, we believe that targeting tax measures on those families that need them and making sure that people get to keep more of their money and have the incentive to work, at the same time, as putting money into public services, is the right way to guarantee both prosperity and better public services.

    361
    To go back to the election campaign, the amount that we are putting into schools and hospitals is 10 or 11 times what the right hon. Gentleman's party asked us to put in. The truth is that, no matter what the tax rate is, he always wants to put it up.
    Mr. Phil Woolas: Whatever the figures show in Scotland—I listened to my right hon. Friend's comments with great interest—in the borough of Oldham, education expenditure will increase next year by almost £5 million and three new schools will be built in my constituency alone. I look forward to visiting those primary schools to announce the £2,000. Would my right hon. Friend like to come to Oldham with me to congratulate the head teachers on the successful hard work that Opposition Members oppose?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is £2,000 for each school in every constituency; there is additional money to deal with class sizes and for school buildings and nursery education. Yes, the capital money announced yesterday comes out of the capital modernisation fund, but it has now been allocated by us to schools, hospitals, transport and crime—precisely the priorities of the people of this country.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister a less sycophantic question. He will appreciate that the Ludlow constituency is a large and sparsely populated rural area, where there is almost no alternative to road transport. What timely words of advice does he have for my constituents who find themselves, as a result of his Budget yesterday, paying no less than 85p tax for every pound that they spend on petrol? While he is thinking of the answer to that question, will he also consider what he will say to the road hauliers who find that the duty on diesel has been increased by an astronomical 11.6 per cent?
    The Prime Minister: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and their cars, we announced the first cut in the licence fee for 50 years. It is also correct to say that we have put a large additional sum into rural transport—something that the Conservative Government never did. As for the fuel escalator on petrol, Conservative Members should remember that they introduced it; they not merely introduced it, they introduced it for road hauliers as well.
    More than 10,000 families in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are better off as a result of the Budget. Furthermore, almost 16,000 pensioners are better off as a result of the Budget.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: While welcoming the environmental measures in the Budget, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a serious oil spill that occurred off the coast of north Wales last weekend? It involved the offshore operator BHP, and was the second such incident in nine months. Given the growing concern all over the United Kingdom about marine oil pollution, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that big oil companies will cut corners unless there is effective and independent regulation? Will he ensure that the courts pass tough sentences for such offences, so that this message is sent, "the polluter must pay"?
    The Prime Minister: I know that this is not the first time that there has been a spill from BHP petroleum's
    362
    facility in the Liverpool bay development. I understand that, as my hon. Friend indicates, the Department of Trade and Industry is prosecuting BHP for an earlier incident. The latest incident is being fully investigated by a DTI inspector. The Department has also taken steps to ensure that independent assessors conduct a review of the incident. In general terms, I agree with what my hon. Friend says. Of course, penalties are a matter for the courts.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Is the Prime Minister aware that people in my constituency are receiving letters from Frenchay hospital telling them that they will have to wait 104 weeks to see an orthopaedic consultant, perhaps to be put on a waiting list? Will he promise my constituents not to cut the standard rate of income tax until those waiting times have been slashed?
    The Prime Minister: We are getting waiting times down, and have done so consistently—they are down by more than 100,000 in the last six months. The additional £21 billion that we are putting into the health service from 1 April onwards is precisely in order to make the necessary improvements. Those improvements are not just in accident and emergency departments, but in technology in the health service and primary care facilities. It will take time to sort out the problems in the health service, but we will sort them out with the new investment.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend will be aware how warmly welcomed the Budget was in Scotland—particularly the new investment in schools, families and pensioners. Does the Prime Minister share my view that Scotland's future is one of efficient taxation and making work pay? Does he share my concern that the future well-being and standard of living of Scottish people will be threatened by any plans to divorce Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: Divorce from the United Kingdom would cost Scotland very dear in jobs, industry and the future of the country. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that there is £165 million of additional capital investment going into Scotland over the next three years, on top of the £3 billion for schools and hospitals that we announced earlier. As a result of the Budget, substantial numbers of Scottish families will not just be better off, but get the public services that Scotland deserves.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Chancellor's introductory remarks to yesterday's Budget—
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Were brilliant.
    Mr. Colvin: In this respect, they were. Did not those remarks give a further indication—if that were required— that the Government inherited a very sound economy from the previous Conservative Administration? While he is checking that, will the Prime Minister recall that the nation was promised stability? With economic growth in the last quarter of 1998 at 0.2 per cent., are not he and the Chancellor trying to achieve stability by stopping the

    363
    economy? Are not the Chancellor's estimates of economic growth for the next two years—on which the whole Budget is based—wildly optimistic?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman need not take my word for it. The International Monetary Fund report into the handling of the UK economy, published the other day, is one of the best reports that any country has received from the IMF for many years. The report said:
    "Executive Directors commended the authorities for the United Kingdom's impressive economic performance",
    and went on to talk about the consolidation
    "needed to help redress the policy mix imbalance that had developed in the early 1990s and to reverse the effects of a series of deficits."
    The truth is that we did not inherit an economy in great shape; we inherited an economy with national debt doubled and inflation back in the system. It is thanks to this Government that both those problems are now solved, and we can look forward to the recovery of economic growth, as we have intended.
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: Following the publication of the Macpherson report and the Home Secretary's acknowledgement of the need to stamp out racism, not only in the police force but in all public services, does the Prime Minister agree that it is most vital that the mental health sector is included in those investigations and considerations, and that consideration is given to the use and application of control and restraint techniques—particularly following the death of my constituent, David Bennett?
    The Prime Minister: Our sympathies go to Mr. Bennett's family, and I know that my hon. Friend has been very concerned about the case. The NHS trust has begun a review into the circumstances surrounding his death. We are committed to stamping out racism in all public services, including the whole NHS. In addition, she will know of the measures that were announced recently to improve control and restraint techniques within the mental health service. There will be zero tolerance of racial harassment or racial discrimination of any kind in the national health service, or any other part of our public services.
    Mr. Howard Flight: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be aware of the fact that the tax changes abolishing the recoverability of advance corporation tax will result in a loss of revenue to charities of about £500 million a year, on a phased basis. I can find nothing in the Government's review of charity taxation to offer compensation for that. What do the Government intend to do about it? I am sure that someone as professedly caring as the Prime Minister would not want to preside over a Government imposing the biggest increase in taxation on charities in memory.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. When we announced the plans for charities, we said that they would be implemented over seven years. We are in consultation with the charities. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor listed a whole series of measures that we are taking to help people to give money to charities. New reliefs have been introduced that will have precisely the
    364
    opposite impact to the one that the hon. Gentleman described. All the measures taken together give a very good deal indeed to the charitable sector.
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one in 18 workers in my constituency is currently paid £2.49 or less an hour? Does he agree that the implementation of a national minimum wage will reduce further the current inequalities in our society?
    The Prime Minister: The minimum wage will help 2 million low-paid workers in the United Kingdom. The working families tax credit, and the increases in it, will give 1.5 million families at the lower end of the income scale an increase of up to £20 a week. We now know that the Conservative party is committed to abolishing both the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. Every one of those low-income families should know that, if they vote Conservative, they put at risk not only the floor beneath their wages in the form of the minimum wage, but a £1.5 billion family tax cut which will benefit some of the poorest families in the country.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Is the Prime Minister aware that 80.4 per cent. of households in my rural Devon constituency own a car, for very obvious reasons? We do not want to know about 1100 cc cars in Devon: we would never get them up the hills. When the Prime Minister replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), he seemed to suggest that the gains for rural areas in the Budget could somehow sop up the amount that would have to be paid for petrol. What is his message to an area where cars are essential, but where the wages are lower than the national average? Is this not yet more discrimination against people living and working in rural areas?
    The Prime Minister: The opportunism and hypocrisy of the Tory party know absolutely no bounds. The hon. Lady was a Minister in the previous Government at the very time they introduced the fuel escalator. As a result of the Budget, 21,000 pensioners and 12,500 families are better off in her constituency. If she is concerned about low pay, she should support the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, instead of which she is committed to abolishing them.

    Al Shifa
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will apologise to the Government and people of Sudan for his endorsement of the bombing of the Al Shifa factory; and if he will hold discussions with President Clinton about giving all possible assistance for the rebuilding of the Al Shifa factory.
    The Prime Minister: Last August, I gave my support to the United States action. It was action against international terrorists. The US told us at the time of the strike on Al Shifa that it had compelling evidence that the plant was being used for the production of chemical weapons materials.
    Mr. Dalyell: Have the Government any hard evidence that Al Shifa manufactured VX precursors or any other chemical weapons-related compounds, or have they not?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The US was quite clear: it had compelling evidence that Al Shifa was involved

    365
    in chemical weapons production. Terrorist organisations operating out of those places caused the death of more than 100 totally innocent people by acts of terrorism in Africa. The assault on Al Shifa was retaliation for that; no one was killed in it, but we gave a very clear signal— and I think the right one—to those who engage in international terrorism that we are prepared if necessary to take action in retaliation.

    Engagements
    Jackie Ballard: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor who last November predicted that there would be no recession in British manufacturing, or the Chancellor who yesterday admitted that there would be a fall in output of between 1 and 1.5 per cent. this year? Does he agree that last November's prediction was the worst forecast since Michael Fish said that there would be no hurricane?
    The Prime Minister: That latter part is wrong, since the worst time for manufacturing industry was in the
    366
    early 1990s, when output fell by 7 per cent, and 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost. The single most important thing for manufacturing industry is stability for the long term. That is best guaranteed, first, by policies that are disciplined on public finances, which is a lesson that the Liberal Democrats would do well to learn—if I may attack them for a moment—and, secondly, by lower interest rates. As a result of the action that this Government have taken and the independence of the Bank of England, we have managed to get the lowest interest rates for 30 years.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Boom and bust.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Boom and bust.
    The Prime Minister: Quite right. The other thing that we must avoid is any return to Tory boom and bust.
    Madam Speaker: On that note, we should now move on.

Enterprise and Competition
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on enterprise and competition. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a Budget for Britain to succeed in the new knowledge-driven economy and to promote prosperity and fairness. Today, I wish to announce a number of complementary measures, which will boost enterprise and competition.
First, I am publishing a detailed implementation plan for our White Paper, "Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy". For each commitment, we have set out a series of targets, a timetable and the contact details of the officials in my Department who are responsible for delivering those commitments. That unprecedented step demonstrates our belief in open government, our desire to work closely in partnership with business and our determination to deliver on our commitments.
I am also publishing today a strategic framework for the Department of Trade and Industry, setting out the objectives for my Department and the work that we will undertake in pursuit of those objectives. Copies of both documents have been put in the Library and the Vote Office.
The policies in the White Paper that we published before Christmas apply to all sectors: traditional and high-tech, manufacturing and services. Work is well under way on many of the proposals contained in the White Paper. I have established a review of bankruptcy and insolvency law, to examine whether we can encourage responsible risk-taking while coming down hard on those who set out to defraud creditors. It will report to me next month. Separately, I am reviewing arrangements for business rescues to find out whether the law should be changed to give businesses in difficulties more chance and more time to turn things round. I shall announce our conclusions in the summer.
This afternoon, I want to announce four new funds to support business. First, we will be providing £20 million to achieve our target of high quality support for 10,000 business start-ups by 2001. The programme will be launched this summer.
Secondly, a new enterprise fund will stimulate the availability of finance for the small and medium enterprise sector. I have increased the fund to £160 million. It will lever in an additional £350 million from the private sector to ensure that more than £500 million is available to support loan guarantees for small firms and for support for regional venture capital funds aimed at the provision of small-scale equity and a national scheme to support high-tech businesses.
Thirdly, following the Chancellor's announcement yesterday of a further £20 million for high-tech venture capital investment, we will create a new fund operating across the United Kingdom, focusing on young high-tech firms that need small amounts of equity.
Fourthly, I can announce that we have decided to expand the successful SMART—small firms merit award for research and technology—scheme. From April, a wider range of individuals and businesses, particularly
368
those in the manufacturing sector, will be able to receive help to research or acquire technologies needed to turn good ideas into commercial reality. We shall increase annual spending by more than a third and provide almost £100 million over the next three years.
Science and the commercial exploitation of scientific research have a key role to play in improving Britain's competitive position. That is why we will develop a strategy to improve knowledge transfer, stimulate the flow of scientists and engineers into industry, and encourage knowledge-based industries. We shall publish proposals in that key area by the end of the year.
Today, following yesterday's Budget statement, we are publishing four documents on tax changes to stimulate innovation and enterprise, especially in smaller companies. The introduction of a tax credit for research and development will be a major step on the road to raising the UK's performance, giving real help to thousands of smaller firms that are working to introduce new products and processes. It will underwrite almost a third of research and development costs for small business, giving the sector a boost of £150 million a year.
Enterprise management incentives will allow smaller companies to give tax-advantaged equity remuneration. We shall also publish proposals on corporate venturing and tax reform for intellectual property. Together, these papers demonstrate our commitment to a framework in which small business can thrive.
Small and medium-sized firms need further help too. I intend to establish a new body—the Small Business Service—which will be specifically designed to meet the needs of smaller businesses. I can announce that it will have more than £100 million of new money to support its important work. The body, which will report to me, will be headed by a high profile chief executive. It will have two key responsibilities: to act as a strong voice for small business at the heart of Government; and to improve the quality and coherence of delivery of Government support programmes for small business and ensure that they address their needs.
The areas in which I expect the service to be involved include: the provision of a new automated payroll service for all new small and medium-sized enterprises; supporting the Revenue in providing business support to discuss problems within 48 hours; giving advice with Customs and Excise for exporters and importers; and, working with the Revenue on internet filing of tax returns. Consideration will need to be given to the relationship between the service and the newly established regional development agencies.
A modern, effective competition regime is necessary to reward innovation and enterprise, and to bring real benefits to consumers. The Director General of Fair Trading is already looking at a number of areas— including cars, supermarkets and private medical insurance—and he has referred over-the-counter medicines to the restrictive practices court for examination.
More needs to be done. I shall therefore exercise my powers under section 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to give the director general directions indicating issues that he should take into account in determining his priorities. I shall also exercise my power under section 13 of the Competition Act 1980 to ask the director general to investigate particular prices.

369
In relation to prices, there is widespread concern that those paid in the UK for goods are higher than prices in other countries. I have begun today a study on international price comparisons, which will help competition authorities to identify markets that require their attention. It will be made public, so that consumers and others can comment. I will then decide which prices I will ask the director general to investigate.
We are also taking action to provide a modern framework for utility regulation. Electricity standing charges are a matter of pressing concern; they account for around 13 per cent. of a typical household bill and can rise to 20 per cent. for low volume users. Figures which I am publishing today show a wide variation in standing charges by region and by method of payment. I have today written to the energy regulator asking him to look at standing charges to ensure that pensioners and the poor, in particular, are not disadvantaged.
I also believe that the time is right to introduce a modernised merger regime. Businesses need stability and confidence that decisions in those important areas are not taken for short-term political considerations. I believe that the system could be improved if merger decisions were normally taken by independent competition authorities against a competition-based test. A small minority of cases will raise important and wider public interest issues, such as those involving the defence industries, and Ministers would continue to have a role in such proposals. I intend to publish a consultation document to begin a full debate on that important issue.
To secure real competition we need knowledgeable and well-informed consumers. To that end, we shall publish a consumer strategy White Paper before the summer. However, there is one area of particular concern. A mortgage is the largest and most complex financial commitment that most people will ever enter into. I have today announced proposals to improve the information available to customers in relation to the marketing of mortgages and other credit. Our proposals will give them access to clear information about the interest rates on offer.
The measures that I have announced today show our determination as a Government to support enterprise and to succeed in the knowledge-driven economy of the future. They complement the radical proposals set out yesterday by the Chancellor and I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. John Redwood: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, although I was perturbed to read all its main points, before I came into the Chamber, on a Press Association tape and to learn from journalists that every major item had been briefed to the press by the Secretary of State and his officials before he made the statement. It is not right that Members of Parliament should hear about his proposals from the media before they do so in this House.
I hope that when the Secretary of State draws up his list of sinners who need referral for high pricing, he will include the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is the main offender on petrol and diesel prices and on costs for the haulage industry. I hope that he will take responsibility for the problems that the motorist is now experiencing.
370
It has taken the Government nearly two years to decide that Britain needs lower prices and more competition. They have abandoned the case-by-case approach of the previous Government. Conservatives broke monopolies and introduced competition on an industry-by-industry basis. This Government have spent two years talking about competition but done nothing significant to further it. All they have done is to put up business costs and business taxes. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are all for lower prices and more competition. That is why we broke the monopolies in telephones, electricity and gas and that is why I have urged the Government to break the monopoly in water. Will the Secretary of State now pledge to introduce water competition for retail householders as well as for businesses? Do the Government want to break the present car distribution system and introduce car supermarkets? Simply telling us that car prices are too dear does not tackle the problem. Do the Government intend to outlaw recommended prices for newspapers, or does the Secretary of State value the present newspaper distribution arrangements? Does the right hon. Gentleman want to change the tied house arrangements in the brewing industry, or not? Will he remove the advantages local pharmacies currently enjoy?
The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): What a cheek.
Mr. Redwood: The Minister may say that, but those are the policy issues, and if the Government want to introduce more competition and lower prices, those are the issues that they should tackle. The previous Conservative Governments were tackling them case by case; we had a fine record of breaking many monopolies, but there are still more to be broken—will the Labour Government do it, or not?
It is a cop out to say that the Government will run a poor man's Which? magazine to tell us how much we are suffering, but that they will take no policy action where they could do so to tackle the problem at source. There is absolutely no evidence that the Government are the customer's friend; they talk about being so and spin that they are, but they funk the decisions necessary to bring prices down.
We are told for the 16th time that the Secretary of State wants to reserve to himself competition issues relating to defence and some other cases, despite his belief in independence; so will he rule out now all Secretary of State involvement in media cases? If his argument is that his views as a Minister could be in conflict with making a fair judgment in certain cases, surely that must apply most of all to cases involving the media, given the Government's predisposition to trying to influence the media in their direction.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that he will have nothing to do with the BSkyB bid for Manchester United and that he will rule out interest in all media bids in the future, contrary to the generosity displayed by him and his colleagues in all their press briefings up to today's briefing on this statement? Does he not understand that to achieve a judgment in the BSkyB-Manchester United case that is fair to the two balanced teams that are fighting that bitter battle, he should set out in advance, working from general principles, whether or not the Government think that media interests should be able to buy sports clubs.

371
His failure to set out a general policy leaves him wide open to the charge of being unfair to one or the other of the parties when the judgment is finally made.
The Secretary of State has announced an enterprise fund; it has been announced countless times before. It shows how much Labour believes in policy recycling if in no other sort of recycling that we have to hear such announcements time and again. This time, £10 million has been added to the fund to give the excuse for re-announcing it, but, in Labour's old language, it is not new money. The fund is small recompense for the massive tax hike that business is experiencing. Why do the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister not realise that hiking national insurance contributions for the self-employed and hitting business motorists takes away far more money than is being put back through that small enterprise fund? If the Secretary of State left business more of its own money, he would need to propose fewer handouts.
The right hon. Gentleman proposes a Small Business Service at considerable cost. I can tell him what small businesses want: less regulation, lower taxes, no increase in national insurance for the self-employed, no increase in motoring taxes, no increase in haulage taxes, no increase in stamp duty, and no increase in VAT levies—all things that are in the Chancellor's Budget, but which he does not understand are bad for business. Businesses face a massive tax hike as a result of the Chancellor's third Budget, just as surely as the huge tax hikes that resulted from his first two Budgets.
If the Government want to earn the name of friend of business, they must sweep aside the regulations that they are putting in place and genuinely cut business taxes. Instead of gimmicks, they must offer real support to the business community.
Mr. Byers: It is most noticeable that the right hon. Gentleman has clearly not discussed with business its response to yesterday's Budget and to the measures that I have announced today. Were he to do so, he would learn that the targeted support that we intend to give has been warmly welcomed by industry, which recognises the assistance and support the Government can give in particular areas. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, in a friendly way, that he should begin a dialogue with business if he wants to speak as shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Clearly, he is failing to do that. In addition to that, he appears to be suffering from memory loss: judging by his remarks just now, the policies that he supported as a member of the Cabinet—for example, in voting for the petrol duty escalator—have been suddenly forgotten.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about breaking down utilities and removing them from the public sector, but the Conservative Government effectively created private single monopolies in those areas. It has been left to the Government to break down monopolies and create a market that will deliver benefits to consumers. I can confirm that, as the Chancellor announced yesterday, there will be a review of the water industry as well.
On the new, modernised merger regime, we will operate under the existing provisions for as long as they are in place. I will discharge my responsibilities as Secretary of State, but we will consult because we believe that there is a better procedure that could
372
be adopted. I hope to be able to bring the results of that consultation to the House in due course. There is no question that we shall discharge our current statutory duties in a quasi-judicial manner that is fair to all parties, and we will be guided by the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I expect to receive its report regarding BSkyB and Manchester United on Friday of this week.
I was disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's response—I know that that should come as no surprise, but I live in hope. It is remarkable that he did not mention Brussels once in his contribution—which must be a first for him. However, he still missed the point. The statement that I have delivered this afternoon and the range of measures that we intend to introduce will support business. They are about innovation and enterprise and will at last give a new deal to consumers—an area that was totally ignored in the 19 years of the previous Administration.
Mr. Redwood: Eighteen years.
Mr. Byers: It seemed like 19 years. I believe that our measures will be welcomed warmly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business before us today and I am having to restrict Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes in the major debate. I hope that there will be brisk questions and brisk answers from the Dispatch Box so that I will be able to call as many hon. Members as possible.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is it recognised that, in recent years, the Office of Fair Trading has lacked focus and resources because of the number of jobs that it has undertaken? Those of us who have had dealings with the OFT have been disappointed with the speed at which it has moved and the urgency with which it has often dealt with matters. I hope that those difficulties will be remedied by the extra resources and extra powers that my right hon. Friend is choosing to commit.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is no doubt that the Office of Fair Trading was under-resourced as a result of the decisions taken by the previous Government. During my time as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I was pleased to be able to agree some extra funding—a 20 per cent. increase—for the OFT. I think that will help enormously in ensuring that the office can work to a programme that is far more extensive than any of its programmes to date.
Most importantly, the OFT must approach issues more proactively. It must play an active role and guarantee that consumer interests are at the forefront of the work of the Director General of Fair Trading. If that happens, I am sure that the Government and the independent OFT can work together and deliver a far better deal to consumers in the future than they have received in recent years.
Mr. David Chidgey: I should like to ask the Secretary of State three specific questions in the interests of clarity and speed. Can he tell me precisely what targets his Department has set for improving

373
competitiveness and productivity and closing the skills gap? How will he measure progress towards those targets? What account has the Secretary of State taken of the forecast by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that 20 per cent. tax credit rates for small and medium-sized enterprises would increase the ratio of research and development expenditure compared with gross domestic product by less than one tenth of 1 per cent? Although I welcome the Secretary of State's proposed investigation into price competitiveness and the wide range of prices that consumers are charged, does he agree that his task would be easier if he were able to compare like with like— perhaps in just one currency: the euro?
Mr. Byers: I shall not go down that road this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "GO on."] Well, they say that Labour Secretaries of State count their time in office in days rather than in months and years, and I want to try to get a few months under my belt.
On the important points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I have seen the IFS figures for its projections of the consequence of the tax credit for research and development, and I think that it is mistaken. The tax credit will make a big difference for SMEs. They have been asking for that measure and I am pleased that we were able to respond to their request in this Budget.
On productivity and improving skills, much joint work will need to be done across Government to deliver that agenda. I am already discussing in detail with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the joint work that we can do to fulfil the need for skills to be developed and improved. I hope that we will be able to introduce many initiatives in the months and years ahead. On productivity, we need to continue working with the Treasury to identify ways in which we can make progress. The implementation plan for the White Paper that was published before Christmas reveals the timetable in which we shall achieve those objectives. When the hon. Gentleman has had the chance to read the implementation plan, he will recognise that we are serious about delivering on the commitments in that widely acclaimed document.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent statement and wish him not only many months in his office but many years, which he will thoroughly deserve. I want to ask him about two aspects of the Government's agenda to which he has not referred. First, on the important subject of electronic commerce, when will the e-envoy—the digital ambassador—start work? Secondly, on competition and enterprise, when will the Government's proposals for the Post Office be implemented? It was envisaged that those would be introduced in the first quarter of this year. What or who is holding them up?
Mr. Byers: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is here for my statement. Much of the implementation plan that we are publishing today builds on the excellent work over which he presided in the Department. I am pleased that we are able to implement many of the ideas that he advocated.
My right hon. Friend raises two important points. I interviewed two exceptionally good candidates for the post of digital envoy only 10 days ago, and I hope that
374
we will be able to announce an appointment in the next few days. When my right hon. Friend finds out who is likely to be appointed, he will think that we have made a very good selection for that important post.
On the Post Office, a good deal of work is going on to make sure that we have a White Paper that will command broad support across the House and out in the wider community. It will be a comprehensive document, which will demonstrate that we want a forward-looking Post Office for the next century. That will take some time, but it will be worth it to get the proposals right. I expect to be able to publish that White Paper within the next two months.
Mr. Ian Taylor: It would be churlish of me to criticise the Secretary of State too much because we started some of those measures when we were in government. I congratulate him on persuading his Chancellor in a way that I did not persuade mine about the proposals that he has announced this afternoon.
Will the Secretary of State take great care to ensure that the enterprise fund and the Small Business Service are staffed by people at least as entrepreneurial as those to whom they will be giving advice? I speak from some experience and I know that the service will break down, however much money one puts in, if the two sides of the equation are not properly matched. He will find that very difficult to achieve.
Secondly, the Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the devil will be in the detail of the application of the research and development grant and its success will depend on how the Inland Revenue interprets it. Will he please keep his eye on that and not pass it across to the Revenue?
Finally, why did the Secretary of State not persuade the Chancellor to cut capital gains tax to 20 per cent. or at least to introduce a 20 per cent. rate? That is his one big failing in the Budget, and I hope that he keeps working at it.
Mr. Byers: I shall pass on those comments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman's important point about the people who might staff and give advice in the Small Business Service is absolutely right. We need people with good, up-to-date, relevant experience who are able to mentor and to pass on that experience to the individuals who will come to the service for advice and assistance. We must see to that. One of the tasks that we will set ourselves will be to recruit the best possible people. With the additional new funding—it is new funding—coming into the service, and the recognition that there will be a voice for small business at the heart of Government but at arm's length from the Government, people will see that we are serious about providing a focus for the needs and aspirations of the small business sector.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about getting right the detail of the tax credit for research and development, and I will take a personal interest in achieving that objective.
Mr. Richard Burden: I welcome the statement. May I raise two points with my right hon. Friend? First, does he agree that a particularly important part of the SME sector that will need to be

375
targeted through these and other measures is second-tier suppliers in the automotive industry? The Accelerate programme in the west midlands suggests that more than 2,000 second-tier suppliers could face major challenges in the coming year. Can my right hon. Friend comment on the relevance of the statement to them?
Secondly, in relation to the small business fund—I suppose I am taking up a point made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor)—can my right hon. Friend assure me that the good ideas in that scheme will be properly linked to the RDAs and the regional agenda, so that the service to be established is not monolithic, but sensitive to regional and local needs and differences?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about developing the work closely with the RDAs to make sure that the small business service works with local agencies to give the best possible service to the small businesses in the locality.
With reference to the car industry generally, it is important that we give assistance to the supply chain, especially where there is a major producer in a particular region. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have established an industry forum to help the supply chain in exactly that situation, so that productivity can be improved and the quality of the product raised. By developing best practice, we can offer new opportunities to companies and businesses.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: With regard to mortgage interest rates, does the Minister agree that the best guarantee of competition in that sector is the existence of a thriving mutual building society sector? Will he therefore undertake to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to see whether something can be done to stop so many building societies having to spend such an inordinate amount of management time fighting off the attentions of a tiny bunch of predator carpetbagger members, who have no interest in lowering interest rates, but are simply out to make a fast buck?
Mr. Byers: I know that that sector is always being actively considered within the Treasury, to make sure that the interests of the wider community are served.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: As one who was formerly an entrepreneur, may I tell my right hon. Friend that I believe that the package for enterprise is excellent? It addresses many of the issues that small business men bring to me in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that when an examination is made of the bankruptcy laws—I understand that he may have to make a statement on them in the next month—that will not lead to an increase in the number of phoenix company operations being set up, such as the Tanning Shop or Cabouchon jewellery, or all the others that we know about? I seek that assurance because many of us know of phoenix operations in our constituencies.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are two categories of people that we are trying to identify legally, so that we can separate them. One type of person is the responsible risk-taker, who has an idea, puts up his own money, tries hard but fails. The other category is the one to which my hon. Friend referred—
376
people who have nothing but contempt for their creditors and will exploit limited liability to its full extent. We must bear down as hard as we can on those people, while recognising that responsible risk-takers need some degree of protection so that they will not have to live with the stigma of failure for the rest of their lives.
The review that I have set in train will consider whether we can make that distinction. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we would not bring forward proposals which would allow rogue directors who have contempt for their creditors to escape the full force of the law. That law needs to be applied and we should give a clear message that that will continue to be the case.
Mr. Tony Baldry: There is a lot of detail in the Secretary of State's statement. I think that he used the word "unprecedented" with regard to a document that he was publishing containing the names and, I presume, the telephone numbers, of officials, so that members of the general public can speak directly to them. Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman will have no objection if hon. Members who take a particular interest in trade and industry matters, such as members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, also avail themselves of the chance to talk directly to those officials on the policy issues raised in the document.
Mr. Byers: I have no problem with that. Those officials also have an e-mail address, so if the hon. Gentleman has that facility that is another way in which he can communicate with them.
Mr. Michael Clapham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Yesterday, together with other colleagues, I met representatives of the Sheffield branch of the Engineering Employers Federation to discuss the problems that they faced. They told me that they need assistance in establishing a conduit with the local universities in order to transfer technology. Will my right hon. Friend consider what measures he can introduce or assist with to establish a network throughout the UK to transfer technology from universities to industry?
Mr. Byers: In due course, we shall be announcing funding allocations through our innovation budget, and I assure my hon. Friend that one area which will have our considerable attention will be the way in which ideas that are developed in universities can be exploited in the private sector to develop businesses as successfully as possible. If the group to which my hon. Friend referred would like to contact the Department, I am sure that we could give advice on how to facilitate such a dialogue with the local university sector. Over the years, Britain has been weak in that area, and we need to change our whole culture in terms of accessing ideas and innovation in the university sector for the benefit of all our people and for business generally.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Secretary of State explain why, in his references to competition policy, he did not mention the implementation of the Competition Act 1998, given the importance which his predecessors attach to that? Is it because the Director General of Fair Trading and his office are having the difficulty which my right hon. Friend

377
the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and others predicted about the implementation of those measures in practice?
With regard to mergers policy, will the Secretary of State simply admit that he has had to propose an independent scrutiny of mergers decisions simply because, since May 1997, he and his predecessors have let mergers policy, which was governed by the Tebbit doctrine on a predictable basis, turn into a policy that has become unpredictable, causing difficulty to the City and to business?
Mr. Byers: The reality is that every merger application must be dealt with on its merits. Since I have been in post, no decision that I have taken on such matters will have come as any surprise to any informed commentator. If the hon. Gentleman has examples, I should be grateful if he would give them to me.
The director general has not drawn any particular problems to my attention. I met him only a couple of weeks ago and he felt that he had the resources to ensure that the Competition Act was implemented fairly and effectively.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, particularly its emphasis on the knowledge-driven economy. All who are interested in the area know that that economy has no respect for the divisions of Departments of State. Is he aware that one of the most refreshing things about the statement is that it has started vigorously to break down those barriers that we had to put up with for 18 years, where the Department of Trade and Industry would not talk to the Treasury and the Treasury and the DTI would not talk to the Department for Education and Employment? It is refreshing that the Government are breaking down those barriers, resulting in a co-operative effort across all Departments of State to get the knowledge-driven economy really moving.
Mr. Byers: I am delighted to confirm that. The Chancellor's Budget statement yesterday revealed clearly the extent to which we have co-operated across the Government to ensure that the Budget meets the needs of a range of different people. Today's statement and subsequent statements will do the same.
It would be a mistake not to record the valuable role that my hon. Friend has played over the years in breaking down barriers, particularly between higher education and the business sector, to develop innovation and enterprise, especially in his own region, but also throughout the country. Many of the ideas that we have introduced today are built on ideas that he has advanced in the past few years.
Mr. John Bercow: Given the Secretary of State's statement that the creation of wealth is now more important than its distribution, can he explain why, in their first 22 months, his Government have introduced no fewer than 2,400 additional regulations, which adversely impact on business, and removed only 20?
378
Why has he made no proposals today that would reverse that tide of nanny state interference in the affairs of British business?
Mr. Byers: I would warn the hon. Gentleman to be very careful about his reference to regulations. In their last year in power, the Government whom he would have supported introduced 3,500 regulations compared with the 2,300 to which he referred. I am afraid that we are way behind, but that is not a target that we want to achieve.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and I welcome the arrangements that he has announced on mortgages. Will he extend them slightly so that endowment policies associated with mortgages are looked at so customers using those financial services obtain clarity?
Mr. Byers: I am pleased to be able to clarify my comments and reassure my hon. Friend that today's announcement covers mortgages and other credit arrangements, including endowment policies. People will obtain clarity and know exactly what they are entering into when they make one of the largest investment decisions of their lives.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I welcome the Secretary of State's practical commitment to enterprise and his promise to tackle one aspect of fuel poverty. Will he explain in more detail how funds from his Department will be made available to RDAs so that venture capital funds or other funds can meet opportunities that have been identified in the regions? Can he give us any further information on how he intends to tackle fuel poverty in a direct and meaningful manner?
Mr. Byers: The relationship between the RDAs and the new Small Business Service is one of the issues to which we will have to give careful attention. We do not want duplication, but we want bodies to work together and the activities in which they are both involved to complement each other.
We can do many things about fuel poverty and we will be asking the energy regulator to draw up in his response a social action plan that considers how energy regulation will work. We are also enabling the regulator to extend his consideration to include people on low incomes. Today's announcement about standing charges could make a real difference to many people on low incomes because the proportion of their household expenditure spent on fuel is three and a half times that of people on average incomes. Fuel poverty is a real problem that needs to be tackled; we are not walking away from it and the steps that we have announced today will begin to make a real difference.
Mr. Brian White: Today's statement and the consultation paper on e-commerce published last week will be widely welcomed, but my right hon. Friend will know that the skills shortage in respect of information technology staff and the need for the infrastructure on which the knowledge-based economy must be built have been

379
forgotten in the past. It is important that both those aspects are addressed, so will he elaborate on how they will be covered?
Mr. Byers: It would be a mistake to deny that there is a growing shortage of skills, which must be tackled. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to establish—with the help of the skills task force set up by my right hon. Friend—how we can drive through the skills agenda.
This is one of the issues that have been neglected over the years, and we are now paying the price for that neglect. In the days following the Budget, however, announcements will be made showing that we are serious about tackling the problems.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What concrete measures are available to stimulate the flow of scientists and engineers into industry? That was a reference to my right hon. Friend's statement.
Mr. Byers: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters. He will be pleased to learn that we are developing what we call the teaching company scheme, which provides for a genuine partnership between scientists in industry and higher education. We are also considering ways of encouraging children, during their school lives, to see science and the development of science as more exciting than it is traditionally presented as being.
We believe that a number of proposals in the Department—some have yet to be announced—will reflect the importance of science to our country, and to the scientific community. That is why, before the end of this year, we shall present a strategy showing clearly how we intend to use the science skills that we have here, in the United Kingdom, to the best effect. Science is a talent—a resource—that has been under-utilised, and we want to do all that we can to remedy that.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most powerful weapon that we can use to combat uncompetitive pricing in various markets is probably the euro? Given his enthusiasm for electronic commerce, which I share—and, indeed, his enthusiasm for consumer empowerment—will my right hon. Friend encourage the publication of relative pricing across Europe in the electronic and other media, in order to empower consumers, bring about competitive markets and create more prosperity?
Hon. Members: The answer is yes.
Mr. Byers: Thank you.
Consumers do have an option in relation to mortgages, which are now being offered in the single currency. We announced today, in our paper on mortgages, that information will be available to those who are thinking of taking out a mortgage in the single currency, showing clearly how such an arrangement would operate in comparison with mortgage in sterling. Consumers will have a genuine choice. We are moving in that direction— certainly on mortgages.

Points of Order
4.18 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given your office notice of it.
I seek your advice, Madam Speaker, about an irregularity that occurred in the European Scrutiny Committee on 10 February. I do not know whether this is a matter for you or for the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, or whether we should just shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, ministerial standards have declined, and we must just accept that."
As hon. Members know, when Ministers give evidence to Select Committees, officials provide members of those Committees with briefs containing a list of questions that the Committee concerned may think it appropriate for them to ask. On 10 February Lord Donoughue, the Minister responsible for fanning and food, was giving evidence to the Committee in public. At one point, he hinted that he was aware of the questions that were to follow. When I challenged him, he implied that it was impertinent of me to suggest that there had been any impropriety.
Subsequently, the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—whom I have given notice of my point of order—instigated an inquiry that resulted in the discovery that there had been collusion between Committee officials and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In short, a question had been leaked.
I want to make it plain that I am making no criticism of the hon. Member for Clydesdale, who conducted himself with his usual propriety; nor do I criticise the officials, who, if I may say so, made an error of judgment. The Minister, however, was involved in a cover-up that requires further investigation. I should be grateful, Madam Speaker, if you could advise me on how we can best proceed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I am delighted to do so. A question has been put to me by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), but two other hon. Members seem to want to raise points of order. I am a very tolerant Speaker and I shall listen to them, provided that they are not long and I am able to deal with them
Mr. Michael Trend: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was at the Committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) referred. Indeed, I was sitting behind the Minister and able to observe over his shoulder that he had not only the questions, but the answers.
I have served with great pleasure on the Select Committee and enjoyed the interchange between Members of Parliament and Ministers, but if Ministers come to Select Committees with not just the questions, but the answers, it makes a mockery of the whole Select Committee procedure. All Members of Parliament might

381
as well engage just in correspondence with the relevant departmental officials, for all the good that having Ministers before us would do.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No. I have a point of order already. I am very capable of dealing with the matter. I just want to listen to what is being said.
Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been on that European Select Committee, now the European Scrutiny Committee, for about 14 years. I have never seen such an event. What concerns me is that, on yesterday's "Today" programme, one of the ex-Clerks of the Committee—I think that his name is Philip Hensher—suggested that it was by no means an unusual event.
If it were true that, in other Select Committees, Clerks of the Committee, for whatever reason, were supplying Ministers in advance with the questions that were being asked, it would undermine the democratic accountability of those Committees. If it were prevalent, that would not only put the democratic accountability of the Committees at risk, but could cause grave doubts as to whether the claims that we make for them should be so great.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I make two points as the Chairman of a Select Committee. First, I have never found it possible to ensure that any questions are asked, or not asked, by members of the Committee.
Secondly, to ensure that well-briefed Ministers come before us, it is not unreasonable for Committees to identify the areas of concern that might arise. That is totally different from providing crib sheets for Ministers, and I do not think that that has happened, even in the case of the European Scrutiny Committee.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. We are not having a debate on the matter. I am ready to respond to the point of order and have been since it was first raised, but I see that the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who is Chairman of the Committee, is seeking to raise a point of order and I shall listen to him.
Mr. Hood: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. That matter came before our Committee. It has considered it and made a decision on it. It was acceptable to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who has raised the point of order. I cannot for the life of me understand why he has raised it with you today.
Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: How many more points of order will the hon. Gentleman try to make? He is like a yo-yo.
Mr. Cash: I raise the following point because of the remarks by the Chairman of the Select Committee on
382
Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), for whom I have the greatest respect. It would be a matter of grave concern if the House accepted that Ministers should have advance warning of questions that were to be asked. If one thinks about it, it gives them an opportunity to arrange the answers to questions, which, in relation to the procedures in those Committees, gives them an unfair advantage.
I ask you, Madam Speaker—it is the main burden of my further point of order—to institute an inquiry within the Clerks Department to ensure that those things are done properly, in line with the spirit, as well as the actual terms, of the Standing Orders setting them up.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who raised the original point of order with me, asked which Committee was responsible for these matters. I think that he knows full well that it is the European Scrutiny Committee because Committees in the House regulate their own affairs.
In the case of the European Scrutiny Committee, I understand that an explanation had already been given to the Committee, of which the hon. Member for Totnes is himself a member, and that the Committee unanimously accepted the explanation. Moreover, there is a written question on the Order Paper on the issue, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend).
The hon. Member for Totnes, knowing full well, as a long-standing Member of the House, how we deal with such a matter, which has already been to the Committee, should not have brought it up on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask that you, as Speaker, consult with the Solicitor-General to determine whether his statements in open court this week—in the case involving Mr. Al Fayed, Neil Hamilton and The Guardian—might be placed in the Library? I am not trying to raise the issues of the case, but it might be useful if a statement that has been made that is relevant to Parliament is available to hon. Members.
Madam Speaker: At this stage, the House might well wish to know that I have requested the Law Officers to intervene in the case on behalf of the House, to assert the House's right that its proceedings should not—to quote the Bill of Rights—be
"impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".
In response to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, I shall be happy to do what I can to place the arguments advanced on behalf of the House in the Library just as soon as it is proper to do so.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker; I seek your guidance. This morning, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges published its report into a complaint that I made about the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), and concluded that he breached several rules of the House. Madam Speaker, I wonder if you have had notice from the right hon. Gentleman, who is in the Chamber, that he will today make a personal statement of apology?
Madam Speaker: I have not yet seen the Committee's report and cannot respond to the hon. Member.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999.

Lifelong Learning (Participation and Entitlement)
4.26 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an entitlement to paid educational leave for people in employment; to secure comparable treatment for full and part-time students in institutions of further and higher education; and for connected purposes.
It is particularly appropriate that I should be promoting my Bill today after both today's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which dealt with the knowledge-based economy, and the various measures on lifelong learning announced in yesterday's Budget. The Bill is concerned with the means by which the Government's vision of an inclusive lifelong society might be implemented.
The Government should be proud that, in less than two years, they have done more to move lifelong learning up the educational and political agenda than the previous Government did in almost 20 years. Publication of the major reports by Baroness Kennedy and Professor Fryer, publication of "The learning Age" Green Paper, launch of individual learning accounts and the university for industry, the significant increase in funding to colleges, universities and local authorities after the comprehensive spending review, and yesterday's announcement on development of new learning centres across the country all show that the Government are serious about attaining their objectives.
The danger of any such expansion in education is that newly allocated resources will be used primarily to reproduce more of what we already had, and that those who traditionally have benefited from investment in education beyond age 18 will continue to receive the lion's share of new investment. That is the legacy of the highly selective and highly elitist education system that we inherited.
My Bill therefore focuses on the educational entitlement that all young people and adults should have if we are to achieve the widening of participation in lifelong learning that is at the heart of the Government's strategy.
The chronic educational under-achievement of our people is well documented. We compare badly with our major competitors: fewer children in pre-school education; poorer attainment in literacy, maths and science; fewer young people staying on after 16; fewer students in university; and fewer workers with higher-level vocational qualifications. The cycle of underachievement has been endemic for over a century, but I am delighted that my Government are now getting to grips with the root causes of the problems—in their drive to improve pre-school education, to force up standards in our primary and secondary schools, and to increase the number of places in our colleges and universities.
The vast majority of new learners benefiting from the Government's new initiatives will be studying part time. However, the financing of education—both in allocations to institutions and in the nature and level of student support—is based on the assumption that the normal mode of study is full time. My Bill calls for an end to this discrimination and an equalisation of treatment for part-time students.

385
There are many different kinds of part-time student. A woman bringing up young children by herself studies at home to complete the GCSEs that she did not complete at school. An older man working 50 or 60 hours a week knows that he faces redundancy if he does not learn to use the computers that are now transforming his industry. Thousands of adults trapped in dead-end jobs know that improving their qualifications is the key to a better life for themselves and their children.
Those part-time students are learning in circumstances that are, by definition, more difficult than they would be if they were able to study full time. They are working, sometimes in two or more part-time jobs, or caring for children or elderly relatives, or coping with their own or a relative's disability. They have never had a maintenance grant, as full-time undergraduates have. They have never had a statutory right to free tuition fees, as full time undergraduates have. They are not usually eligible for discretionary awards from local authorities or for access funds from colleges and universities.
If the Government are to complete the revolution in student finance that started last year, they must now move to end those anomalies. That is why the first part of my Bill calls for equality of treatment for part-time students. That means equality in the way in which institutions are funded. We still find that colleges where a majority of students are part time are funded less generously than school sixth forms and universities, where a majority of students study full time, even where the colleges deliver comparable courses. It also means equality in levels of student support, as most part-time students are still not eligible for student loans. Amendment of the Student Support Regulations 1998 to grant eligibility for student loans to part-time students in colleges is one of the most effective means of widening participation that the Government could adopt.
The second part of the Bill is more specifically concerned with vocational training. For the best part of 20 years, Britain's policy on vocational training has been a shambles. We abolished the old apprenticeships system and now find that we have had to reinvent it under the name of modern apprenticeships. We abolished the industrial training levy and found that employers were not prepared to train workers and lose them to other companies. We created Investors in People and then found that the people who received the investment were in many cases the same people who had always received investment.
Until recently, British companies still invested little more than one tenth of the average amount invested in training by companies in France, Germany and Japan. Is it any surprise that we have so few workers with NVQ level 3 qualifications? Is it any surprise that we have a productivity gap? Is it any surprise that, not to put too fine a point on it, it is BMW considering the future of Longbridge and not Rover considering the future of car plants in Germany?
So the second part of my Bill calls for a national scheme of paid educational leave for employees. Many companies large and small already invest heavily in training and there is growing understanding of the importance of that investment. However, the greatest part of that investment is targeted at those in the boardroom,
386
those who are upwardly mobile, and those who are already highly skilled in professional jobs. Such professionals have always had paid educational leave. The 1997 labour force survey, for example, suggests that graduates receive five times as much continuing training as non-graduates. No one would wish to deny them those opportunities, and my Bill would simply extend the opportunities that are taken for granted by professionals to workers who left school with few, if any, qualifications; to workers in whose family there is no tradition of education or training beyond school age; to workers who cannot help their children succeed in school because they do not have the basic skills or the necessary confidence.
For many millions of people, it is a question not simply of being the first in a thousand generations to go to university but of being the first in a thousand generations to get a few days training a year. Let us be under no illusions about the scale of the problem that we have inherited. There are 13 million people in jobs with no access to training. More than a quarter of adult workers have literacy skills that are so poor that they cannot read basic instructions. Almost one third of the work force have no recognised vocational qualification.
Finding the means whereby unskilled workers with little job security and no prospect of upward mobility can be enabled to develop transferable vocational skills is the biggest challenge for our lifelong learning strategy. That is the key to their economic survival in the knowledge-based economy and the means by which they can raise the educational aspirations of their children. The Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 introduced that entitlement for young workers. The next step should be to extend the entitlement to all workers.
Belgium, Norway, Italy, France and Sweden already have national schemes of paid educational leave. Italy guarantees 150 hours per year. Belgium guarantees 240 hours per year. In Britain, the workers with the greatest need have always had the least access to training.
The United Kingdom supported the principle of paid educational leave 25 years ago by signing the 1974 convention of the International Labour Organisation. Last year, we reiterated our support for the principle by signing the European social chapter, article 15 of which calls for national schemes of paid educational leave.
The Government are to be congratulated on signing the social chapter so speedily after coming to power and on ensuring that many of its provisions are enshrined in domestic law, but if we are serious about widening participation in education and training, we must urgently consider the implications of article 15 and incorporate its principles into our lifelong learning strategy.
The inequalities that disfigure our society have been created mainly by a divisive system of education which has been more concerned with reproducing a narrow social elite than developing the skills of all our people. In the 21st century, no nation will be able to afford to neglect—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Michael J. Foster, Ms Jenny Jones, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, Mr. Derek Twigg and Mr. Phil Willis.

LIFELONG LEARNING (PARTICIPATION AND ENTITLEMENT)
Mr. David Chaytor accordingly presented a Bill to establish an entitlement to paid educational leave for people in employment; to secure comparable treatment for full and part-time students in institutions of further and higher education; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 59].
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

TREATMENT OF END OF LIFE VEHICLES
That this House endorses the Government's view that the draft Directive on end of life vehicles, European Union Document No. 11034/97, rightly seeks to achieve important environmental improvements; and supports the Government's intention to agree a Common Position on this draft Directive at the next Environment Council on 11th March.—[Mr. Betts.]
The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 107.

Division No. 95]

[4.38 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ainger, Nick

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cann, Jamie

Allan, Richard

Cawsey, Ian

Allen, Graham

Chaytor, David

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Chidgey, David

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Church, Ms Judith

Ashton, Joe

Clapham, Michael

Atkins, Charlotte

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Austin, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Ballard, Jackie

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Barron, Kevin

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Battle, John

Clelland, David

Bayley, Hugh

Clwyd, Ann

Beard, Nigel

Coaker, Vernon

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Cohen, Harry

Begg, Miss Anne

Cooper, Yvette

Beggs, Roy

Corston, Ms Jean

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cotter, Brian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cousins, Jim

Bennett, Andrew F

Cox, Tom

Benton, Joe

Crausby, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Berry, Roger

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Betts, Clive

Cummings, John

Blackman, Liz

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dalyell, Tam

Blizzard, Bob

Darvill, Keith

Boateng, Paul

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Denham, John

Bradshaw, Ben

Dobbin, Jim

Brake, Tom

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Brand, Dr Peter

Dowd, Jim

Breed, Colin

Drew, David

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Drown, Ms Julia

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Edwards, Huw

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Efford, Clive

Burden, Richard

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Burnett, John

Ennis, Jeff

Burstow, Paul

Fearn, Ronnie

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Fitzsimons, Lorna

388

Flynn, Paul

Mackinlay, Andrew

Follett, Barbara

McNulty, Tony

Forsythe, Clifford

MacShane, Denis

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Mactaggart, Fiona

Foster, Don (Bath)

McWalter, Tony

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McWilliam, John

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Foulkes, George

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Fyfe, Maria

Martlew, Eric

Gapes, Mike

Merron, Gillian

Gardiner, Barry

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Gerrard, Neil

Miller, Andrew

Gibson, Dr Ian

Moran, Ms Margaret

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Goggins, Paul

Mudie, George

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mullin, Chris

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Gorrie, Donald

Oaten, Mark

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Grocott, Bruce

Olner, Bill

Grogan, John

O'Neill, Martin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Öpik, Lembit

Harris, Dr Evan

Organ, Mrs Diana

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Pearson, Ian

Hepburn, Stephen

Perham, Ms Linda

Hill, Keith

Pike, Peter L

Hood, Jimmy

Pollard, Kerry

Hopkins, Kelvin

Pound, Stephen

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Primarolo, Dawn

Iddon, Dr Brian

Prosser, Gwyn

lllsley, Eric

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Quinn, Lawrie

Jamieson, David

Rammell, Bill

Jenkins, Brian

Rapson, Syd

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Raynsford, Nick

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Rendel, David

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Rooney, Terry

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Ruddock, Joan

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Sanders, Adrian

Keeble, Ms Sally

Savidge, Malcolm

Keetch, Paul

Sawford, Phil

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Sedgemore, Brian

Khabra, Piara S

Shaw, Jonathan

Kidney, David

Sheerman, Barry

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Kingham, Ms Tess

Skinner, Dennis

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Leslie, Christopher

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

Levitt, Tom

Soley, Clive

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Linton, Martin

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Livingstone, Ken

Stevenson, George

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Lock, David

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Love, Andrew

Stoate, Dr Howard

McAvoy, Thomas

Stringer, Graham

McCabe, Steve

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Swinney, John

McDonagh, Siobhain

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McDonnell, John

McGrady, Eddie

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Temple-Morris, Peter

McIsaac, Shona

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

389

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

White, Brian

Timms, Stephen

Wicks, Malcolm

Tipping, Paddy

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Todd, Mark

Touhig, Don

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Willis, Phil

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Wills, Michael

Winnick, David

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tyler, Paul

Wise, Audrey

Vaz, Keith

Worthington, Tony

Vis, Dr Rudi

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Wallace, James

Wyatt, Derek

Ward, Ms Claire

Watts, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Webb, Steve

Mr. David Hanson and

Welsh, Andrew

Mr. Greg Pope.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Collins, Tim

Amess, David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Day, Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Duncan Smith, Iain

Bercow, John

Evans, Nigel

Beresford, Sir Paul

Faber, David

Blunt, Crispin

Fabricant, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Fallon, Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Flight, Howard

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Dr Liam

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fraser, Christopher

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Gale, Roger

Cash, William

Garnier, Edward

Chope, Christopher

Gibb, Nick

Clappison, James

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Gray, James

390

Grieve, Dominic

Paice, James

Hague, Rt Hon William

Paterson, Owen

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Prior, David

Hammond, Philip

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hayes, John

Robathan, Andrew

Heald, Oliver

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Ruffley, David

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

St Aubyn, Nick

Horam, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Spring, Richard

Jenkin, Bernard

Steen, Anthony

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Streeter, Gary

Swayne, Desmond

Key, Robert

Syms, Robert

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Lansley, Andrew

Townend, John

Letwin, Oliver

Tredinnick, David

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Trend, Michael

Lidington, David

Tyrie, Andrew

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Walter, Robert

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Waterson, Nigel

Luff, Peter

Wells, Bowen

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Whitney, Sir Raymond

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Whittingdale, John

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Willetts, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Maples, John

Woodward, Shaun

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

May, Mrs Theresa

Nicholls, Patrick

Tellers for the Noes:

Ottaway, Richard

Sir David Madel and

Page, Richard

Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9 March].
  WAYS AND MEANS

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

    (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

    (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

    (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or

    (d) for any relief, other than a relief which—

    (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

    (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

    Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 1998–99, on the World Economy and the Pre-Budget Report (HC 91-I), and the Fourth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 1998–99, on the Pre-Budget Report (HC 93).]
  4.51 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I rise to oppose this Budget—a Budget of smoke and mirrors, a Budget with many a sting in the small print and a Budget which announced a little good news and left out a lot of bad news, which came in the press releases that followed. This is the third Budget of this Chancellor and this Government: third time unlucky for many. It is third time unlucky for motorists, for small business people, for industry and for most of the people who make the wealth and generate the jobs in our country.
  The Government came to power promising education, education, education as their three priorities. Three Budgets later, we know their true priority: it is tax, tax, tax. There are stealth taxes and wealth taxes, income taxes and spending taxes, business taxes and jobs taxes. After the Government have put taxes up, they dare to say that they have cut them—which is misleading the House on a great scale. Meanwhile, the hospitals are short of nurses and doctors, and schools find it difficult to recruit and retain good teachers.
  This is a Government of tax and waste, not tax and spend. They take more money from us so that Ministers can fly Concorde more often; they raise taxes so that we can employ more politicians throughout the country and have more quangos; and they spend massive sums on a welfare-to-work programme that simply does not work, as my right hon. and hon. Friends will demonstrate in future debates.
  392
  This is a Government who hire more spin doctors to tell us why they cannot afford more medical doctors. This Government are the nation's pickpocket, creeping up at the dead of Budget to rifle your wallet or purse. Saving for a pension? Not without a tax from this Chancellor. Making profits in your company? Not without paying a lot more corporation tax and then being asked to thank the Government for cutting the rate. Driving your car? Not without being clobbered by the Chancellor every time you go out of the garage, and often when you do not.
  This Budget continues the great Labour tradition of tax and waste. For business, there is extra vehicle excise duty [Interruption.] I see Ministers roaring their heads off. They obviously do not know what measures were in their three Budgets. They do not know how much damage is being done to industry. They have no idea of all the tax increases that the Chancellor has squirrelled away in the paperwork. It is a pity that they do not read the stuff, but we do because we need to represent the case to British business.
  Vehicle excise duty, a £25 million increase; capital gains on company sales, a £40 million increase—
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Is not laughter from Treasury Ministers particularly perverse at a time when the newspapers are announcing even more job losses in the manufacturing sector?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend anticipates my argument only too well. If only the Government could anticipate it, heed it and change their policy.
  This Budget contains changes to the value added tax rules—a £70 million increase; changes in VAT group treatment—a £5 million increase; and an end to VAT exemption on financing—a £95 million increase. I see that the Chancellor is trying to find those figures, so he obviously does not know about them either. For taxation of reverse premiums, there is a £20 million increase. Stamp duty is increasing; I wonder whether that is the Chancellor's revenge on the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). He reads that the right hon. Gentleman is about to buy a flat for a little over half a million pounds, and up goes the stamp duty. Perhaps we should call it Peter's pence from now on.
  There are increased car taxes and fuel duties. The Chancellor says in his "Budget for business" that some taxes will go down next year, and he is right—I have found two of them: a £10 million reduction in value added tax on "certain supplies", although they are not specified; and £5 million in tax relief for employer-loaned computers. Whoopee! That will make a real difference to business when it is set against the £25,000 million in extra taxes from the Chancellor's first two Budgets and the substantial increases in this year's. I assume that the borrowed computers are needed to help people to work out all the stealth taxes that they and their businesses must pay in the financial year 1999–2000.
  The overall impact next year on British business will be the raising of the tax burden by a substantial amount according to the Chancellor's own figures, as set out in "Budget 99", his own document. There are no overall tax reductions for business next year. There are massive increases from three Budgets—the largest of them from Budgets one and two and smaller further increases in Budget three.

  393
  What do the Prime Minister and the Chancellor say about the Budget? The Prime Minister says that it is another Budget to bring an end to boom and bust. That is his favourite soundbite. Out of his limited repertoire of tired and misleading phrases, "bringing an end to boom and bust" is the most overused and misleading.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): To Tory boom and bust.
  Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State is right to say that that is the way in which the Prime Minister chooses to construct his phrase. The Prime Minister repeats it like a music hall line or a comedian's catch phrase. To those in the front line of British industry, it does not seem very funny, however. Industry has been suffering for a year. At the time of the Chancellor's first Budget, I warned of
  "a treble whammy on profits, investment and jobs in British manufacturing … the higher exchange rate, which throttles the prospects of exporters in continental markets; the higher interest rates which have already occurred—undoubtedly there will be more …—and higher taxes".—[Official Report, 4 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 581.]
  As we know, there was more. If the Opposition could foresee all that in July 1997, why could not the Government? Why did they blunder and plunder on?
  Was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry persuaded to make today's silly statement, which had no new content, in order to delay the Budget debate beyond the normal time for the early evening news and because he did not wish to hear the truth about the plight of manufacturing? Did he also wish to delay the debate so long that I might have to be torn away to the shadow Cabinet, where my right hon. and hon. Friends are now? Or was the statement simply an unfortunate slip of his memory? Had he forgotten that all that he announced today had been announced many times before?
  Why does the Secretary of State not care about the string of factory closures and industrial job losses that are being left in his wake? Why will he not come to the House to make a statement about what he intends to do about that? The real issue facing us is manufacturing collapse and factory closures, not the silly, trivial matters that the right hon. Gentleman chose to mention or policies that he has announced many times before.
  Mr. John Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor, have approximately 20 times more experience of the private sector of the British economy than the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend's calculation is likely to be correct; it would not be difficult to have more industrial and commercial experience than the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): You obviously learned nothing from it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Minister for Energy and Industry must not shout across the Chamber. He should know better.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  394
  Why has the Budget done nothing to correct problems for manufacturing industry? It gives no answer to high sterling. It offers no relief from high taxes. It contains only more increases in the high costs facing industry.
  When the Prime Minister says that he has abolished the cycle of boom and bust, does he realise that manufacturing is in recession? For a long time, the Government said that output had not fallen for two quarters. Now that it has fallen for many industrial companies for longer than that, we are told grudgingly that it is a technical recession. There is nothing technical about it. It means job losses for tens of thousands of industrial workers. It means many closed factories. It means financial ruin for some who have committed their cash and effort to making things in Britain.
  Is the Prime Minister unaware of the job losses and factory closures? When he says that he has abolished the boom-bust cycle, does he mean that industry under Labour will simply stay bust? Is the magic new Labour ingredient in economic policy to be no recovery for industry now that it is down? There is certainly no sign in the Budget of any revival or any hope for the future for those who make things in Britain. There is no big reduction in their tax bills and no promise to influence Europe to reverse the continental countries' large devaluation.
  The Prime Minister has as much chance of staying on his trade cycle as he has of persuading me that his policy on the euro is right. He is not merely wobbling on his trade cycle: he, and British industry, have long since fallen off. The Prime Minister may believe in new Labour's circus—as long as the spin doctors turn out the lights, no one will notice that British industry is on the floor. Unfortunately for him, people have noticed. The workers at Cadbury noticed when they got their P45s. The workers of Coats Viyella noticed when they got the sack. The workers in the FII shoe factories noticed when the factories were closed down. Even the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry noticed, and he was forced to go to the north-east with soothing words. Still not a single policy has been introduced that could reverse the industrial rout.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: A number of workers employed by Coats Viyella in my constituency have lost their jobs because Marks and Spencer has decided to switch its production to third-world countries. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the answer is a reduction in salaries and pay to third-world levels? If not, he should address the issues and tell the House his alternatives.
  Mr. Redwood: I have often led debates for the Opposition on that subject and suggested to the Government how they could avert some of the industrial disaster over which they are presiding. If they had a sensible policy on interest rates, sterling, business taxes and regulatory costs, British business would not have been sandbagged as it has by the Government. They have taken too much money out of the hands of manufacturing industry and that is why jobs are being lost.
  Mr. Tom King: Sadly, I can add to my right hon. Friend's list. Some 20 per cent. of the work force of St. Regis—which, far from being in a cheap labour industry, is capital-intensive—now face the

  395
  prospect of redundancy. That plant in my constituency is highly efficient and has received substantial capital investment.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and add my sympathies to his for those workers now threatened with the sack. That is what is happening up and down the country, thanks to the Government.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Are we meant to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that, given the chance, he would reverse the independence of the Bank of England, alongside his intention never to join the euro? In such a situation, long-term interest rates for British industry would rocket, there would be a huge migration of international capital out of the country and the rate of unemployment would escalate.
  Mr. Redwood: What an extraordinary statement. The Opposition opposed the independence of the Bank of England because we did not think it was right in the circumstances. How right we were. Interest rates were driven higher than we recommended or proposed and British industry was put into a vice of high sterling, high interest rates, high taxes and high regulatory costs. That is why we are now seeing a disaster.
  Mr. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman reverse independence?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question. The Opposition will set out the right remedy for the British economy in the prevailing circumstances in the run-up to the next general election. We cannot do more than oppose a wrong idea at the moment. We opposed independence for the Bank of England and we explained that we did so because it would do great damage to British manufacturing. Our prediction has come true. The Chancellor should admit that he got it wrong, apologise, recognise the damage that he has done and try to do better next time with a different policy.
  One would have thought that Ministers would care more because the problems are occurring in their constituencies. My constituency of Wokingham does not have a big problem, because it is a high-tech town which is still doing well. However, there are real problems in the industrial heartlands, which are usually represented by Labour Members, especially those on the Front Bench. In the past six months, unemployment has risen by 101 in the Prime Minister's constituency. He should visit it and find out. Unemployment has gone up by 275 in Hartlepool, the constituency of the recently departed Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It has gone up by 405 in the constituency of the current Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—a huge number of people out of work while the right hon. Gentleman is on the beat, allegedly looking after the interests of British business, yet he does nothing about it.
  Has the Secretary of State read the forecasts in the Red Book? They are not my forecasts. For many months, I have been predicting industrial recession; now the Government have caught up with the Opposition's prediction. The Chancellor tells us that, in 1999, manufacturing output will fall by between 1 and 1.5 per cent. That is a recession and it is a long one. No one thinks that the Chancellor is being too pessimistic—indeed his
  396
  forecasts assume that sterling will fall to help manufacturing industry. However, that is not happening at present; the position is becoming worse.
  The Budget predicts a further collapse in our trade balance. I remember the present Chancellor fulminating against any increase in the trade deficit under Conservative Governments. However, he does not even mention the matter in his Budget statement; nor is it mentioned by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Exporters find that the going is extremely tough. What does the Chancellor say in the Red Book, although not in his Budget speech?
  "The deficit in trade in goods and services is forecast to widen to around £ 13¼ billion in 1999".
  We are told that net exports will be well down on levels recorded last year. There is to be a balance of payments crisis and a collapse of manufacturing exports; the Chancellor foresees a country awash with imports as workers are thrown on to the dole and people buy goods from abroad—exactly what the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) tells us is happening in his constituency thanks to the purchasing decisions of Marks and Spencer.
  How many people might lose their jobs as a result of the actions of this bungling Chancellor? The trade unions are clear—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) should not laugh when the Chancellor is criticised by the trade unions. She should understand that sometimes the trade unions are right and that sometimes she should listen to them. The trade unions are fairly clear, saying:
  "We estimate that in the year to quarter 4 1999 total employment could fall by 200,000 to 300,000 and almost all the lost jobs will be in manufacturing."
  That is quite a forecast, but it is lower than the so-called independent forecast included in the Chancellor's Budget figures, where we learn that the increase in unemployment will be 400,000 as a result of this and previous Budgets.
  I wish that I could disagree with the trade union forecasts and tell people all over the country in industrial jobs that things will not be that bad. I want our country to do well and our manufacturing industry to thrive and survive. Unfortunately, the Government's whole strategy rests on people in manufacturing losing their jobs on a grand scale.
  The Government tell us that British industry is 20 per cent. behind our continental competitors in productivity. If the Government will do nothing to lower other costs and taxes on business, the reduction in costs will have to come from jobs. Do they really want that? I want the Government to cut other costs and taxes, rather than business having to cut jobs. If the whole of that one-fifth gap in productivity has to be narrowed by losing jobs, the Government are recommending the sacking of 1 million people from the manufacturing areas of this country to bring us into line with Germany. They will not give on the exchange rate, regulatory costs or taxes, so they say that the brunt of the burden of adjustment must fall on jobs. Furthermore, they cannot say that the adjustment will come from rising output, which is what Conservatives would want, because the forecasts are that output will fall as a result of their policies.
  To be fairer to the Government, let us be more modest in our assumptions. Let us assume that, this year, the Government want British industry to raise its productivity by only 4 per cent., thus making a small contribution to

  397
  bridging the gap that they perceive between us and Germany. We should remember that Germany's productivity will also rise. The 4 per cent. increase in productivity, on top of a 1 per cent. output fall—the lowest end of the Chancellor's range—means that 5 per cent. of jobs in industry must go. That is about 250,000 jobs, just for one year's modest narrowing of the gap that the Government think is all important, and which they think must be narrowed by sacking people rather than by the Government mending their own ways. Our forecast of 250,000 jobs to go in manufacturing is modest compared with the upper level of the trade union forecasts. I fear that it will come true. I wish that the Secretary of State would change his speech, change his policy and prevent it from becoming a reality—for the sake of his constituents, if not for the sake of mine.
  What does the Secretary of State bring to the party? He brings a trade war between the European Union and the United States of America. Does he not realise that in a trade war there are absolutely no winners? In this trade war, the loser will once again be British manufacturing— which loses from everything the Government do. The Secretary of State seems to see himself as the samurai of the trade war, but he is instead the kamikaze pilot who mistakes the Scottish borders for New York and ends up destroying great chunks of the cashmere and biscuit industries through his suicidal dive.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my right hon. Friend recall the debate about the textile industry that we had in this House at the end of January when we implored the Prime Minister to pick up the telephone that day and talk to the President of the United States in an attempt to resolve the problems of the cashmere industry? It seems that our words went unheeded and that the Government paid very little attention to us.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her advice and that of other right hon. and hon. Members was good and well meant. We do not want this trade war, and we would dearly love the Prime Minister to have enough clout with the President to secure a change in the American position. We would dearly love the Secretary of State to have enough influence in Brussels to achieve some movement in the European position. [Interruption.]
  Every time I mention Brussels, Labour Members laugh. It is so childish. Do they not understand that most of the big decisions affecting manufacturing in this country that are taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry either have to be cleared with Brussels or are governed by Brussels regulations or potential court judgments? That is why I have to mention Brussels, and why the Secretary of State would be wise to do the same. He should understand the Brussels limitation on his powers.
  In this case, the Secretary of State should spend time in Brussels attempting to get officials to understand that it is not fair for British manufacturers to suffer because of a row between the EU and the US about an entirely different issue: bananas. Instead of being difficult— saying that he rather welcomes this trade war and trying to hype up the language and the rhetoric against the United States—the Secretary of State, and the Prime Minister for that matter, should be trying to bring the sides together.
  398
  That is what the cashmere industry wants, and it is even what the banana producers of the Caribbean want. They know that there must be negotiations and a deal. If the Secretary of State cares about Scottish cashmere, United Kingdom biscuit manufacturing and Caribbean bananas, will he please start negotiating, calm the tempers and inject some common sense into this very difficult situation?
  Why is industry generally suffering so badly, according to the Chancellor's own analysis? It is because the Government are sucking it dry and taking its money away. There have been £25,000 million-worth of extra business taxes this Parliament. That money could otherwise be spent on much-needed new plant and equipment. The Government have imposed £15,000 million in extra costs from regulation. That money could otherwise be spent creating more jobs and new products and ideas. They have let the pound go sky high against the Asian and continental currencies, which has slashed our export earnings and left our industries struggling against a flood of cheap imports.
  Let us look at the Government's impact on just one industry: the food industry. It is expected to pay £50 million for the start-up costs of the Food Standards Agency; £250 million in extra food safety costs; £21.5 million in additional Meat Hygiene Service costs; £500,000 in fish inspection costs; £1 million in egg inspection costs; £90 million in business rate increases; £92 million to implement the minimum wage; £4 million to set up the working families tax credit; and £78 million for the working time directive. The packaging waste regulations, staff car park tax and electrical recycling measures are three more costs in the pipeline. In common with other industries, the food industry must pay much more corporation tax, a tax on pensions and much higher motoring taxes. After that lot, how can any Minister say with a straight face that Labour looks after business and is seriously interested in making business more productive and more successful?
  This Budget tells industry to go hang. The DTI told industry that loud and clear in its competitiveness White Paper. It stated that Britain will not be able to earn a living by making things. I know that the White Paper was produced by the Secretary of State's predecessor, but I think that he agrees with it. It states:
  "An advanced industrial nation like ours cannot support rising prosperity by producing standard products and services made with pedestrian methods and commonplace technology."
  What a breathtaking statement by the DTI, writing off great chunks of our industry and services. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. The Government seem to be implementing this policy in the textile, steel, engineering and shoe industries, among others.
  It is not possible for every company in the country to have the latest technology or to be full of scientists or the United Kingdom's best brains. We need other types of businesses and industries. Under a sensible economic policy, it is possible to employ people and make money by using ordinary technology to create commonplace things. There is nothing wrong with that. The Government

  399
  have declared war on such businesses. They have been successful in that war and they are doing a lot of damage to our industrial base.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Rubbish.
  Mr. Redwood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not writing off all those businesses in his constituency that are not at the leading edge of technology. Many of those companies do not claim to be at the leading edge of technology: they simply want to make a decent living by employing people to make things that consumers want to buy using commonplace technology. The Government are making it too difficult and expensive for them to do that.
  Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only the manufacturing industry that is at risk? The London art market, which employs 5,000 people, is in danger because of the imposition of lower value added tax and a proposed tax from the European Union. Ministers will not declare that it is a British national industry and use the veto.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I have raised that issue in the House. The Government have failed signally to speak up for the London art market. They do not seem to realise how important it is. They have not promised or threatened to use the veto, which is the very least they should do given the serious threat that is posed to the future of that important market, on which many jobs and much income depend.
  The Government conjure up an image of a future Britain as a province of Europe fit for spin doctors to practise in. Our vision of reality will be distorted not by smoke from the factory chimney, but by the smoke in our eyes from the lobbyists, public relations professionals and high-tech wizards who surround the new Labour project.
  This Budget is proclaimed as a Budget that will provide more work for people. Yet, as we heard this afternoon, one of its important themes is to take a lot of work away from the Secretary of State. We are told that he is to give up the day job—dealing with competition in the United Kingdom market—which is now to be carried out by a new, enlarged and expensive quango situated further away from parliamentary scrutiny. The reason that we have been given is that we cannot trust politicians—I suppose that shows a little self-knowledge on the part of the Government. However, there are many occasions when the Secretary of State should be prepared to make decisions in the public interest. He should decide how much competition will be introduced and promote that cause.
  I asked the Secretary of State a series of questions following today's statement, and I received absolutely no answers. When I write to the right hon. Gentleman, I am told that he cannot answer my letters and that I should ask my questions in the House of Commons. When I question him in the House of Commons, I receive no answers. Is that because the Secretary of State does not have any answers, or because he so hates democracy that he is not prepared to make any answers available through Parliament to the press and wider public?
  Why can the Secretary of State not tell us whether he wants to introduce competition into the car or brewing industries or any other areas that I asked about today?
  400
  Why is it such a secret? I do not believe that the Secretary of State is unable to make a judgment on those matters, and I do not believe that he can get away with the excuse that they are not his responsibility. Until he has given his job away, they are very much his responsibility. Business must know where it stands. It is in flux, thanks to the new legislation introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and the Secretary of State owes it to the House this afternoon to provide answers to those important policy questions.
  This Government, above all else and to a greater extent than their predecessors, pride themselves on their close day-by-day—even hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute— links to the media. How can we believe that the Government are free to make impartial decisions in the area of media competition when they owe so many favours in that field? When I asked the Secretary of State to make it absolutely clear that the one case in which his argument may have force—the media—would be transferred to his independent authority, he was unable to give me that reassurance and went on to say that he is about to decide on one of the most sensitive and important cases of all—whether BSkyB should take over Manchester United.
  It is a great pity that the Secretary of State does not realise the logic of his position. He tells us that there are times when a Minister is compromised by the interests of the Government generally, yet when we have the best example of a case in which that problem could arise, it is the one case in which he will make the decision and leave himself in considerable difficulty. Perhaps he will help to resolve that conundrum when he responds to the debate.
  I come from a constituency which, along with others, is leading the software, internet and communications revolution. I agree that all those sectors will be more important in the future and will provide many good jobs in the years to come. However, man does not live by mobile phones and e-mails alone. We still need clothes, food and houses. We still need to make things as well as say things. It would be wrong to write off the one fifth of our economy that is based on manufacturing.
  The new industries do not welcome the siren call of the new regulators. The Government threaten them with e-commerce legislation. When I met representatives of the Federation of Electronic Industries the other day, they agreed with me that elements of the new law are more likely to stifle than to stimulate the new technology.
  What should the Chancellor have done in the Budget? He should have taken to heart the Prime Minister's words about doing things the American way. He should have apologised for tax increases past and avoided all stealth taxes future. He should have put off the regulations that now threaten much British commercial success. He should have struck out boldly for a freer market. The Budget could have offered a prosperous future for manufacturing. Instead, the Chancellor chose to ignore the pleas of British industry. He will live to regret that.
  Yvette Cooper: If the right hon. Gentleman's party is so good at encouraging business and innovation in business, why is there a 40 per cent. productivity gap between UK companies and American companies?
  Mr. Redwood: The productivity gap is largely the result of the higher taxes, higher exchange rate,

  401
  higher interest rates and higher regulatory costs that this Government have imposed. In 1995, BMW thought that Britain was the best place in Europe, bar none, to make motor cars. Under this Government, it is talking of pulling out, and the Secretary of State will have to offer a lot of money to try to keep the company here. What has changed is not British productivity by British managers and workers, but the Government's policy.
  Mr. Richard Burden: The right hon. Gentleman referred to BMW and the high rate of sterling. It is true that the company has commented on that. Will he comment on the statement by Mr. Samann, the new BMW-appointed chair of Rover, who said:
  "We do need some help from a more realistic level of sterling; a proper interest rate strategy and government fiscal policies can achieve that without inflating the economy. Early entry of the UK into the Euro would benefit all exporters"?
  Mr. Redwood: I agree with all of that apart from the last comment about the euro, and if I were handling the negotiations with the BMW chairman, I would explain to him why I think that and try to persuade him that, under a Conservative Government, Britain would again be the best place in which to invest and to make motor cars. When one of my hon. Friends saw the hon. Gentleman leaving the House of Commons the other day, he noticed that he was not driving a Rover car or one made in Longbridge, which seems a great pity. Surely it is best for all hon. Members interested in that industry to buy cars from Longbridge.
  Mr. Burden: I do not know what car the right hon. Gentleman saw me driving. I own a Rover 200 and my partner drives a Mini, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to apologise.
  Mr. Redwood: If that is true, of course I apologise. I said that an hon. Friend had observed the hon. Gentleman, and he was apparently driving a Vauxhall out of the House, which seemed a pity for one who is meant to be defending Rover. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my wife and I make sure that we buy British and represent the British motor industry.
  The American economy has been growing much more quickly than the European economy. Industrial production has leapt ahead in the USA thanks to interest rates, tax rates and exchanges rates that make sense for business. Industrial production has been sluggish on the continent, and countries are trying to drag themselves out of the mire by devaluing against the UK and the US.
  Why do the Government want to converge with slow growth and high unemployment? Do they want a fifth of our work force to be out of work, as in Spain or southern Italy? Do they want our output to crawl ahead as some continental output has done in recent years? Why does the Prime Minister tell us that he wants a single currency as long as Europe follows the American dream? Does he not realise how stupid that sounds? Even he must realise that it will not happen. It is like saying that the Government are determined to have only fine weather and have instructed everybody accordingly on their pagers, so it is bound to work.
  402
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry delights in being the cover-up Minister. He will not answer letters and he does not like answering questions. When Parliament is not in Session, he waits until it resumes and then says that it is not permissible to write letters to him and that questions must be tabled instead.
  The other day, I asked what impact a 1 per cent. increase in various costs would have on British industry. The Secretary of State must know the answer. I do not believe that he is so incompetent that he has not done his sums. His temporary lapse on his sums is not representative of his work as a whole. I am sure that he can work out percentages. So what did he say instead of giving me the answer? He replied that this Government were abolishing the boom-bust cycle. I asked nothing about cycles or busts.
  The Secretary of State may be less grey than we thought if he has all those busts in his brain, but is it not about time that he lifted the quality of debate and told us what is the impact on companies of higher exchange rates, higher labour costs and higher regulatory costs, and what he is going to do about that? His failure to answer tells us a great deal about his state of mind. Either the Secretary of State is preoccupied or he knows that this is the big issue, but does not know how best to cover it up and so continues his trite mantra about no more boom and bust.
  Of course, the Secretary of State and the Chancellor prefer to blame British industry. The Secretary of State tells us that it is not the Government's fault that we have a record trade deficit; that that has nothing to do with having sky-high sterling or higher interest rates than our competitors; that business is not short of cash because the Government are milking it dry; and that it is all industry's own fault for being unproductive. That is another nice irony. At precisely the time when one part of the Government are trying to subsidise people into work, the Trade Secretary and the Chancellor are trying to price people out of industrial jobs and to encourage a massive labour shake-out from traditional sectors. Everything that the Treasury and the DTI have done in the past two years has made it more likely that industrial payrolls will be slimmed down mercilessly.
  One job is lost every 10 minutes. The Trade Secretary offers more job losses as his answer, which is dressed up as 75 points from a White Paper, but amounts to just one simple, painful, unfriendly point. It says to British industry, "Sack some of them now, or go bust. Get rid of some of them today, or get rid of them all tomorrow." That is Byers's choice. That is the Government's choice. They make it too dear to employ people and business has the horrible job of telling people that they are out on their ear.
  This is a Budget of soundbites and contradiction. It is a family-friendly Budget which reveals just how family-friendly it is by removing the married couples allowance and mortgage interest relief. It is a shareholders' Budget which leaves in place the hated pensions tax, which taxes the main way that people in Britain own shares. It is a Budget for jobs, but its main recommendation to industry is to slim down the payroll and pray for better times.
  The combination of trade war, stealth taxes and a big increase in regulation is lethal. Meanwhile, the Government weep crocodile tears over small businesses while tying them up in ever more paperwork and

  403
  regulation and imposing higher national insurance on the self-employed. Businesses have to cope with new rules on unfair dismissal, the working families tax credit, the minimum wage, statutory sick pay, EU paternity leave, emergency leave, union recognition, the working time directive and extended maternity leave. We shall soon find that as the small business man comes to the end of his 48 permitted hours, he has worked only for the Government and has had no time to work for his customers and himself. The Government have swamped him with more paper than the Andrex puppy.
  Pity the poor haulier facing more vehicle excise duty on top of the DERV and other taxes. What advice does that vanishing British industry get from Ministers? Hauliers are told to go to the continent to fill up. Some are doing more—they are going to Luxembourg to set up and pulling out of Britain altogether.
  Labour views this as an election Budget for Wales and Scotland. The farmers will not see it like that because they will remain in slump. Rural dwellers will not see it like that as they seek a mortgage to pay to use their car. People who want better schools and hospitals will not see it like that as they watch the money being wasted on other things.
  This is a Budget for manufacturing collapse and industrial unemployment. It may make work for accountants and lawyers, but it will not work for business. It certainly means bust for manufacturing. The only boom that I foresee is a continuing boom for spin doctors seeking to explain away the industrial collapse. I beg to oppose this Budget.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I should inform the House that the Speaker has decided that there will be a time limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches between 6.30 and 9.30 pm.
  5.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I am grateful for the 40-odd minutes that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) took to set out his opposition to the Budget. It was The Daily Telegraph, I think, which stated that, each time the right hon. Gentleman gets up and speaks, he loses votes for the Conservative party.
  The Budget presented yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have broad and popular appeal for business, for British people, for those who rely on the public services, and for parents who have children in school, because it confirmed that the £19 billion promised by the Chancellor as part of the comprehensive spending review was to be devoted to our schools. For those who need health treatment, the £21 billion for the national health service has been confirmed.
  It is possible to marry fiscal prudence with the need to invest in high-quality public services. That is what the Budget will do. It takes forward the agenda outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It is a Budget for jobs, enterprise and the family. That is what we should be debating this evening. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not use the opportunity to address those issues.
  404
  This is a radical Budget, which recognises that our country's future economic success depends on promoting fairness and enterprise. It is a new Labour Budget, based on a fundamental understanding of the role that business and Government can and should play in relation to the economy. Businesses create jobs and wealth. Entrepreneurs take risks in the face of uncertainty, and open up new markets. Governments should not try to second-guess boardroom decisions, yet much of what we heard from the right hon. Gentleman this evening sought to encourage us to do precisely that—massive intervention in the way in which businesses operate.
  That is not the way in which the Government intend to go. We believe that the responsibility of Government is to create the climate and the framework in which business can prosper without interference from Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that Labour does not look after business. It is hardly surprising that he should say that, as the principal Opposition spokesman on trade and industry affairs.
  It would be far better to listen to the comments of people who do not have a vested interest and do not approach the matter from a party political perspective— or perhaps some of them do. Let us consider the comments of some captains of industry on yesterday's Budget.
  Sir Ronnie Hampel, chairman of ICI, welcomed the overall approach of continuing the direction adopted in previous Government statements about laying the foundations for business growth. The chief executive of Asda, no longer the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), but Sir Alan Leighton, said that he was happy with the Budget. He said that it was a Budget for individuals, families and enterprise and that the benefits that it brought to all three would go through to every sector. Lord Harris, chairman of Carpetright—who, if I remember correctly, has over time been a substantial donor to Conservative party funds and is one of the few business men who still give generously to Conservative party funds—thought that it was a good Budget for his business and that it would get people spending, especially at the bottom end.
  Those are overwhelming endorsements from people who, with the possible exception of Lord Harris, do not approach the Budget from a party political position.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: There is another exception. If the right hon. Gentleman reads today's press, he will see that Eddie Stobart, the boss of one of Britain's biggest road haulage firms, says that he could save his company £2 million a year by moving his transport fleet overseas and basing it abroad. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the huge damage that is done to the road haulage industry? Does he not recognise its effect on British industry?
  Mr. Byers: I have not seen that quote from Mr. Stobart, but I will read it. He should look at the tax regime in the round. He will find that we offer a far more friendly tax regime in the United Kingdom than he would find in France, for example. It is for Mr. Stobart to make those decisions, but, if he looks at the tax regime in the round, he will see that it is supportive of his industry.
  I was examining the comments that have been made about the Budget. There were some interesting comments from one person who does come at it from a party

  405
  political perspective, the former chief executive of Asda, now the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. On radio yesterday, he said:
  "We welcome the help for small business. I think that's good. We welcome the reduction in corporation tax and lower corporation tax for smaller businesses. That's good. As I said, we particularly welcome it in Asda. We are very keen on employee share ownership. I think everybody in the country is dead keen on it and that's good."
  He concluded by saying:
  "Overall, not a bad business budget."
  That is a vice-chairman of the Conservative party, going on the record publicly and endorsing our approach, in conflict with the views of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, who speaks for the Opposition on these matters.
  Mr. Bercow: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the president of the Confederation of British Industry, Sir Clive Thompson, has said that the Government are responsible for a creeping paralysis of regulation, and that, unless action is taken to reverse the trend, that regulation will be the principal growth industry in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman should see what Sir Clive said about the Budget. I think that he will find that Sir Clive is not critical. Adair Turner is broadly supportive of the measures in the Budget. I was at a meeting with him this morning, with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, at which Mr. Turner clearly said that the tax burden on business was reduced as a result of the Budget introduced by the Chancellor yesterday.
  Let us debate the Budget. I urge hon. Members to take the opportunity to debate it. Let us have a debate about the ideas, the initiatives and the promotion of enterprise and fairness.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm, as does the Red Book, that business will face a tax increase as a result of this Budget in 1999–2000, the immediate relevant year? We cannot be sure what will happen in two years, because there will be more Budgets. For the year that we can be sure about—the coming year, 1999–2000—the figures show an increase in business taxation, do they not?
  Mr. Byers: The overall Budget delivers £4 billion of tax cuts. The right hon. Gentleman should consider carefully the measures that he supported when he was a member of the Cabinet. They would have meant an increased tax burden, compared to the measures that we are discussing. Business would have faced a greater tax burden, had the proposals that he supported continued. We do not agree with imposing such burdens on business. We are reducing the burden, compared to that which would have been imposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Chancellor was able to present that Budget yesterday because, early on in office, he took the tough and difficult decisions necessary to ensure that we have economic stability. By ensuring that, he could announce the initiatives proposed yesterday.
  406
  It is particularly significant that my right hon. Friend was able to do that, given the situation that we inherited when we took office in May 1997. Conservative Members do not like to be reminded of the economic mess that they left behind, but I shall remind them, and I might even mention not just boom and bust, but Tory boom and bust. I certainly shall not be referring to a golden economic legacy, because it clearly was not.
  We inherited an economy in which output was rising at a rate that simply could not be sustained, inflationary pressures were building, with inflation set to rise sharply above its target level, and there was a large deficit in public finances—£28 billion, to be precise. Contrast that with the £4 billion surplus this year. Moreover, for the coming five years, we estimate that there will be a Budget surplus totalling £34 billion.
  Look at what happened under the Conservative Government. Their deficit over the last economic cycle was not £50 billion, not £100 billion, but £1 billion short of £150 billion. Even with my poor mathematical skills, I know that that is £149 billion. That is the legacy created by the right hon. Member for Wokingham and his Government.
  Mr. David Prior: Why does the Minister believe that so many foreign companies decided to invest in Britain during that time?
  Mr. Byers: There were two reasons. First, they saw the UK as a means of entry into the European market, something which will be put at risk by the policies promoted by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. Secondly, the figures show that last year was one of the best in terms of inward investment decisions. That was 1998, the year of a Labour Government.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: On the question of the golden legacy, which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to dispute, what does he think of the view expressed by Mr. Anatole Kaletsky, who says:
  "Mr. Brown's apparent generosity has been greatly assisted by the long-term tax increases that were bravely introduced by Tory Chancellors"?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. That conflicts with the approach of the right hon. Member for Wokingham. That is one reason why we were not prepared to endorse that raft of tax increases proposed by the Conservative Government, and why the tax burden is reduced as a result of the Budget. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to my attention.
  We have economic stability because we took the difficult decision to take politics out of the setting of interest rates. We will not hear the Tory policy on that from the right hon. Gentleman. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have taken a Trappist vow of silence on that. I think that I know the view of the right hon. Member for Wokingham. It is a shame that he cannot discuss it openly. He smiles because he knows that he would not have given independence to the Bank of England. It is a shame that he cannot speak his mind on the issue. Unfortunately, he cannot say what he truly believes.
  We took the necessary steps to put public finances back on a sound footing. They were not in that condition when we took office. We have created a new framework for

  407
  stability in monetary and fiscal policies. It is because we have taken those steps that, for the past seven months, inflation has been at or around the target level of 2.5 per cent., and short-term interest rates have peaked at half what they were in the early 1990s, and have fallen by 2 per cent. in the past two months alone. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, that reduction in interest rates will save the typical home owner around £900 a year on his mortgage. Britain now has the lowest mortgage rates in 33 years. Long-term interest rates are now at their lowest level since the mid-1960s.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham talks about jobs being lost. I understand the pain felt by people who have lost their jobs. I know my constituency well, and I share my constituents' pain, frustration and anger when jobs are lost. But my constituency now has more people in work than on 1 May 1997. Throughout the north-east, which has been affected by the global downturn, more people are in work. Nationally, 400,000 more people are in work than in May 1997. Those are the facts. The right hon. Gentleman likes his own prejudices to get in the way of the facts, but on this occasion he should look carefully at the true position.
  Mr. Redwood: What does the Secretary of State think will happen to manufacturing jobs, industrial jobs, during the next year? Does he agree with the union forecasts, or is he saying that there will be no overall job losses?
  Mr. Byers: I am trying to ensure that factories such as Siemens have a new owner so that people can get back into jobs. I want to see more positive announcements, such as the one this morning from Peugeot in Coventry announcing 900 new jobs. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not applaud that fact? He says not a word about it. He ignores it. I welcome that announcement. It came about as a result of initiatives taken by the Government and by my Department. We shall continue with such work. There are now 400,000 more people in work than when we took office. Unemployment in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is dropping. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), there is a 22 per cent. reduction in unemployment. The Labour Government are prepared to work even for those constituencies represented by Conservative Members.
  Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that he is here answering for the Government on the whole Budget. Obviously, everyone welcomes new jobs in any area; they would be as welcome in my constituency as they would be in his. But the right hon. Gentleman was asked for a judgment on the overall Budget, and that matter gives me concern. The figures appear to show that there will be a substantial increase in unemployment in manufacturing industry. The right hon. Gentleman is party to the Budget and the Budget sums. Is that correct?
  Mr. Byers: Once again, it would have been nice had the right hon. Gentleman reflected on the fact that unemployment in his constituency is now down by more than 20 per cent. since the general election. The Budget brings good news for manufacturing. Substantial tax concessions have been introduced, specifically targeted at the manufacturing sector, and manufacturers want economic stability, not a return to the early 1990s and the
  408
  days of Tory boom and bust. I can remember those days. In north Tyneside, around my constituency, not just tens or hundreds of jobs, but thousands, were lost in basic manufacturing industry because of Tory boom and bust. My constituents do not forget that, and that is why they voted for a Labour candidate.
  I am outlining the steps that we are taking to help the manufacturing sector. However, we need to be realistic, and there is no doubt that, as we face a global downturn, some sectors of industry will be affected. To overcome that difficult situation, we need economic stability, and we believe that we have created the framework for that.
  Mr. David Chidgey: The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that tens of thousands of jobs were lost in manufacturing in the 1970s and 1980s, but he will also know that there has been a worldwide decline in manufacturing employment, and those jobs will not come back. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to impress on us the number of jobs that have been created since the Labour party took office, but will he confirm that far too many of those jobs are less skilled than those that were lost—the jobs that do not come back?
  Mr. Byers: A mix of employment opportunities is being created. It is a dangerous game to denigrate certain types of employment because they are part time or flexible, because many people now like to have such employment. Many full-time employment opportunities are being created in manufacturing which are well paid and high tech. That is the reality. Today's announcement of 900 high-quality, well-paid manufacturing jobs being created by Peugeot is a good example of that. I would hope that Opposition Members, from whatever party, would welcome that approach.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
  Mr. Byers: I have taken a number of interventions; I will give way in a few minutes, when I have made some progress.
  The International Monetary Fund report published on Monday shows the extent to which impartial observers think that the economy is doing well. The IMF gave the economy a glowing bill of health and its report praised the United Kingdom's impressive economic performance in recent years and the Government's skilful management of the economy.
  The IMF said that the private sector fundamentals were strong and that any slowdown in the economy would be short-lived. It gave credit to the new monetary policy framework for leading to timely and judicious changes in interest rates and welcomed the Government's basic welfare-to-work thrust as improving the work of the labour market. When the IMF had analysed the Government's approach to the economy, it strongly endorsed the attitudes that we have adopted.
  As the Chancellor said yesterday, we understand that there will be difficulties, with a quarter of the world in recession and world growth being cut by half. We have to overcome those short-term difficulties and we believe that the steps that we have taken, which will be carried through by the Budget, will ensure that we can steer a course of stability. Conservative Members know that full well and that the economy is now in a strong position.

  409
  We need to build on that strength. In particular, that means that we must seize the opportunities provided by the knowledge-driven economy of the future. If we fail to do that, we will be left behind as a country and as a people.
  Success in tomorrow's fast-moving world depends critically on how well we exploit our most valuable and distinctive assets—the knowledge and the talent of the British people. The first industrial revolution was based on investment in capital and machinery. The revolution that we are going through requires investment in human capital—in skills, in learning and in education. That commitment comes from the Government.
  Here is a message for all industry: knowledge is increasingly important not just for new industries; it will affect old, traditional industries just as much. They must embrace the knowledge-driven economy. Some are doing so, but all the traditional sectors need to do so if they are to prosper.
  Last December's White Paper on the knowledge-driven economy set out a model for industrial policy for the next century. First, we must invest in British capabilities—in particular, our world-class science and engineering base and our skills. Secondly, we must act as a catalyst to collaboration between businesses and between businesses and our important science base. Finally, we must promote greater competition—principally, by empowering consumers, but through regulation where necessary. That is why I said to the House earlier that we will fully implement the 75 commitments in the White Paper. An implementation plan, which will show clearly how we intend to deliver on those commitments, has been published today.
  A more fundamental challenge faces us all and goes beyond government: how can we end the poverty of ambition in Britain, which has held us back for too long? In government, in business, in universities, in schools and throughout society, we must foster a new spirit. We must be prepared to seize opportunities to turn new ideas into successful products and services and be committed to constant innovation and improved performance. Yesterday's Budget was an important step on the road, introducing measures that will encourage the new spirit of enterprise.
  Mr. Lansley: A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Budget contained tax measures designed to help manufacturing. I am looking through the table of "Budget 99" measures. He will of course be aware, on behalf of manufacturing, of a further table in the Red Book listing a large number of additional measures, which were announced before "Budget 99"— in 1998 or earlier—and take effect after this Budget. I have found 14 measures that will increase taxes on business, totalling £2.8 billion for the year beginning 1 April 1999. So far, I have found three measures that will reduce tax by a total of £15 million. There is £2.8 billion in extra taxes and a reduction of £15 million, which is a pretty poor show.
  Mr. Byers: I would accept that a £15 million reduction is not good enough; we need to do better. If the hon. Gentleman looks through the Red Book and reads the
  410
  statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday, he will see that the impact on investment will allow small and medium companies to write off 40 per cent. of all that they invest in plant and machinery in the coming year. That is particularly important for manufacturing companies. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not see that example of what we have done; perhaps he chose not to see it.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has had his chance. We have provided £325 million, which can be written off against investment in plant and machinery in the coming year. That is the reality, and it is a shame that he is not aware of it.
  Other steps that will be introduced as a result of the Budget will make a real difference. For example, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed the reduction in the basic rate of corporation tax, ensuring that it will be reduced to 30 per cent. from April this year—down from 33 per cent. when we took office. That is the lowest rate of any major country in Europe and the lowest rate of any major industrialised country, including Japan and the United States.
  Mr. Townend: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: No, I will not.
  We are also cutting small companies tax to 20p in the pound—down from 23p when we took office—and, to promote even greater enterprise and investment, we announced a new starting rate for small businesses of 10 per cent., which is the lowest ever starting rate. We calculate that 270,000 businesses stand to benefit from that reduction, and 85 per cent. of them employ fewer than 10 employees. That will make a huge difference.
  Corporation tax rates of 10, 20 and 30 per cent.— guaranteed to be no higher in the lifetime of this Parliament—show how serious we are about encouraging business and ensuring that the United Kingdom is a good place in which to do business.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress; I will give way shortly.
  We need to ensure that those opportunities are provided, but other, non-tax, measures will benefit industry. As I said in my statement, we will be setting up the new Small Business Service to improve Government assistance to those vital businesses. It will have a strong voice for small business at the heart of Government, and it will improve Government services to small businesses and ensure that those services address the real needs of the sector.
  We have not forgotten the importance of science. The Budget shows our commitment to investing in Britain's capabilities, and our science and engineering base must be world class. Scientific discovery underpins our quality of life and is an invaluable source of wealth creation, economic regeneration and employment. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday increased the Government's contribution to the university challenge fund, which will make a real difference in respect of the commercialisation of scientific research.

  411
  I want more British inventions to be transformed into British products—creating jobs and wealth here in Britain. That is not the case at the moment. Our proposals and the measures announced in the Budget will change that and ensure that we can take advantage of our own ideas and do not see them exploited by other countries.
  Mr. Redwood: I think that the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently misled the House when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). I have checked the Red Book. It is very clear that the tax breaks for small and medium enterprises and the research and development tax credit do not come into effect in 1999–2000, the year about which my hon. Friend asked. I hope that the record will be corrected. The fact remains that there will be a big increase in tax in 1999–2000, mainly from the first two Labour Budgets, but also from the cumulative impact of this third Budget, which also raises taxes in that year.
  Mr. Byers: I think the record will show that I was referring specifically to the £325 million that we are providing for write-offs—in the coming year. When the right hon. Gentleman has time to look at the record, he will doubtless reflect on that. I was talking about the year specified by him—the year ahead.
  Mr. Townend: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress, given the number of hon. Members who wish to speak.
  There can be no doubt that the economy of the future will succeed for our people only if it respects the environment. Protecting the environment remains a priority for this Government, and getting the environmental framework right will be good for businesses as they move into the clean technologies of the future. Yesterday's decision to implement the recommendations of Lord Marshall, the former president of the Confederation of British Industry, will make a significant contribution to the improvement of energy efficiency in business, and will also meet the United Kingdom's climate change targets.
  Notwithstanding the claims of Conservative Members, the new tax will entail no increase in the burden of tax on business. The revenues will be recycled in full for business, through—among other mechanisms—a cut in national insurance contributions.
  We welcome the strides that have already been made by many firms—especially those in more energy-intensive sectors—to improve their energy efficiency. Special consideration will be given to particularly energy-intensive industries. We intend to set significantly lower tax rates for energy-intensive sectors that improve their energy efficiency, and we have asked them directly to submit their proposals. Businesses will also gain from an additional £50 million for schemes to promote energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy.
  We need to consider the skills gap. We must ensure that we equip everyone in Britain with the skills that they will need to succeed in the computer-driven world of the future. That is why we will create a national network of 1,000 computer learning centres—one for every community in Britain. That network will have one purpose: to ensure that Britain and our people are equipped for the information age. Inequality in computer
  412
  learning today will mean inequality in earning power tomorrow. Anyone who is left out of the knowledge revolution will be left behind in the knowledge-driven economy, and that is unacceptable to the present Government.
  This Government believe that the best way in which to address inequality and social exclusion is the creation of a more affluent, more successful Britain, providing everyone with opportunities to achieve their full potential—opportunities that accompany the success of British business at home and abroad. Equally, however, the fairer Britain is—the more open it is to the talents of all, whatever their class or background—the more enterprising and prosperous all Britain can be. That is why yesterday's Budget reformed the tax system in favour of work, enterprise and families. It made the tax system fairer by announcing the new l0p rate of income tax, which will be introduced in just a few weeks' time, and a cut in the basic rate of tax from 23 to 22 per cent., which will be introduced in April next year. Those two cuts will increase the rewards of work for all working taxpayers, while targeting the benefits on the low-paid and making work pay.
  Our first principle in supporting the family is that the interests of children must be paramount. For the past 30 years, families with children have been the losers in the tax system: their tax burden has risen by nearly 20 per cent. under successive Governments. That is why we are increasing child benefit by 3 per cent. in real terms from April next year. It will be worth £15 a week for the first child, and £10 a week for subsequent children. That will make a real difference to families who are supporting parents and have other responsibilities.
  Yesterday's Budget also guaranteed a better deal for all pensioners. It provided a fivefold increase in the winter allowance, from £20 to £100, and took an extra 100,000 pensioners out of tax altogether. It provided for pensions to increase in line with wages rather than prices. It also provided a guaranteed income for pensioner couples of £121 a week, nearly £800 a year more than the amount that obtained when we took office in 1997. On average, pensioner households will be £240 a year better off.
  I was particularly interested by the comments of Stella Hague, the mother of the Leader of the Opposition. Commenting on the £80 rise in winter fuel payments for pensioners, Stella Hague, aged 71, said, "It's very nice to have it. The £100 will be very acceptable." Given that the Leader of the Opposition now believes in "kitchen table" politics, perhaps he will get around the kitchen table with his mother, and take some of her advice in regard to the Budget.
  Yesterday's Budget is a Budget for enterprise and fairness, a Budget which could be brought about only because of our prudent economic management of the economy. It will ensure a better deal for children and the elderly, a better deal for the hard-working majority and a better deal for Britain's enterprising small businesses and risk takers. It is a Budget for the many, not the few. It is a Budget which is radical and forward looking. It is a Budget for prosperity, fairness and social justice, and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. John MacGregor:Given what the Secretary of the State said about he mother of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I must say that I do not consider the £640 million that has been devoted to those cold weather payments to be a prime example of the concentration of massive sums on those who are most in need.
  Although I have escaped the 10-minute limit, I intend to limit my speech to 10 minutes anyway. Let me begin by making two declarations of interest. First, as I want to say something about savings—if I have time—I should declare that I am a non-executive director of Friends Provident. Secondly, I am a member of the Magic Circle—and, more precisely, an associate of the inner Magic Circle. It is for that reason that I shall say what I am going to say about the Budget.
  In magic, or conjuring, what matters is not what people see on the stage, but what is hidden from their view. Yesterday, it was not what the Chancellor said that mattered, but what lay in the detailed notes behind it. Listening to the speech, as all the so-called goodies unfolded, I was somewhat bamboozled as to how it all added up—until, reading the press briefing later, I found that it was explained by two factors, as well as the windfall of the £4 billion reduction in debt interest payments resulting from lower interest rates worldwide.
  First, the Chancellor has introduced a new principle in Budgets. I am something of a connoisseur of Budgets, having been involved in framing some. The new principle is this: "We have not got enough to announce in this Budget, so we shall announce next year's as well, and some of the following year's too". That explains why so many goodies could appear. Reading the press briefing, I could not believe my eyes. Time after time, I came across something that had been announced—something that we all thought would appear this year—which, we now find, will be introduced in the Finance Bill in 2000, or, in some cases, in the year after that. The presentation of the Budget involved an enormous number of conjuring tricks, if I may put it like that. It takes one to recognise another.
  That is best illustrated by a table at the front of the press briefing. According to the table, the average household will be £380 better off. The implication is that that is a result of this year's Budget. It is necessary to turn to the notes for editors to discover that the measures involved are those announced in both the 1999 and the 1998 Budgets, and that they will take effect over the three years from 1999. Moreover, the national minimum wage will have an impact. Everything has been thrown in to produce the highest possible figure.
  The other factor is this. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) pointed out, the Government—as is so common with them, especially in regard to public expenditure increases—have reannounced measures that had already been announced. When I started to look through them, I recognised, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that the Government had done what we used to do: they had taken some sums out of the year two contingency fund and put them into year one programmes. The number of additional programmes is small. The Government received lots of plaudits from Labour Back Benchers, but their actions are no different from those conducted in the past. We should not be overimpressed by the figures that the Chancellor announced.
  414
  It is dangerous for the Chancellor to take a three-year view in a one-year Budget. A possible trap lurks, especially given that the big tax reductions are earmarked for the later years—as usual with the Chancellor. Overall tax reductions total £1 billion in the year ahead and £3.5 billion in 2001— surprise, surprise. However, the danger is that, if the reductions in debt interest fail to materialise in the later years, or, more particularly, if growth, which, again, is expected to rise much more in the later years than this year, fails to materialise, the Chancellor will not be able to introduce additional improvements and benefits on top of those that he has announced. Therefore, he will depend on economic performance worldwide and in this country over three years to implement the Budget fully.
  Of course, I welcome some of the measures in the Budget. Even more, I welcome the fact that it does not include measures that previous Labour Chancellors would have been tempted to introduce.
  By introducing lower direct tax rates, the small business and enterprise measures, and employee share-owning schemes, the Chancellor is simply following policies and approaches that we Conservatives pioneered over 18 years. Naturally, I am pleased that Labour has been converted to what until now has been an entirely Tory approach, but the Chancellor should not claim, as he did yesterday, that he is embarking on new directions. He has simply recognised the success of the policies that we pursued over 18 years and carried quite a number of them on. It is those that I welcome.
  I thought that the small business measures were going to be classic. In fact, I had a great sense of déjà vu because some of them were extremely like the measures that the Conservative Government introduced when I was the Minister with responsibility for small business between 1981 and 1983. However, I looked at the details and too many of the measures were too small and fiddly.
  The 10 per cent. corporate tax rate for small businesses looked extremely good until I saw that it was limited to £10,000 profit. Small businesses might be advised not to become incorporated in the first place—the costs of doing so would probably outweigh the benefits of that tax change. That was not apparent in the Budget speech.
  One of the features of the Budget is that it has further complicated the tax system, when it should be simplifying it. A range of the measures—all very small, apparently desirable, and which have immediately received a good press—will just complicate the system and not have a big impact.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
  The Government propose to establish the Small Business Service. When I was Minister with responsibility for small business I was responsible for the Small Firms Service. Then we used business people to advise small firms; at that stage, there were not many self-employed and small businesses. We changed the culture successfully over the succeeding years. The service was designed to advise small businesses on practical measures such as marketing, financial control and so on.

  415
  I was amused by the highlight of the press release for the Small Business Service:
  "The SBS will have a new role helping businesses comply with regulation."
  That is like someone saying, "I am going to torture you, but I have good news for you. I have a therapist who will help you to endure the pain."
  I have grave doubts as to whether it is right to have publicly financed venture capital funds of the sort announced in the Budget when one of the great successes of the British economy is the growth of venture capital funds from the private sector. The £20 million is peanuts compared with what is being raised from the private sector, including that from venture capital trusts this year, so, again, it sounds like a gimmick.
  The main point I should like to make about small businesses is that, overall, all the measures have few pluses when we compare the minus side of companies having to pay at least £4 billion more in tax in each of the next four financial years. The changes that reduce tax are very small compared with the measures introducing those big increases.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not deal with that point in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). If the Secretary of State looks at pages 112, 113 and 120 of the Red Book, he will see just how big the increases in tax in the corporate sector are in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 Budgets. They include road fuel duties and the changes in advance corporation tax, which, as Sir Clive Thompson, the Confederation of British Industry president, has pointed out, will add considerably to the tax burden of the business sector over the next four years.
  I should like to mention only two more points, because I want to keep within the 10-minute limit if I can. I am really bothered that the fuel duty escalator is inflicting real damage to the economy and to rural areas, and is producing very little environmental benefit. It was originally introduced some years ago to deal with the effects of greenhouse gases and to meet the targets under the original Rio de Janeiro convention, which was followed by the Kyoto convention.
  It was felt—as a former Secretary of State, I understand the reasoning—that there had to be some reduction in emissions and that pricing was one way in which to achieve that. With the escalation in that fuel tax, however, and given that the Government increased the escalator beyond what the Conservative Government established, and, in their first year of office, doubled the amount of tax by taking a second chunk of it, we have the highest petrol costs in Europe. Tax represents a higher proportion of the cost of fuel in the UK than anywhere else in Europe.
  We have overdone it. We are getting to the equivalent of the law of diminishing returns in relation to the environmental benefits. Frankly, people want to use their motor cars. The damage inflicted by the tax on petrol is seen in rural areas in a constituency such as mine. Most of the representations that I receive are fiercely against the escalator. For many people in rural areas, there is no practical alternative to the car for going about their daily business: getting to work or taking children to school. That tax increase, which is bringing in vast revenue, will have serious consequences for such rural areas, on top of the consequences of earlier measures. It is often those on
  416
  lower incomes who will have to pay the cost—at least £60 more this year—thus removing the benefits of many of the measures to help the lower paid.
  The measure's effect on the economy and its competitiveness is also great, as many road hauliers point out. In addition, there has been a savage reduction in the road programme, which I strongly criticise because I believe that there will inevitably be an increase in road transport. That, combined with the fuel duty escalator, means that we are in danger of adding a factor of considerable uncompetitiveness to the British economy. The Secretary of State, who endorses the competitiveness White Paper, should deal with that issue. The time has come to stop the fuel duty escalator—it is one of the most damaging parts of the Budget.
  There is not much in the Budget to encourage the saver or more people to take out pensions. That fact, and all the various measures that the Government have taken before, mean that I am not optimistic that we will achieve the increase in pensions that we seek from all age groups, but particularly younger generations.
  The removal of £5 billion from pension funds in the Chancellor's first Budget, the impact of which the ordinary person has not yet understood, has helped him to fund quite a few of the tax reductions in the current Budget, but that measure will do long-term damage, disadvantaging those who retire on pensions. It is already taking away money from pension funds and increases the danger that companies will have to make higher contributions and, therefore, face a higher cost to fill that gap.
  That problem is exacerbated by the fact that individual savings accounts are no substitute for the TESSAs and PEPs which we left to the Government. Moreover, the capital gains tax reforms are a huge missed opportunity and are not well directed, while non-tax paying pensioners are being treated appallingly by not being allowed to reclaim their dividend income. We can add to that the confusion over the pension schemes created by the Government and the discouragement of traditional occupational pension schemes as a result of their action on pensions and other matters. There is also the problem of personal pensions, for which I do not blame the Government; and the drop in annuity rates, caused partly by actuarial calculations and the fact that people are living longer, and partly by lower interest rates and yield on gilts. The latter factor is becoming a matter of common comment in the press and is bothering many people who are shortly to retire. It is clear that the overall cumulative effect of the various changes since 1997 has been disadvantageous to pensions and will ultimately be disadvantageous to pensioners. I regret that the Budget has done nothing to put that right.
  After 24 hours, I now understand—finishing my speech where I started it—why I was bamboozled by the Budget. However, I know also that the reality of the Budget will become apparent when people read its small print and experience its impact. It will look a very different Budget then.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Yesterday's Budget has done more to help relieve family poverty than probably any other Budget in the past 30 years. The Budget offers, for the first time in many years, a clear chance to those

  417
  who are in low-paid jobs, or who have no job at all. It is little wonder that the Child Poverty Action Group said that the Government are genuine in their commitment to reducing family poverty, and that the Budget will take about 700,000 children out of the poverty trap, once and for all.
  Such praise for a Labour Government from the Child Poverty Action Group is rich praise indeed. In the past 25 years, that organisation has been among the best-focused critics of Government, regardless of colour. I also well remember the problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) caused previous Labour Governments, in the 1960s, through his analysis of how those Governments tried to attack family poverty.
  In discussing working people and their life chances, we should start by acknowledging that this Budget will make a bigger difference to them than any other Budget in many years. Certainly in my own constituency of Ochil, the Budget will benefit 10,000 families. The living standards of many pensioner families in my constituency will also improve.
  The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said—at least I think that he said—that the way in which the money had been allocated to pensioners to help them with heating—the £100 instead of the £20—could have been improved. We are aware of the problems—perhaps he knows about the problems better than most of us do. As I recall, he had occasionally to stand at the Dispatch Box to try to defend schemes that helped some parts of the country, but not others, or helped some people, but not others. We know that, from start to finish, those attempts were a shambles.
  We realise also that if we are to deal with an issue such as providing winter fuel payments, it makes a lot more sense to make the benefit universal. The 11,616 pensioners in my constituency who will benefit from the Budget's generous treatment will realise that it is much simpler simply to get the money in hand. Better-off pensioners may do whatever they want with the money— they might even wish to give it to charity. They might choose simply to benefit from the Government's generous provision. However, for the poor pensioners in my constituency, who have been frightened to heat their homes, the prospect of receiving an additional £100 is one not to be missed. I think that most hon. Members appreciate that.
  Many hon. Members have already said, quite correctly, that the Budget is about enterprise, work and employment creation. In the past month, my constituency has suffered just over 300 jobs in the textile industry. Although the losses—40 here, 30 there or 25 elsewhere—have been in various companies, the case of one company, Coats Viyella, is perhaps worth mentioning. It supplied Marks and Spencer. Once the contract between the two had been settled, it was assumed that—for a long time to come, if quality was maintained—Marks would buy the blouses that the women at Coats Viyella made.
  We know the saga of Marks and Spencer. We are aware of its boardroom battles, and the drop in its share price. We know that it has lost its direction as a company. We know also that it is no longer sufficient for Marks and Spencer to try the old trick of sending back all the stock
  418
  if there is one flaw in one garment—which was how it used to exercise stock control and get the stock burden off its back. Marks and Spencer now realises that that practice alone is not enough if it wishes to compete with the other high street retailers which import large quantities of stock. Marks and Spencer is therefore going elsewhere for its business.
  I am not attacking or criticising Marks and Spencer's investment policy, or making a severe criticism of the wages that employees at Coats Viyella are being paid— although those employees are not overpaid, and some of them could probably benefit from introduction of the national minimum wage. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Marks and Spencer—because of the mess that it is in—is forcing textile jobs out of Britain. Those jobs would have been forced out regardless of which party was in power.
  Other textile companies, including those that are operating at the upper end of the market, look not only to the United States, France and Germany as potential customers, but to Taiwan and the countries of east and south-east Asia. The Japanese are not buying a new cashmere sweater, or any other sweater, every time they plan a trip to the golf course. They are not spending money as they were. The situation in those countries is part of the reality in the downturn in demand for United Kingdom textiles.
  It comes a bit rich for a Europhobe, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), to criticise the Government's approach to the negotiations on bananas or the cashmere industry. Certainly, both in Scotland and elsewhere, there is frustration and impatience about the plight of textile workers as a consequence of the banana negotiations. However, let us not forget that the Conservative Government brought the original banana appeal.
  There is no disagreement on the banana negotiations between us and the French. There is no disagreement on it between the United Kingdom, France and even Ecuador— which, although it is one of the mainland Latin American banana producers, is not one of Chiquita's customers. Ecuador is just as much under the cosh as the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are. It is a complicated issue, and it does not do to simplify it, to try to make a party issue of it in the House.
  Perhaps the current Administration have a better relationship with the Clinton Administration than the previous Administration had. Although it would not be difficult to improve on the previous Administration's relationship with the United States Administration, we should realise that other forces are also at work. I think that, in a Budget debate on trade and industry, it is harmful to dwell unduly long on the issue.
  The Government have been attacked because we have not given away enough money—only £1 billion—and should have given away more. If more money had been given away—I ask Opposition Members to consider this—what would have been the reaction of the Monetary Policy Committee, at its next meeting, when it considers reducing interest rates? Would an interest rate reduction be the consequence of massive fiscal largesse? In today's press, Adair Turner made a reasonable point when he said:
  "We asked for a boring budget and this is not a bad result. The fiscal balance is reasonable."
  The Monetary Policy Committee has made successive interest rate reductions, to give the country an injection of confidence. In the past month, the MPC's message has

  419
  been quite clear: "We are not going to cut interest rates this month, but will let the Government take on the responsibility of increasing business confidence."
  When one examines not only the Red Book fine print but the proposals announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, one begins to see from where new businesses will come, and where Government assistance will be available.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the new tax rate for small businesses. Let us face it: the majority of businesses that collapse are fledgling businesses. We have to do two things in the United Kingdom: first, help fledgling businesses through the very tough period when they are starting and profits are not very great; and, secondly, remove the stigma of failure from businesses and business people who fail. We have to make people realise that they should get back into business at the earliest possible moment and give them access to the maximum financial support.
  I was interested in the point made by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk about the number of names that have been given to small business support organisations. However, we now have a plethora of organisations, something which we did not have when the right hon. Gentleman had responsibility for the issue. Previously, there was the Small Firms Service and nothing else; there was not the support system that we have now. There were occasional bits of support from the chambers of commerce and there was a wee bit from the DTI, but not much else. Nowadays, we have business links, about which we do not disagree across the Chamber.
  We need a formal structure that can directly advise Government of the needs of small businesses. I am happy to welcome the establishment of the Small Business Service—I acknowledge that it is another agency, but it is one which is worthy of our support. It will be able to provide small amounts of money and appropriate advice. For businesses beyond the early stages of growth, it will be able to provide appropriate managerial skills supported by funding from outside. Companies that need experienced hands during a worrying period will have access to people who are used to running bigger businesses.
  I could go through the whole Budget, but, in the short time at my disposal, I will not abuse the courtesy of the House, so I will touch on one important area. Much is made of our attempts to meet the Rio and Kyoto targets. The carbon taxes are probably a more sensitive way of meeting them than a blank energy target such as the multiplier. The Marshall report was a model of lucidity and fairness.
  The Government have picked up the points on fiscal neutrality and they have nodded in the direction of the Institute for Public Policy and Research report, which suggested that if there was a reduction in national insurance contributions from employers, something like a quarter of a million jobs could be created. The Government's proposals strike a reasonable balance between the carrot and the stick. I hope that if the Government's proposals are successful, we can see some easing of the problems facing the road haulage industry.
  Most of us who have been in the House for any time know that the road hauliers are the biggest crowd of whingers under the sun. We are largely inured to their pleas and complaints. However, I am almost concerned
  420
  by what they are saying now. The imposition of tax on fuel is affecting some small hauliers such as those in my constituency who take goods down to England and bring loads back to Scotland.
  Mr. John Swinney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not have time.
  Those hauliers find that their business is being taken by lorries coming over from France loaded with fuel that is far cheaper. There is a problem here and we have to balance prices up. We have to recognise that there is a split between the needs of the environment and the needs of the Chancellor.
  I should like to think that we could be looking at the question of the trading of permits. That was one of the issues that Marshall considered in his review of energy taxation. It is an interesting market, of which Britain could corner a bit, but, more important, it would give us greater flexibility in emission control. To deal only with one part of the Marshall report is short-sighted.
  We see a Government who recognise that we shall no longer be able to depend on the construction of steel mills or massive textile mills to mop up the employment of our people. We need small, effective businesses, and I look forward to continuing debates on e-commerce and the like, which are in their infancy and are only nodded to in the Budget. I know that that is part of the Government's programme. I see the Budget as an important step this year. I welcome it and hope that, by this time next year, we shall see that the small amounts that have been made available—if they were large amounts, the Government would be attacked for providing subsidies—for support and assistance to small businesses and industry in general, and the climate and stability that the Government have created, are the greatest aspects of the Budget. I welcome it.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: I am pleased to see the Secretary of State still in his place. It is unusual to see a Secretary of State here this late in the day. I am grateful, and I compliment him on being here. There are some things in the Budget that we can welcome.[Interruption.]In spite of Ministers' interventions from a sedentary position—although we always say with the Minister of State that we are not sure whether he is sedentary or not— I will try to get on with my speech.
  The Chancellor has shown some recognition of the difficulties facing our economy, and we welcome that. We obviously applaud the fact that the aims that he sets out for tackling those difficulties are close to our own in many respects. However, aims are one thing and the means to achieve them are another. It is on the means that we have some disagreement with the Chancellor and some concerns. Some of the means that the Chancellor proposes run the risk of being clumsy, unfocused or, at worst, ineffective. That is not only our view but that of a number of respected analysts, not least the Institute for Fiscal Studies which, like us, has repeatedly warned of the problems building up in the economy. In earlier exchanges, the Secretary of State expressed his doubts

  421
  about the IFS view, but we hope that he will tell us why he does not accept that the IFS has genuine reservations about some of the measures in the Budget.
  The Chancellor's statement and the Red Book set out many of the problems in our economy in stark relief. They concentrate on poor productivity, low investment in research and development and low skill levels. Earlier today, the Secretary of State issued a statement on competitiveness. It is a good read. I had the opportunity during earlier exchanges to read it, and it was more enjoyable than the speech from the Conservative Front Bench. The statement refers to milestones and target dates for the process, but nowhere can I find targets for outcomes. I put that point back to the Secretary of State. I know that it is difficult, challenging and dangerous for the Government to set down outcomes, but if we are serious about improving our competitiveness, we should ask for a little more from the Government.
  The United Kingdom produces less per person than other major economies. As was mentioned earlier, there is a gap of 40 per cent. between our productivity and that of the United States and more than 20 per cent. between our productivity and that of France and Germany. It reflects weaknesses of long standing in our economy. I do not blame the Government for that, but they recognise it, and I expect them to propose some positive measures to do something about it.
  We invest less in research and development than our competitors. The United States invests 50 per cent. more as a share of GDP. It is in the Red Book, so it must be true. The United States and Germany invested 40 per cent. more per worker on new capital equipment than we did in the last economic cycle. Those are the stark facts. Those are the problems. Added to that, the skills gap in the United Kingdom is fast becoming a chasm. Twenty-two per cent. of our adult population has poor literacy skills—twice as many as in Germany.
  In spite of the Chancellor's protestations to the contrary, he has been forced to admit that the predictions that we made earlier in this Parliament about the plight that manufacturing industry would suffer were right. He now accepts that manufacturing is in recession and that the recession will be quite deep—1 to 1.5 per cent. in 1999. The result will be unemployment in what is normally a skilled sector. Instead of being flat, as the Government predicted, unemployment will rise by about a quarter of a million in the next two years. That is a worrying figure, particularly for those involved. Hon. Members on both sides should show genuine concern about that, not just try to score cheap points. It is a huge problem which Parliament should address.
  The Chancellor should not just carry on saying that the problem is all due to the collapse of the global market and the economic failures in Asia, Russia and Latin America. Those factors have not helped—no one is suggesting otherwise—but we export more to the Netherlands than to those three areas put together. Treasury figures show that business in our key export markets is growing at nearly 6 per cent. a year. Sadly, our take-up of that business is growing at only 0.5 per cent a year.
  In our key export markets, British business is missing out on opportunities for growth. The reasons are crystal clear—the high value of sterling and high interest rates.
  422
  Sterling is still 10 per cent. higher than its level when the Government came to office. No wonder the export forecasts of companies in my constituency have dropped by up to 50 per cent. this year. With interest rates 1 or 2 per cent. higher than in the rest of Europe, the extra cost of investment adds to our uncompetitiveness.
  The Chancellor knows what he needs to do. It is the word that dare not speak its name. He knows that a clear commitment to a programme for Britain to join the euro would remove those burdens of an over-valued pound and high interest rates at a stroke. The boost that that would give to British industry would leave the gimmicky tinkering measures in the Budget in the shadows. We would get some real progress straight away.
  The Chancellor has set out a wide range of measures that command broad support in principle from various sectors of industry and commerce. However, we must try to determine their impact in practice. We need to quantify and qualify the measures that he has set out. The Government have proposed a new small business service to co-ordinate advice and support small and medium enterprises. We are told that it will be staffed by civil servants and people drawn from business and that it will help business to comply with new Government regulations. That seems like an admission by the Government that the host of new regulations that have been drawn up by one group of civil servants are so complex that we need another group of civil servants to explain to business what to do about them. That is not what the Government intended, but it is beginning to look that way.
  Would it not be better to have simpler, clearer regulations that were kept to a minimum? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister have both said on the record that they want to modernise and simplify regulations. We should be able to see that happen in practice, rather than passing legislation that adds more regulations to the statute book and more burdens to business.
  We need to know how the new Small Business Service will operate. Will it be just another centralised quango controlled from Westminster, or will it get to grips with the needs of small businesses? I hope that the Government will follow the best practice of the American model. It has not been mentioned so far, but I am sure that the Secretary of State is well aware of the practice that I am talking about. The stated objectives of the United States small business administration scheme are to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of small business. It aims to ensure that small business gets a fair share of Government purchases and contracts. It makes loans to small business and small investment companies, working with banks and lending institutions to provide loans and venture capital to small firms which cannot secure financing through normal lending means. It is a proactive organisation which is not there just to explain the red tape that the Government have introduced. It is not a centralised organisation. There are 900 small business development centres across the United States servicing more than 500,000 small firms, in partnership with federal, state and local government and community and private sector groups.
  The American model works. If we are going to follow their best practice, the Small Business Service must have a network of regional centres working in tandem with the regional development agencies. The emphasis must be on

  423
  providing advice and support from the established business community to new entrants, not more red tape from bureaucrats based in Whitehall.
  We welcome the Chancellor's proposals to widen employee share ownership. We have long argued for an expansion of share ownership as part of our belief in developing a stakeholder society. Improved access to, and tax relief for, employee share schemes will help to align the interests of employees with those of managers and shareholders. It will help to spread incentives across the board. However, there are some problems to overcome. If new employees are to be offered share ownership, it helps if the share value is rising. In too many cases, the share value of small firms has fallen significantly. Employee share options are not attractive if the option exercise price is higher than the share market value.
  An increase in employee share ownership is unlikely on its own to change the City culture of demanding a quick return on investment. As long as institutional investors and investment fund managers are driven by a need to maximise dividends in the short term, there will be little room to invest profits to gain stability and long-term growth. We have to change that culture.
  The Chancellor has put forward some novel ideas on company taxation, targeted on reducing the productivity gap. They are aimed at small firms, but they will have little effect on aggregate research and development or investment, because the bulk of both is done by large firms. I asked the Secretary of State earlier about the rationale of targeting the incentive of research and development tax credits on small firms. It will be cheaper to implement than a scheme that applies to all firms, but it will also have much less impact on the economy because, although small firms employing between one and 99 people accounted for 36 per cent. of employment last year, they carried out only 9 per cent. of total business research and development. The Government are hitting the wrong target. Only just over half our small and medium firms are innovators, compared with nearly three quarters of large firms. Any extra incentives should be targeted where there will be most take-up.
  The Government want to improve capital allowances for small firms. A move from 25 per cent. first year allowances to 40 per cent. implies an increase in the present discounted value of capital allowances of less than 3 per cent. Given that SMEs account for a relatively small proportion of investment in plant and machinery, the impact on the total level of investment is unlikely to be significant.
  The measures on venture capital challenge are interesting. In 1997, UK venture capital firms invested more than £4 billion—£3 billion in this country. However, the investment in early-stage companies was a mere £159 million, of which only £58 million was in start-up firms. We should question the extent to which the provision of tax incentives for the formal venture capital sector affects early-stage financing for start-up firms. Estimates suggest that, in America and the United Kingdom, informal venture capital provides more finance to start-up firms than does the formal sector. We need to learn from that.
  We welcome the extra money for individual learning accounts, to go to up to 1 million account holders. However, we have two main concerns. First, what will
  424
  the administrative costs be? Secondly, how much of that £150 million will result in new training rather than simply a transfer of people who have done the training anyway?
  The proposals for greater incentives to recruit high-quality managers come without any argument about whether equity-based remuneration is disadvantaged under the current tax rules, without any evidence of the success of past schemes and without suggesting how the incentives could be used selectively for certain managers without being susceptible to abuse. We need clarification on that. Many hon. Members will remember the effects of the original discretionary scheme, which operated until 1996 and allowed employers to target specific employees rather than offering a scheme to all employees. The previous Government abolished that on the recommendation of the Greenbury committee, whose report argued that there was no case for one form of remuneration to receive preferential tax treatment over another. Are we going through the loop again? We should be clear.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made a great deal of the importance that the Government place on research and development. Yet the examples that he has given to me recently—particularly on one of our most important industries, the aerospace industry—do not tie up with what he says in the House. I am sure that he does not mean to mislead us. Many assume that the aerospace industry comprises a few giant international companies, but the truth is far from that.
  It may well be that the industry employs more than 120,000 people, has an annual turnover of more than £15 billion and contributes significantly to our balance of trade. However, three quarters of aerospace firms in the UK are small to medium enterprises. It is vital that then-interests in investing and research and development are maintained and encouraged. At present, we invest in aerospace research and development proportionately less than any of our major European competitors.
  I have raised this question with the Secretary of State, who has agreed that Government investment through the civil aircraft research and technology demonstration programme has been vital to the industry, and has made a significant contribution to competitiveness in the industry, and to other industries outside aerospace. He has said also that we invest far less than our competitors from DTI funds into the industry.
  The Secretary of State could not tell me whether he would maintain the minimal budget of £24 million, which is under threat. I think that I am right in saying that £24 million is about half the level invested in France, and a quarter of the level invested in Germany. We are talking about one of our few remaining world-class industries— providing a bright future that could spread research and development opportunities and synergy through manufacturing—and the Government cannot make up their mind whether to keep the tiny, miserly budget on which the industry depends for innovation and new ideas.
  My concerns are that the Budget fails to tackle some of the major concerns of industry. The Government claim that prudence is a virtue—maybe it is, but lacking ambition is not. The Budget tinkers around the edges, and tends to ignore the major issues. My party's priorities are to reduce the burdens on business and to simplify the tax system. We want to introduce annual tax audits to reinforce those aims, and to state clearly the extra costs of administration on business.

  425
  Our aim is to have less regulation, not just better regulation which burdens business. We want to simplify the tax system, and bring in higher tax thresholds—not introduce targeted tax wheezes which will have a limited effect in specific areas. We want a firm commitment to a programme for entry into the euro, which would boost exports and industry at a stroke.
  We recognise that the key to Britain's future success lies in improving the level of skills and education of the work force. Rather than playing to the gallery with a penny in the pound tax cut, we would have invested the £5 billion that the Chancellor has given away on education, targeting the money on reducing class sizes, improving standards and creating the skills base that is vital to our long-term economic future.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer began to challenge the biggest plight of our time in modern Britain—poverty. It coincided with measures aimed at reducing poverty abroad, too, but I begin by talking about domestic issues.
  Coming from a constituency such as Coatbridge and Chryston in what was once the industrial heart of Scotland, I know that it is crucial to address some of the problems faced by those people in what, hitherto, have been known in many minds as the forgotten parts of Britain. In those parts, the people have often felt that politics and government have left them behind. Now, I believe that those problems are beginning to be addressed.
  We may have begun to turn the corner. It is long overdue, and that makes the job so much harder. We cannot shirk from the challenge that presents itself in areas such as mine. Our people are not the underclass— they are indeed "our people". For too long, we have failed to acknowledge that it is in all our interests to offer hope to the poorest people in this country—as the Chancellor did, quite magnificently, yesterday.
  An economy in which a significant proportion of the population is unable to fulfil its potential is far poorer and far less productive. Real hope lies in providing a decent standard of living for all, and real opportunities to all who want—indeed, need—to work. We need to help people who have been left out of too many Budgets for far too long: those who have worked hard in the past; the nation's elderly; those families who seek, but are unable to find, work; and, of course, those children of the poorest families who represent this nation's future.
  Those children do the worst in life. Their chances of upward mobility, of something better, are, as they see it, no better than they were decades or many Budgets ago. In the schools, through no fault of their own, they often lack the educational skills that enable them to progress and to improve their life chances. Their health standards are often way below those of their friends. No one—still less a child—deserves that disadvantage.
  At last—less than two years into the life of this Government—we have the signs that the Government believe that that change is not only necessary, but possible. Many of the resources were switched yesterday, for the first time in decades, to improve the chances of
  426
  those very children. My right hon. Friend introduced measures such as the new children's tax credit, which will help all families—that is welcome—but clearly benefits the poorest children most. That is not just welcome, but necessary.
  We cannot tolerate a society that is prepared to write off the potential work force through poor education. We need to employ the potential of all our people, and yesterday's commitment to utilise modern technologies in all schools was a major step in the right direction. The new deal for the unemployed was an excellent start, and we are seeing the fruits of the windfall tax on the utilities being shifted to help provide opportunities to those at the opposite end of the financial spectrum. I believe that to be right. If equality of opportunity is to mean anything, everyone must have that equal chance.
  We must ensure that all the unemployed have access to skills and to work. That includes those who have worked for many years, but have, unfortunately, lost their job. Large numbers—very large numbers in my constituency—of men and women aged over 50 have, in effect, been driven out of the work force over the past 20 years as redundancy after redundancy has swept up millions of our older workers. At that time, the Government of the day had the benefit of what seemed to be almost inexhaustible revenues from oil, which they used not to invest in capital and jobs, but to pay for massive unemployment, and all the economic and social tragedies that went with that. There are now twice as many men over 50 without jobs as there were 20 years ago, and about 40 per cent. of men aged over 55 have no job at all. The plight of this group is one of the unspoken tragedies of our time. I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has recognised their needs. Not only do they need to work; we need their talents, experience and knowledge and their contribution to what ought to be their society as well as ours.
  That is why I was particularly pleased about the commitment to provide opportunities for people over 50: a voluntary scheme, money to help with retraining and a minimum income guarantee mean that thousands, not least in my constituency, will be given the chance to relearn the skills needed to re-enter the work force with a much better chance of a real job. Creating employment opportunities will not only promote economic growth but ensure that the benefits of that growth are shared throughout society, through families and local communities that are often crying out for the renewal and regeneration that my constituency and many others desperately need.
  People will be grateful for this opportunity, which represents enduring Labour values: the equal wealth of all individuals and the recognition of each person's dignity and potential, with everyone making the most of their talents. That is radical, realistic, right and consistent with the Budget.
  We must remember that many people have worked all their days and are now retired. In the past, the pensioners were left out of the picture. It is unacceptable to have pensioners living in poverty, and in many cases they are in dire poverty. They have the right to a decent standard of living. They have earned it by working hard for many years. They do not deserve to live in a situation in which they have to choose between heating their homes and eating.

  427
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has responded to that situation with the warmth that we would have expected of him. I unreservedly commend the commitment to switch resources to the poorest pensioners, who are to receive a fivefold increase in their winter allowances to help to pay their bills. That is right, and long overdue. In my constituency, it will benefit more than 11,500 pensioners. I have to say with candour that some of them are the very poorest of pensioners. I am delighted that they are being recognised at last.
  A minimum income guarantee linked to earnings rather than prices is long overdue and is an imaginative and major step forward in challenging the poverty that nobody deserves to endure; and challenge poverty we must.
  Poverty—grinding, demoralising and simply wasteful— has, I am afraid, become the reality for thousands of people of all ages, not only in Scotland, not only in Britain, but throughout the world. It is time that we took action to change that, and change it we can. We live in a time of uncertainty but also of enormous opportunity. We hear that the ever-globalising world economy is creating rapid political, economic and technological changes. That is good. It is also creating vast amounts of wealth, which provides opportunities for all, but we have to ensure that it goes to all.
  I am proud that the Government are taking a lead in tackling those issues head on, to ensure that the people of today and tomorrow, here and throughout the world, are given the standard of living that any human being is entitled to expect. We may not hear much talk of redistribution, but I have always thought, like my constituents, that actions speak louder than words. The Government's actions as demonstrated in the Budget are rightly targeted at helping those who really need that help. In that spirit, I welcome it and support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. David Davis: I have some sympathy with the aims of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), but I spoke at some length last year on the mathematics of the working families tax credit, so I shall not follow him down that route and bore the House twice on the same subject. He intimated that the Government had got good headlines out of the Budget, and he was right. However, it is true that Budgets that are praised in March are often pilloried by May, and I suspect that that might be the current Budget's fate.
  It is hard to see the wood for the trees—or, perhaps, to take a line from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), the mirrors for the smoke—following the Chancellor's performance yesterday. Perhaps the wisest course is for me to talk a little about the Government's long-term financing and the effects on the real economy.
  As the Economic Secretary is on the Treasury Bench, I want to make a public accounting point. The Finance Act arranges that the National Audit Office audits those parts of the Budget that the Chancellor directs. Some assumptions were audited in the past, and others this year. A valid assumption last year is not necessarily valid this year, and the fact that something has been audited in the past does not make it right today. It is rather like having a public company in which the auditors are allowed to audit only those subsidiaries that the finance director picks in any given year.
  428
  Will Treasury Ministers consider amending the Finance Act so that the audit of the Budget is under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General rather than the Chancellor? That might lead to better public finances and more confidence all round.
  I have some concerns about the Government's overall financial strategy. Over the decades since the war, every Government have faced—not unreasonably—welfare, health and education expenditure that has grown faster than the economy. That has been funded by taxation going up as a percentage of gross domestic product, but the process has hit a limit. The world's most successful economies have public expenditure of about a third of their overall economy. Ours is about 40 per cent. When the figure gets to 50 per cent., even countries as powerful as industrial giants such as Germany stagger and fail. There is a serious limitation.
  Another method of funding is by transfers in spending. For Britain and other countries since the war that has largely occurred by transfers from defence—expenditure on which has halved as a percentage of GDP over the past 30 years from 6 per cent. to about 3 per cent.—primarily to welfare, but also to education and health. We have already reached a minimum for defence spending.
  Too many Governments, including even the Government in which I was a Minister, took too much of a peace dividend at the end of the Soviet Union's hegemony. The present Government have gone even further—unwisely, in my view. The proper dividend of peace is peace, not money for other expenditure. That source of funding, then, is also running out.
  A further option for funding is privatisation. The previous Government led on that, and Labour opposed it virulently, although it has now been persuaded to support it. Privatisation was a useful source of funds when nationalised industries accounted for 11 per cent. of GDP, but now they account for only 2 per cent., so that source of funding is limited.
  What are the Government's solutions? We have heard a great deal about their stealth taxes, and even the Prime Minister admitted last week that the burden of taxation is going up. I will not comment on that, as others will have plenty to say about it. The national asset register is a Government innovation of which I rather approve. It identifies assets that are less than useful to the state and sells them off. In effect, it is the garage sale of the century of public assets. That is nearer to the sale of the family silver and the Canaletto to which Harold Macmillan referred than privatisation ever was. The plan is to raise almost £4 billion a year in that way in the next few years, so it is a significant component of the Government's funding. I think that it is a good idea. However, it will be much harder to deliver on than the Government believe. Indeed, last week a Liberal question identified that only about half a per cent. of the asset base was sold in the past year, so it will be difficult.
  I am concerned that the Budget has coupled the policy of stealth taxation with a new policy of covert debt—a potentially dangerous cocktail which could burden our economy.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davis: I am afraid not, as I have only 10 minutes in which to speak. Normally, I would love to give way to my colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, but not today.

  429
  That cocktail could burden our economy in much the same way that it did in the 1970s. The pressure on welfare, health and education spending means that the Government will be tempted to finance much of their capital expenditure through the private finance initiative. That method avoids large sums of capital expenditure having to be found and spreads the costs over the life of the project.
  The PFI has many virtues—after all, it was a Conservative policy in the first instance. The private sector brings good management, innovation and enterprise to the provision of public services. Properly used, it is a good thing, but the temptation will be to provide public services and public service capital assets on the never-never. Just as someone who accumulates hire purchase payments carelessly loses control of his or her financial affairs, the Government could do the same. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Red Book shows that they are planning about £11 billion in PFI expenditure. Every time that the Government undertake a PFI project, they commit tomorrow's taxpayer's money. If that is done imprudently, it will shackle the hands of future Governments every bit as tightly as though they had borrowed billions of pounds. Just like unfunded pension liabilities, that could grow to be an intolerable burden on the nation's finances. It concerns me that we may have a Chancellor who is living for the moment and forgetting his responsibilities to future generations in that respect.
  The Chancellor may be behaving responsibly—I simply do not know—but to prevent that scenario he must set an explicit limit on how much capital expenditure he finances on the never-never. If he does not do so, his golden rule on capital expenditure will be meaningless. Clearly, stealth taxation accompanied by covert debt mean that today's expenditure will be financed not merely out of tomorrow's pensions funds, which we all know about, but out of tomorrow's taxes. That would be irresponsible and improper, and I urge the Government to avoid it by having proper rules to govern that type of expenditure.
  On the longer-term aspects of the financial package that make up the Budget, rather than the details that my hon. Friends mentioned, this year, because there has been a change, assumptions relating to the labour market have been audited by the National Audit Office.
  Incidentally, I broadly welcome the measures for the employment of people aged 50 and above—not merely because that decade is facing me, but because those people are socially valuable. In many ways, I think that the measures will be more effective than some of those aimed at younger members of the work force. The 50-year-old-plus man or woman is a valuable member of society and could continue to give a great deal.
  However, within the labour market issues and assumptions in the Budget, the largest reduction in expenditure over the Red Book period—about £9 million—results from lower social security payments. That reduction arises because last year, not this year, the Department of Social Security told the Treasury that its assumptions for social security expenditure looked pessimistic. Fewer people were claiming income support and the job seeker's allowance than had been expected and fewer people were turning up for interviews. Why?
  430
  It is a result of the reforms that were initiated by the Conservative Secretary of State for Social Security in the previous Government. I will give this Government credit: where they have continued and toughened up those reforms, as they have occasionally done, they have reinforced that case.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Foster: I shall begin by referring to the car industry in the west midlands. The area is extremely reliant on that industry—and not merely on the huge car factories, such as Rover at Longbridge. There are many smaller component factories, such as Metalcastings Ltd. in my constituency, which is a classic example of a small manufacturing company that relies heavily on the Rover Group as a customer. I speak as a member of the third generation in my family to work in a car factory. I urge the Government to do what they can to support Rover on behalf of the many component manufacturers in my constituency and elsewhere in the west midlands.
  The car industry is not a lame duck. It is not a primary industry with low profits, but one capable of being highly value-added, with high skills and a high-tech base. The industry has huge export potential and it should be encouraged. I ask the Government to ignore the editorial in The Daily Telegraph last month, which stated that "BMW should close Longbridge" and that
  "Subsidies simply do not work".
  The small and medium-sized enterprises that rely on the thriving car industry will welcome the Budget because it will undoubtedly make it more profitable to invest, but they also need a secure business environment in their sector so that they have the confidence to do so. I am pleased to note that the Government have recognised that. The Red Book refers to key investment mechanisms and goes on to mention spill-over effects, where one firm's investment creates new growth opportunities for other firms. That is perhaps best seen in the development of clusters of firms, where the opportunity for a particular firm to make profits depends crucially on the presence and prior investment of other firms. Rover, Longbridge, could be a classic case of that, if it gets the grant aid from the Government.
  On the proposals for small businesses, I am pleased that the Chancellor has had time to read the December 1998 small firms survey that was conducted by Hereford and Worcester chamber of commerce before he finalised the Budget. Clearly, this Chancellor has listened to what those small firms had to say in the survey. The new rate of reduced corporation tax for small business start-ups and the lower rate of corporation tax mean that retained profits are more available for investment and that there is a greater reward for enterprise. A feature of the United Kingdom economy is that small firms rely heavily on retained profits for their investment plans. Indeed, the survey found that 56 per cent. of the small firms used only retained profits for their investments and more than half thought that it was their most important source of finance.
  The extension of the 40 per cent. first-year capital allowance adds to what previous Budgets have done to give incentives to invest. Some people argue that the

  431
  measure affects only the timing of the investment, making marginally profitable projects more viable. However, coupled with the economic stability that has been brought about by Bank of England independence, prudent fiscal management, an end of boom and bust and the positive growth forecast from the Treasury, that continued tax relief may affect the volume and not merely the timing of the investment.
  Of special note is the small business service and the extra help with venture finance. In the survey that I mentioned, about 80 per cent. of respondents claimed that they needed more help from the Government in that area, 36 per cent. wanted easier access to the small firms loan guarantee, 35 per cent. wanted the Government to promote a wider range of finance options, and a further 36 per cent. wanted easier access to financial information and advice. Those small businesses will thank the Chancellor for his Budget. Those are the findings of those who are active within the chamber of commerce. Imagine what they would be for those who are not active members—those who are perhaps too busy to seek such advice.
  I particularly welcome the help for automated payroll support. I spent six years teaching night school students how to do manual payroll calculations and I can assure the Government and every small business out there that computerisation works. That is a further example of the Government's reduction of the burdens on business by enabling businesses to process a piece of essential work. It adds to the already enlightened approach that the Government have taken in bringing together the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue, an act which was welcomed in the survey to which I have referred.
  I have a few remarks to make on employee share schemes. I worked in the car industry for a company that gave employee shares to the workers—me included—and I saw at first hand the real interest that employees began to take in the financial success of the company. They love sharing in the good times. It is interesting to see workers on the production lines in the huge car factories of the west midlands scanning the newspapers to find out the daily share price of their holdings. They also quiz their line managers on what has caused particular movements. That interest and involvement should be admired and encouraged.
  I taught accountancy at a college, and that included teaching about labour remuneration schemes—or new labour remuneration schemes as I used to call them. Employee share schemes clearly show a sense of partnership and team work in a business. They enhance other productivity measures that the Government are keen to see in industry. In particular, they will enhance new investment opportunities that will result from reduced tax levels.
  Coupled with the works council directive and our fairness at work legislation, the Budget will equip the United Kingdom for the 21st century with workers who know that they will achieve more working together than acting individually within an organisation. The employee share scheme meets all the basic criteria of a good remuneration package. It is fair to all employees, because they are all eligible. It has a regular reward because dividends can regularly be converted into more shares. It is certainly easy to operate, and it focuses on long-term commitment to a company.
  432
  The three-year commitment if full tax advantage is to be gained will mean that, at a time when many small businesses are suffering from skill shortages, workers may commit themselves for longer to particular organisations. That will reduce the high costs of labour turnover that small firms face.
  The Budget is good for business. It lowers business taxes, it improves investment incentives, it takes measures to improve productivity and it gives extra training opportunities. All that has been done the new Labour way. Employees and employers will be able to work together, and the Budget will complement existing Government policies. In short, a Government of joined-up thinking have produced a joined-up Budget.
  7.23 pm
  Sir Raymond Whitney: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) believes that the Government are good for business. I fear that he will be disappointed in future. I am sorry about that, and I shall tell the House my reasons for thinking so later.
  We are accustomed these days to the phrase "spin doctor". It is a feature of modern politics, and yesterday proved that it has become a feature of economics and Budget presentation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, qualifies less as a doctor of spin than as a doctor of obfuscation. It was he who gave us the famous phrase about neo-classical endogenous growth theory, and he has talked about the symbiotic relationships between growth and much more. He has progressed from that to the performance that he gave yesterday: the words were simpler and crisper, but they were no less misleading.
  We must carefully consider the reality beneath the golden words of the Chancellor. Two points may be briefly made. The first concerns the tax position and the reality that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) so successfully exposed in his exchanges with the Prime Minister today. The reality is that Labour's first two Budgets involved an increase in taxes of nearly £41 billion, and in the coming year taxes will rise by more than £7 billion. Stealth taxes are an important theme, and we should hear much more about them.
  The second reality obscured by the Chancellor's carefully phrased delivery was the matter of the golden legacy, on which we have already heard some exchanges this afternoon. It is a sensitive point with the Government. The going concern that took over in May 1997 will of course always reject the proposition that the Conservative Government left a golden legacy, so I must draw Labour's attention to The Times yesterday, in which Anatole Kaletsky wrote:
  "The real authors of Britain's present economic prosperity—and of the present Chancellor's good fortune—were Kenneth Clarke and Norman Lamont."
  Mr. Kaletsky points out that automatic revenue growth is built in to the British system, which is ungainsayable, but which has not been said by Treasury Ministers, who seem always to try to reject a legacy that truly was golden.
  Kaletsky also rightly makes a proviso—that the economy must not be in recession if automatic growth is to occur. That is one of the dangers that the Chancellor's seemingly solid edifice stands precariously against. In his projections for the next two or three years, the Chancellor

  433
  still relies on growth of 1 to 1.5 per cent., which is about twice the average forecast of well-respected economic commentators throughout the country.
  There is surely no doubt that manufacturing industry is already in recession, or that it has been seriously damaged. Many of yesterday's measures will increase the damage to that unhappy sector. We have heard quoted many times the assertion of Sir Clive Thompson, president of the Confederation of British Industry, that an increase of £20 billion in business taxes has already been inflicted.
  Business does not face merely taxes, of course. A bureaucratic burden is also being heaped on industry. I am not prepared to enter a Dutch auction between the present Government and their predecessor about whether there have been 3,000 more documents or 2,500, but we all know that there have been too many of them. That is certainly the view of British industry, and many quotations to that effect can be adduced.
  Another danger manifest in the Budget is the temptation to meddle. In The Times today, Anatole Kaletsky cites the interventions that will burden and harass industry, saying:
  "Individually all these may be small measures, but taken together they seem to represent a covert triumph for the traditions of interventionist economic meddling and social engineering that appeared to be buried with old Labour."
  That is true, and it is being said by an independent economic commentator rather than coming only from Conservative politicians. The Labour party still believes that everything can be done from Whitehall. We heard bland words from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the necessarily limited role of Government, but by their deeds shall ye know them. As the Budget works out in the months to come, I fear that it will become all too clear that it spells bad news for industry.
  There is another danger. The Budget will make it harder to continue the downward pressure on interest rates. If anything, it might put pressure on interest rates to rise again, when set against the inflation target. We all know that if that happens, the impact on the pound, on our export potential and on business and jobs will be hugely negative, coming on top of an already difficult situation for British exporters. That would have negative consequences should we approach membership of European monetary union, although I do not wish to go too deeply into that subject from the Conservative Benches tonight.
  Like many Budgets in the past, this Budget received a warm reception on the day and the day after, but that means that in six months' time there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. This will be a classic example of such a Budget.
  7.31 pm
  Gillian Merron: It used to be the case that the Chancellor wore the heavy mantle of chief distributor of misery, entrusted with executing Budget provisions in a limited and predictable manner. However, now the headlines proclaim, "Flash Gordon", "Everyone's a winner" and "Brilliant". How Budgets, Governments and Chancellors can change!
  434
  The Budget is supported by good housekeeping, including a major reduction of the inherited national debt and the costs associated with it and a determined yet practical reduction of unemployment and its associated social security, health and other costs, none of which properly serve the individual or the economy. However, I noted that the Chancellor again failed to realise the fears of George Bernard Shaw, who wrote some time ago:
  "Give women the vote, and in five years, there will be a crushing tax on bachelors."
  I wondered whether I should be generous and say that even Conservative Members would not have added that to their intended list of items such as food, books and children's clothing that were under threat of imposition of VAT, had the Conservatives won the election.
  I especially welcome the Budget's impact on my constituency of Lincoln. More than 11,000 families will benefit from the further increase in child benefit plus the new children's tax credit. That will mean that the Labour Government, since coming to power, will have doubled the financial support available to children. More than 16,000 of Lincoln's pensioners will benefit from an increase in the winter allowance from £20 to £100 which, together with the other measures including the reintroduction of free eye tests—I strongly supported the local Age Concern group's campaign on that issue—and the lifting of many pensioners out of tax liability, will provide a better deal for pensioners than they have been used to for some time.
  To achieve all that, support for business and enterprise must be a priority. I know that many in the business community will be pleased by the Government's practical responses to their needs, which Labour has listened to for some time. The business community will welcome the Budget announcements, including the tax reductions and credits, the new small business service and new proposals to increase share ownership, to help to increase productivity. Lindum Construction in Lincoln proudly announced such a scheme some time ago and I believe that it will be successfully replicated around the country.
  I recently addressed business representatives at a busy chamber of commerce lunch. In discussion afterwards, I heard how business people genuinely felt a sense of stability that, slowly but surely, is rebuilding the confidence lost in the Tory years of boom and bust. Such confidence supports an American parent company's decision to establish a new manufacturing site in Lincoln. A year ago, I was pleased to welcome Sermatech UK to its new Lincoln facility, which employs some 33 people. Sermatech established that plan in partnership with Alstom Gas Turbines, which—incidentally—supplies the turbine that powers the Whitehall energy efficiency scheme. No. 10, the Ministry of Defence and many other key buildings rely on Lincoln's skill and technology for heat and light. That is a powerful position to hold. Sermatech has a positive future and I believe that it will be enhanced by the final Budget of the millennium.
  This is a Budget for work. Lincoln has seen a steady reduction in unemployment, which has fallen by 15 per cent. in the past year. The new deal is part of that, and I am especially pleased that the over-50s will have an opportunity to benefit from a new programme to get them back to work so that they are not left on the scrap heap. Anglia Water last year invited me to support its 37 new deal young recruits and their mentors in Lincoln. I was

  435
  delighted to hear that since my visit, Gary Peck, a trainee leakage operative, has obtained a permanent job as an assistant surveyor. He is just one example of the powerful effect of a partnership initiated and funded by the Government. Gary's view is:
  "I wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for all the help I've been given."
  He is a bright young man with great potential: he just needed the opportunity of the new deal to get him into work. There are many more like him, who will benefit from the Government's determination to get people into work, including those who find it hardest to get their feet on the employment ladder.
  On education, I especially welcome the £470 million investment to broaden access to technology for both children and adults. I was delighted to see that principle already in action at Ermine junior school in my constituency, which has a dedicated room with IT equipment for that very purpose. Especially impressive is the availability of the new technology to those in the local residential home. The friendships and exchange between the children and the elderly people provide an example of true and meaningful education.
  I especially welcome the allocation of £2,000 to every school for books. I welcome it for the contribution it will make, but also for its directness. We all know what the money is, what it is for and where it is going. The path of previous allocations of extra funding for education from this Government has not been so clear in my constituency.
  I also welcome the recent intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who has written to Lincolnshire county council to urge it to ensure that the additional Government provision is spent on education and, especially, to support schools so that resources can be spent directly on raising standards. Not surprisingly, the Conservative leadership of the county council takes issue with that point, but the issue is not only how much is spent on education— important though that is—but where it is spent and what it is spent on. I know from parents, teachers and governors—whether at Ancaster, Sir Francis Hill or any other school in Lincoln—that the education priorities voted for by the people in Lincoln and across the country at the general election are not being met in my constituency.
  In contrast, yesterday's Labour Budget is just what the people voted for on 1 May 1997. It is a Budget which speaks of how all players, from the company director, through the NHS manager, to the pensioner or parent managing a household, can see and feel the links to and benefits from each other. I welcome the Budget with enthusiasm. It is a better deal for Lincoln and a better deal for Britain.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. David Prior: As I listened to the Chancellor's Budget statement, my impression was of massive complacency, and that same complacency was exhibited by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry this afternoon. There was more than a touch of Dr. Pangloss about both statements. Where have the Chancellor and the Secretary of State been for the past year? Do they have industrial companies in their constituencies? Are they aware that orders, sales and
  436
  profit margins are being squeezed, and that many manufacturing and engineering companies are laying off employees?
  Almost worse is the impression that neither right hon. Gentleman has grasped the lesson that the country had to learn so painfully in the 1980s: we operate in a global marketplace, so we have to be the best by the best world standards. It is because this country embraced those two lessons that we were able to attract so many foreign companies during the 1980s and the early 1990s. The benefits of that investment, such as improved working practices and product quality, are still with us today.
  Whereas the challenge in the 1980s was for this country to catch up with Europe, especially our competitors in Germany and France, today's challenge is no longer confined to Europe; we have to be better than our competitors in the United States, Asia, south America and other parts of the world. It is becoming increasingly widely recognised that the European way of doing business is not competitive. Take the case of Germany today: many large industrial companies are disinvesting from Germany and reinvesting in new manufacturing capacity in the countries of eastern Europe and south America.
  We have to judge the Budget against that background because only if we get right the fundamental decision about what sort of economy we want in this country will we be able to afford in the long term decent pensions and public services and to achieve a high level of employment. Getting that judgment right is crucial, but I believe that, as we adopt an increasingly dirigiste style of government, with bigger government, more interference and more regulation, we build a higher costs base that will eventually lead to protectionism in Europe.
  The lead measure in the Budget was the reduction in the headline rate of corporation tax. I welcome that, but have to point out to Ministers that the problem currently facing British industry and commerce is not the level of corporation tax, but the fact that our costs are too high to enable us to compete. Our regulatory costs, employment costs, transport costs, energy costs and administrative or bureaucratic costs have become too high.
  Let me give a few examples. Take inspection costs in our abattoirs, which are going through the roof because of new European Union regulations, or the hygiene and welfare standards imposed on our pig and livestock producers. Take the effect of the minimum wage on a company in my constituency that employs a lot of casual workers and now faces the bureaucratic problems of filling in all the forms needed to comply with the minimum wage. Take the effect of the working time directive, which has had a big impact on companies that work in shifts, especially those that have night shifts. Take the effect of the increased recognition of trade unions. Most damaging are the new rules on unfair dismissal, which will deter many companies from taking on new employees. Finally, the social chapter is, in effect, a means of making all EU countries operate at the same level of uncompetitiveness.
  When they took office, the Labour Government inherited a culture of business and entrepreneurialism—a culture which had changed dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s. We had embraced the new competition and were able to compete throughout the world. We have now taken a wrong turn, however: just as we were about to

  437
  embrace success, we have gone off in the wrong direction, towards a more highly regulated dirigiste form of government. I had hoped that the Budget would demonstrate that the Government had taken on board the lessons of the 1980s and early 1990s but, sadly, they have not.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I shall concentrate my remarks on the effects of the Budget on the northern region and the constituency that I represent. I shall explain how the Government's actions are continuing to improve the quality of life of the people in my area, by rewarding work and supporting families. However, first, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his team and to the team at the Department of Trade and Industry who have worked since the beginning of this Parliament to bring about that better standard of life for the many and not the few. The many are the people on low incomes and middling incomes—the real wealth creators in this world.
  The great thing about the Budget is that it continues that work in a spectacular way, by recognising and rewarding the central aspects of life—families and work—and putting great investment in public services. Families are given more by increasing child benefit to £15; 12,000 families in my constituency benefit from that. That increase plus the new child tax credit mean that families will be hundreds of pounds better off and that the youngsters in those families will have a better start in life.
  The £40 billion for public services, such as health and education, was promised some time ago, but the fact that it was widely discussed before the Budget statement should not take off the shine. The importance of public services to the poor, who cannot afford private health services or to send their children to private schools, cannot be stressed too strongly. The modernisation of my local accident and emergency unit will be greatly appreciated; and the £2,000 for every school for books will be gratefully received by hard-pressed teachers and governors. The Budget also delivers a better deal for pensioners by increasing the winter fuel allowance from £20 to £100 which, taken together with the earlier cut in VAT on fuel and the minimum income guarantee, means that more than 16,000 pensioners in my constituency will be hundreds of pounds better off.
  It is significant that the Budget rewards work by building on the new deal, which has already had an impact in Jarrow where it has halved both youth unemployment and long-term unemployment. The minimum wage will make hundreds of people better off, as will the l0p starting rate of income tax and the future cut in the basic rate from 23p to 22p. Taken together, all those measures mean that there will be more money for people to spend in the area. Individuals and families will be better off, with the result that the local economy will receive the boost it needs. The stronger the local economy, the more jobs are provided for local people.
  We in the northern region, in the Jarrow constituency and on the Tyne, still rely to a great extent on engineering. We welcome the service industries, which have created valuable jobs, and we welcome the high-tech industries, because they represent the future and we have to look to the future. However, we have to remember that balance
  438
  is important in any economy, so I pay tribute to the employers and the workers in the north who have survived the bad times—the boom and bust under Tory rule.
  It is a disgrace that the average age of a skilled worker on the Tyne is now 50. It is more important than ever that Tyneside and Swan Hunter get the Ministry of Defence work for which tenders are currently being submitted. If the £130 million tender for Royal Navy supply ships is accepted, work will be provided for hundreds of skilled men for many years to come. Perhaps more important are the opportunities that that will create for youngsters to learn skills and carry on the good work that made Tyneside great.
  In my area, small businesses were set up as the larger firms closed down. Redundant workers used their skill and determination to provide a living, not only for themselves and their families, but for their work colleagues, whom they took along when they set up the business. Although many have gone to the wall over the years because of problems in the economy, some have survived. They have told me that they welcome the new climate of economic stability; they welcome the new deal, which has given them opportunities to employ people who they might not have employed in the past; and they welcome the cut in the small business tax rate to l0p.
  With mortgage rates at a 35-year low, tax incentives to work and massive investment in public services— £40 million has been identified—people in the south of England must be asking why they did not listen before to those in the north and cast their vote for the Labour party. I am pleased that the good people of the south have now listened to those in the north and cast their vote with sense. I know that the Labour Government will not let them down: they are providing jobs and a good standard of living for all the people of this country.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. John Townend: We live and operate in a global economy, and this country is very affected by the world economic situation. I find it strange, therefore, that the subject is dealt with only scantily in the Red Book, which devotes a mere two pages to it. I believe that the Chancellor's forecasts are too optimistic when one considers the possible dangers to the world economy in the year ahead. The danger worldwide is no longer inflation but deflation. The problem is that few people alive today—bankers, politicians and business men—have lived through and experienced deflation and know how to deal with it.
  Asia is still in difficulties. Japan is, at best, bumping along the bottom and, at worst, heading for even more deflation. Europe's economy is weakening and unemployment is rising. The current world economy is being kept on the rails by the motor of the American economy. This situation cannot last indefinitely because of the growing United States trade deficit. The US cannot, and will not, be willing to be the importer of last resort for ever.
  If there is a financial crisis in Brazil—all commentators accept that the Brazilian economy remains fragile—it could spill over into the rest of Latin America. If the American stock market were to fall sharply, it could cause a drop in consumer demand and the world economy would move quickly into recession and deflation unless the European Union was prepared to change its policy to

  439
  allow an increase in growth and open its markets. By announcing next year's tax reductions now, the Chancellor has become a hostage to fortune. I do not believe he has taken sufficient account of the dangers.
  I turn now to a constituency matter: the burden on the motorist. I represent a rural constituency where people must use cars to travel to work and the shops and to take their children to school. Once again, the Government have used the injudicious commitment given by the Deputy Prime Minister at Kyoto as an excuse for another pernicious attack on the motorist. Fuel tax now constitutes 85 per cent. of the cost of the petrol that we buy—that is the highest percentage in the European Union. I do not know whether the Government are proud of the fact that, since Labour came to power, British tourists, for the first time in history, can fill their tanks more cheaply in Calais than in Dover.
  This is an anti-motorist Government, and I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition indicated in his response to the Budget a change in our policy. I have long advocated abandoning the concept of an automatic escalator for petrol tax. With my right hon. Friend's statement, we at last have a political party in this country that will fight for a fair deal for the motorist.
  The policy has proved an absolute failure on conservation grounds. People have not given up their cars or used them substantially less. My constituents have no alternative: they must pay the tax with money taken from elsewhere in the family budget. The poorest motorists suffer the most, particularly the poor who live in the country. This tax also hits the family because many families' main pleasure is the family car: taking the family out for a day trip is often the highlight of the week.
  The change in the vehicle tax does not help the family. The Chancellor clearly has no experience of such things. It is impossible to get two or three growing teenagers and all their luggage into a car of 1,000 or 1,100 cc. Has the Chancellor not heard of the family saloon? This tax hits the family and the countryside.
  The Government are proud of their Budget policies for small business. Unlike most Labour Members, I have owned and operated medium-sized enterprises for the past 40 years. I have looked carefully at the Budget proposals, and I have discovered that 98 per cent. of small businesses will get very little. For those who receive something, the benefits will pale into insignificance compared with the cost of implementing the 2,000 additional regulations introduced by the Government through the social chapter, the working time directive, the "Fairness at Work" White Paper, the national minimum wage, the new hygiene regulations, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. The list goes on and on.
  Most Labour Members have never run a fish and chip shop and they have no idea of the burden that such regulations impose on small businesses. It is not just the financial cost, but the enormous amount of management time that is devoted to such matters that should be spent on productive development of the business.
  I shall give an example from my constituency. Mr. Simpson has been a butcher and his family have operated an abattoir for four generations. He spent £30,000 in order to comply with the hygiene regulations introduced by local authority environmental health officers. New regulations will now be imposed from 1 April. Mr. Simpson tells me that when he slaughters
  440
  for six hours on Monday—he slaughters once a week— three staff members are present as well as up to five members of the inspection staff, for whom he has to pay. Mr. Simpson will be forced to close his business from 1 April.
  Labour Members have made much of the 1p cut in corporation tax for small business. A company that makes £50,000 a year will save £500. Apart from the cost of regulations, that sum will be more than gobbled up by the increase in the cost of petrol. For most businesses, motoring costs are a major expense. Most goods are delivered to customers by road, and sales representatives must have cars to do their jobs. The increase in the tax on DERV will be badly received by the haulage industry. As many of my right hon and hon Friends have said today, more and more hauliers are flagging out their trucks. While returning to my constituency by train last week, I spoke to a man who owns a haulage business in Wakefield, who told me that he had just sent 20 vehicles to be registered in Luxembourg.
  The tax increases will also be a bitter blow to agriculture, which is important to my constituency and which is suffering badly at present.
  The company car has also come in for another battering this year. The reduction of the rebate for high mileage and the abolition of the reduction for cars that are more than four years old mean that an owner could pay an extra £776 for a five-year-old car worth £19,000 that does about 10,000 miles a year. The changes will hit particularly badly sales representatives who work hard and do high mileage. That is most unfair, and represents another attack on middle England.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have talked about stealth taxes. I draw the attention of the House to the increase in tobacco duty. Hon. Members have probably forgotten that there was an increase on 1 January this year of 21p per packet. Less than three months later, there has been another increase of 17.5p. I do not smoke—I think it is a foul habit—but I think that that increase will simply encourage smugglers. Smuggling is no longer an amateur operation: it has been taken over by professional criminals. Many people are shifting from trafficking in hard drugs to trafficking in cigarettes. That is not the way to deal with the problem—it should be addressed by gradually reducing taxes.
  The price of sparkling cider has increased by £1.02 a bottle. That will damage the British cider industry. What is the reason for the increase? The Government have given in to pressure from the Italian Government, who believe that cider competes unfairly with cheap Italian sparkling wine. If the Government wanted to deal with the problem, they should have reduced the duty on sparkling wine to the level of that on ordinary wine. There is no reason why we should pay a tax on bubbles as well as face increased cider prices.
  This Budget is bad for middle England and destroys the Government's claim to be the party of the middle classes. Those on above-average pay will pay more national health insurance, as will the self-employed. Home owners will lose MIRAS and pay more stamp duty when they move house. Middle England's company car taxes have increased dramatically. The married couples allowance has been abolished, and private and corporate pensions have been attacked yet again. The penny will start to drop with middle England. The Budget, which is bad

  441
  for business, agriculture, the countryside, the motorist, the smoker and, above all, the hard-working married man who works long hours to provide a better standard of living for his wife and children, will in time prove to be bad for Labour.
  8 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I join other Labour Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his team on yet another excellent Budget. He impressively balanced the need for radical new measures to promote enterprise and the need to deliver additional support to those who need it most, while at the same time not putting at risk our hard-won economic stability. The 16,500 pensioners in my constituency will be particularly delighted by the £1 billion package of extra help for pensioners, especially the uprating by average earnings of the minimum income guarantee.
  In Harrow, we are lucky to have high numbers of people in work and a high proportion of small businesses. The new l0p rate for income tax and the 1p cut in the basic rate, coupled with my right hon. Friend's measures to stimulate investment and growth in the small business sector—rewarding, as they do, hard work and entrepreneurial talent—will be extremely well received.
  I want to concentrate my remarks on the Government's welcome commitment to the introduction of a business energy tax in April 2001. I never believed that environmental protection and economic growth were direct opposites. I also never had much confidence in the arguments and mindset of those on the right or the hard left of British politics, who seemed to believe that sustainable development and enterprise were at different ends of the policy spectrum. There is clearly a third way which marries environmental aims with economic goals. Economic instruments such as the business energy tax which stimulate effective business and market responses to the environmental challenges which we face are examples of sensible new Labour policies.
  Over the past few weeks, Labour Members have had to endure much windy piffle-paffle from Conservative Members about the Government's attitude to Select Committees. The centrepiece of the Environmental Audit Committee's response to the last two pre-Budget reports has been to call for the implementation of a business energy tax. I congratulate the Government on their sensible response to those reports. Such a tax will be an important tool in meeting the targets that were set at Kyoto for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and will clearly encourage industry to conserve energy and switch to much cleaner forms of energy.
  Crucially, the commitment to make the levy fiscally neutral will also protect business competitiveness. The notice that has been given and the consultation that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced will give business time to plan and an opportunity to work with the Government to decide on the details of the levy.
  As countries across the world consider how they will meet their climate change commitments, the introduction of a business energy tax is increasingly recognised as a useful and essential tool. Six European countries have already introduced an energy or carbon tax since 1990, and Germany and Italy are working on similar proposals.
  442
  In the middle of the next decade, carbon emissions are projected to start increasing again in the UK. According to the projections of the climate change consultation paper, the proportion of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases accounted for by CO2 will rise from 78 per cent. in 1990 to 84 per cent. by 2010. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear yesterday in his statement, we are locked in, rightly, to a legally binding target of a 12.5 per cent. reduction in our carbon dioxide emissions.
  Labour Members recognised a long time ago the necessity of reducing carbon dioxide emissions—hence our manifesto commitment to reduce them by 20 per cent. That is an ambitious goal, and it is a recognition not only of the present Kyoto targets, but, more importantly, of the stringent requirements that are likely to follow the first round of the agreement.
  Industry produces 40 per cent. of those carbon emissions in the UK and will, along with other sectors, have to make a significant contribution towards meeting climate change targets. A signal needed to be given to the whole of industry that energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy supplies had to be a priority in its future investment decisions.
  In an ideal world, I would have preferred the tax to be levied according to carbon content, rather than pure energy usage, but I recognise the difficulties that would arise in trying to calculate accurately the carbon content of electricity, as well as the inevitable complexity and resulting uncertainty that it would introduce.
  I welcome the comment in the consultation document that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will keep under review the possible exemption of energy supply from small-scale renewable generators, albeit if pool reform allows. Studies cited by Lord Marshall's report demonstrate that energy taxes effectively produce cuts in emissions. The Swedish environmental protection agency has estimated that the introduction of its carbon tax has reduced emissions by 2 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor estimated that the levy alone would save about 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010. That, together with the other measures that he announced, would achieve an overall reduction of 3 million tonnes of carbon, which is equal to about 2 per cent. of Britain's emissions. That would be a significant contribution to our climate change targets.
  There is no reason per se why a business energy tax should hurt Britain's competitiveness. I have already referred to the fact that many of our European neighbours are implementing or considering proposals for an energy tax. That tax will not place Britain at a competitive disadvantage with our major trading partners.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that the revenues from the levy will be recycled back to business through the national insurance system, ensuring that there is no increase in the overall tax burden for business. That clearly demarcates the tax as one for environmental purposes and ensures that it will be judged on that basis.
  The announcement that energy-intensive industries can seek voluntary agreements to reduce their levy in return for undertaking energy-efficient measures is clearly sensible. The energy tax in Denmark works in a similar fashion to protect the competitiveness of its energy-intensive industries, and has lower tax rates for companies in those sectors that agree to invest in

  443
  energy-efficient measures. That is in line with the aims of our levy to reduce emissions by focusing on changing industry behaviour, not loading extra costs on business or raising revenue for the Treasury.
  Research quoted in Lord Marshall's report found considerable scope for cost-effective energy-saving measures in all sectors, including those identified as energy intensive. Another important feature of the Danish energy tax is the strong support given to small businesses to improve their energy efficiency. The CBI has rightly argued that if a business energy tax were to be introduced, it should include support for small businesses to adopt energy-saving technologies through the provision of information and advice. Clearly, the welcome £50 million investment fund will provide some support, and it will help to promote an expansion in renewable energy.
  The exemption for renewable energy where it is supplied direct to the consumer is also sensible and welcome, and reflects the environmental benefits that accrue from renewable power sources, which are not currently recognised in their prices.
  A significant increase in the supply of energy from renewable sources is important in the interests of a long-term, secure, diverse and low-emission energy supply in the UK. In that context, I look forward to the renewables review due to be published by the Department of Trade and Industry shortly.
  Under the previous Administration, we had the worst record in Europe for exploiting renewable energy sources. Eurostat figures reveal that, in 1995, the renewable share of inland energy consumption was 0.7 per cent. in the UK, compared with 25 per cent. in Sweden, 24 per cent. in Austria, and a European Union average of 5.3 per cent. I therefore particularly welcome the Chancellor's commitment to examine whether further incentives could be given to promote the take-up of renewable sources of energy by utilising part of the revenues from the business energy levy. Other European countries have implemented various means of supporting renewables which have resulted in a much larger share of the energy market for that sector. Capital credits on the purchase and installation of new renewables equipment to overcome the barriers of high initial costs have been utilised in Belgium and Finland.
  Another model that has been suggested is the Dutch system of tax relief for green investment funds. Banks managing the funds in the Netherlands are able to offer good rates of interest to green projects that would not otherwise have been financed, while still providing a reasonable rate of return to investors. So far, £1 billion of private sector finance has been levered into those green funds.
  My right hon. Friend has delivered undoubtedly the greenest Budget that we have seen. It builds on the lead that Britain gave at Kyoto and will continue to ensure Britain's place at the forefront of the drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I warmly welcome it.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. John Swinney: The hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) commented earlier that newspaper headlines had been broadly favourable to the Budget. Of course that must be conceded—the Government have had a great day in the press. However, one press headline might not have cheered up one of the
  444
  households in Downing street, because it stated that "The future's Brown". That might have gone down well at No. 11, but I suspect that it would not be the centre of attention at No. 10.
  I welcome some of the measures in the Chancellor's Budget, especially the adoption of the l0p starting rate of taxation, a measure which clearly supports the position of low-income households.
  The moves on pensioners, particularly the winter payment of £100 and the Chancellor's guarantee yesterday that that would be sustained throughout the term of this Parliament, are welcome, but I urge the Chancellor to ensure that that is protected against inflation.
  The more direct and targeted support for children is equally welcome and shows a willingness by the Government to tackle direct support in the most effective way.
  The measures on lower corporation tax, to which I shall return, are also welcome. The Government expressed scepticism when the argument for lower corporation tax was advanced by my party before the election. Their change of heart is welcome.
  The Chancellor's growth assumptions have been the subject of debate today, and I join in the scepticism about them. The sweep of independent forecasters believe that the 1999 forecast adopted by the Chancellor is broadly double the mainstream position. The forecasts for the year 2000 settle at about half a per cent. lower than that made by the Chancellor. It is stretching credibility to assume that there will be such a lively bounce-back from the close proximity of recession as the Chancellor implies by his growth assumptions.
  As we survey various economic information relating to the volume of job losses that have taken place in Scotland since the general election—there have been 14,000 job losses since May 1997, and only yesterday further job losses were announced in manufacturing in Scotland—the Red Book commentary on the position of the manufacturing sector and the downturn in manufacturing output illustrates the severity of the problem.
  The Chancellor's growth assumptions are not just a point of academic interest—they are fundamental to the plans that he has announced. At column 175 of Hansard yesterday, the Chancellor gave an assurance that the delivery of the £40 billion of public expenditure envisaged in the comprehensive spending review was safe within the fiscal rules and assured as a result of the assumptions that underpinned the Budget. A great deal hangs on the Chancellor's ability to deliver those growth assumptions, especially in relation to valuable public expenditure programmes.
  I am concerned about the fiscal and monetary balance that has been struck by the Chancellor in the Budget. The delivery of further fiscal loosening is clearly part of his judgment, but I fear that that may jeopardise the ability of the Monetary Policy Committee to deliver further interest rate cuts that will take our level to one comparable with European short-term interest rates, which are such an important factor in the competitive position of British companies. If that disparity continues, it will create a competitive disadvantage for our companies. Some of the beneficial business measures that the Chancellor announced yesterday will be undermined by this fiscal stance.

  445
  On the proposals for enterprise, I welcome the cuts in corporation tax, as I said. We should learn from some of our European counterparts that, by lowering the rates of corporation tax, we can expand the yield of tax generated to the economy.
  I welcome the measures on small and medium enterprises, but I caution that new initiatives should not be allowed to clutter the existing SME support initiatives. Additional bureaucracy should not prevent resources from reaching front-line companies that could benefit from the new services.
  Let me comment briefly on particular industries. In the Chancellor's statement yesterday, there was cursory reference to the whisky industry, which is fundamental to the economy of parts of Scotland. The £2.54 billion a year trade in the whisky sector underpins 12,5000 direct jobs in Scotland and 50,000 indirect jobs.
  Hon. Members have commented extensively on the importance of spin doctors in the presentation of the Government's Budget programme. One of the national newspapers in Scotland ran a front-page story on Tuesday, speculating with a high degree of certainty that there was to be a 4 per cent. cut in the duty on whisky, and suggesting that that was due to intensive lobbying by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  That cut did not materialise. Whisky is still the most heavily taxed spirit in this country. Is it any wonder that sales of that important commodity are depressed? There was a 7 per cent. fall in sales in the UK last year, and declining revenues as a result of the depressed sales. In 1991–92, more than £1.7 billion in tax revenues were generated from sales of whisky, but, last year, the comparable figure was £1.5 billion. The opportunity to solve some of the problems in that sector have been missed in the Budget.
  The other sector on which I shall comment is road haulage and the more general issue of fuel duty. I thought that the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) was about to get himself into serious trouble with some of his remarks about road hauliers, but he saved himself. Road fuel duty is becoming an enormous problem to the economic health not just of rural and county constituencies, such as the one that I represent, but more widely across the economy.
  I refer to comments made by Mrs. Pat Grant, the managing director of Norfrost Ltd., an important manufacturing company in the north of Scotland. The company manufacturers what used to be called white goods—refrigerators—at its factory at Thurso in the north of Scotland, and transports them for distribution throughout the world. Mrs. Grant estimates that the last increase in the fuel duty escalator put her company's costs up by £100,000. It is a large company which employs many people. The increase in fuel prices is becoming a serious issue in the manufacturing sector in Scotland. Mrs. Grant reckons that the fuel duty escalator is as big a competitive impediment to her business as the overvalued pound.
  The compensatory measures from the rural transport fund announced by the Government—a 20 per cent. increase—do not address the problem for rural areas. In my constituency, a large rural part of Scotland, three rural
  446
  petrol stations have been defined as being capable of benefiting from additional support from the rural transport fund, but one of them has already closed. What help is that to car users in the rural areas of Scotland? The Government must think carefully about future initiatives in the sector. We will oppose them on Monday night on that issue.
  The Chancellor boasted in his Budget statement that he had delivered a public expenditure position that was £2 billion lower than the spending plans that he inherited. No wonder. The Government have confirmed that £211 million has been cut from Scottish education in the past two years. I can see no new money for public services in the Budget. If the Chancellor had £2 billion for tax cuts in the future, the public would have expected that to be directed towards public services. Even under the Government's current plans in Scotland, public expenditure will not recover to its level under the Conservative Government in 1994–95. The expectations of the Scottish people will be diminished by the Budget.
  8.20 pm
  Ms Claire Ward: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on an outstanding Budget, which will, without any doubt, introduce many measures that will benefit my constituents. That is in stark contrast to what we had from the previous Government. A Conservative Member referred earlier to some strange golden legacy. I do not remember a golden legacy when the Labour party came into office. Our only legacy was one of poor investment in public services, poor standards in education because of a lack of investment, poor investment in our infrastructure, including our rail services, and a crumbling national health service. This Government have invested far more money in our public services than the previous Government could ever have dreamed about.
  I returned to my constituency today to meet some pensioners who were celebrating an exhibition on memories with local students at West Herts college. I asked those pensioners for their views on the Budget. It was summed up for me by one pensioner who said, "There is something there for everyone and a bit more for those who need it most." That is exactly what the Budget is about.
  We can judge our society by how we treat our pensioners, who deserve the very best that the country can offer them after they have committed so much of their life and effort to it. We have shown a clear intention to deliver the best for pensioners. The £20 a year winter fuel allowance has been increased to £100, The pensioners to whom I spoke today recognised that as a major asset. It is difficult for them to decide how to share their small income between heating, food and other necessities. That is clearly a welcome measure for pensioners in Watford.
  Nearly 16,000 pensioners will benefit from the other measures introduced in the Budget. The minimum income guarantee will ensure that, through the income support system, a single pensioner will have a minimum income of £78 a week. While many of us with mortgages have seen the reduction in interest as a real blessing, many of my pensioner constituents have regretted them, because they rely on the interest from their savings. This is a section of society who need that little bit more income at a time when they deserve to live their lives in some dignity. Therefore, I welcome the introduction of pensioner bonds to provide better value for pensioners.

  447
  This is also a Budget for families, and I welcome the change in the married couples allowance, not because I am anti-marriage or in any way want to penalise those who are married, but because we have rightly given priority to families with children. We have decided that the most important thing is to give the best start to children in all families. By introducing a taper to the children's tax credit, my right hon. Friend has recognised that there are families who do not need that money and that the benefit should not be paid in full to higher tax payers.
  The Budget will, without a doubt, reward work and make work pay. Far too often, those on benefits and seeking work have lost out on getting into work. There have been many disincentives to work. The Government aim to make work pay, and the Budget does that, along with all the measures that will be introduced within the next couple of years, including the minimum wage, which will be introduced this year, and the working families tax credit. The l0p rate of income tax will help those on low incomes most of all. Although Watford will be considered a southern town in comparison with other parts of the country that have problems, we still, unfortunately, have areas of low income and low pay. That measure will be an added boost to those families and individuals.
  Lone parents will benefit from the Budget. Many have found a disincentive in moving from benefits into work. The extension of benefits for an additional two weeks will give extra security to those who wish to work but might otherwise have felt that they would lose out disproportionately by doing so. That, together with the increase in child benefit and the Government's child care strategy, will make it much easier for lone parents in my constituency to secure work that will pay in the long term.
  My right hon. Friend's reluctance to increase duties on alcohol must be welcomed by those of us who like to indulge now and again. I also welcome the reduction in the duty on pools companies. The headquarters of the Ladbroke group is in my constituency and, on its behalf, I welcome such changes. I also welcome my right hon. Friend's decision not to increase duties on alcohol because, although no brewing now takes place in Watford, there are many brewing industries in the town.
  I am also pleased that today, which is national no smoking day, the Government can confidently say that they are not encouraging smoking, and are doing everything in their power to reduce the amount of smoking that takes place by increasing the duty on cigarettes. As someone who does not smoke, and who does not wish to have smoke blown all over me wherever I may be, I am pleased that the Government have taken this step.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Ward: I shall not give way because of the 10-minute limit on speeches.
  This is a positive Budget for all my constituents and for businesses that will gain from the tax changes and from the incentives to encourage employees by means of the new grant for information technology. There is no doubt that information technology and education are the way forward for Britain, not low incomes and poverty pay. The Government have recognised that as a priority.
  448
  The additional £2,000 per school for books will also show that the Government are serious about making education a priority, together with the additional funding for education and the health service.
  I welcome the Budget on behalf of my constituents of Watford.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: The Budget is a crucial time because there is nothing more fundamental in the state than what the state takes and what the state returns and redistributes. Therefore, it is important for democracy and good governance that what happens in the Budget is reasonably transparent. This Budget is deliberately opaque. Its opaqueness is such that, the day after the Budget, the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition are still involved in a lengthy wrangle about whether the burden of taxes has increased or decreased. That must be a matter of fact that could be resolved fairly easily.
  Those who turned on BBC Radio 4 news this morning at the first opportunity—6 o'clock—would have heard the commentator on the business news confirm that, so far as the BBC is concerned, taxes are going up and will go up substantially each year for the next four years as a consequence of the Budget. That view is clearly confirmed by the House of Commons Library, but the fact that it is still a matter of dispute is a reflection not only on the Government, who persist in putting up taxes, but on the way in which the Budget has been presented. Different tax years have been confused, some measures that have been introduced will not be implemented for two years and we have had to try to compare the various figures, so it is not surprising that there has been a fair degree of confusion.
  The Government are somewhat embarrassed by all that, because the Prime Minister said before the general election that the Labour party had no plans to increase tax at all. However, only last week he had to acknowledge that the tax burden will increase over this Parliament. The tax burden has already increased substantially during this Parliament—Labour's first two Budgets increased taxes by more than £40 billion. This Budget includes a substantial number of new taxes, the impact of which upon individuals, couples and families is not immediately obvious. Mortgage interest relief has been scrapped, the married couples' allowance has been abolished, company car taxes and stamp duty have gone up and petrol tax has gone up yet again.
  In a number of ways, the delivery of the Budget was intended to obfuscate. For example, yesterday, the Chancellor made much to all of us in the Chamber of the fact that the bottom rate of income tax will be lowered to l0p, but there was no mention at all of the scrapping of the 20 per cent. band. People earning the maximum allowed at the basic rate of income tax will pay slightly more tax next year, despite the introduction of the 10 per cent. band. They will pay up to £141 extra tax because the 10p rate will apply only to the first £1,500 earned in excess of personal allowances. The 23 per cent. basic rate of income tax will be extended to cover earnings between £1,501 and £28,000.
  At first sight, those measures looked like good news for those on lower pay, but the Chancellor forgot to tell us that he was scrapping the 20 per cent. band. When one

  449
  looks at the facts, they are somewhat different from the spin. The 10 per cent. rate was trumpeted as the centrepiece of the entire speech, but the ending of the 20 per cent. rate went unannounced. It was simply abolished by omission—glided over as if it had never been.
  Although attention is intended to be drawn to the 10 per cent. bottom rate of tax, no adequate attention was given to the fact that the upper earnings limit on national insurance will rise by more than 18 per cent., thus cutting take-home pay over the next two years. For most people there is little difference, whether in respect of tax or national insurance contributions, and many people will see more of their pay absorbed by national insurance contributions.
  The Chancellor hailed the introduction of the children's tax credit as a reasonable quid pro quo for scrapping the married couples' allowance in April 2000, but the children's tax credit will not be introduced until 2001. That is a further example of the Chancellor confusing different years and seeking to give the impression that he is being generous, but all the figures show that the position is somewhat different and millions of households—couples with children, couples with a mortgage—will suffer a loss.
  Pages and pages of the Budget were devoted to various schemes intended to help business, but many are so complex that an aspirant entrepreneur will find himself surrounded by eager officials from the new Small Business Service and accountants explaining the joys of tax breaks for investment and for research and development. There is also the offer of computers from the capital modernisation fund, but businesses in my constituency in north Oxfordshire want to be left alone by the Government and a substantial reduction in regulation.
  I am prepared to lay a wager with Ministers on the Treasury Bench that an independent poll taken a year from now in a patch such as my constituency would show that very few businesses had contacted the Small Business Service or had been able to take advantage of any of the specific measures in the Budget.
  Those businesses are really concerned about the general burdens on manufacturing industry and the manufacturing base and what they see as an ever-increasing army of health and safety officials, building regulations inspectors and VAT men who are only doing their job. They are concerned about the working time directive and all the new burdens on business that the Government have introduced from unnecessary European Union directives.
  The self-employed are concerned about the substantial increases in their national insurance contributions, which were not properly highlighted by the Chancellor. Many businesses are set up by people who start off as self-employed, so that measure is a real disincentive to them.
  It will be interesting to see which, if any, of the various specific measures announced for business come to fruition. Good window dressing and good headlines on Budget day made an impact, but, six or nine months down the line, few of those measures will have made much impact for British business.
  450
  The measures in the Budget are intended as spin. The various programmes on enterprise took up seven pages of the Chancellor's speech, but the announcement that he was ditching mortgage interest relief at source took only seven lines. He will give a little more than £290 million through the programmes referred to in those seven pages, but he will take away £1.4 billion by scrapping MIRAS.
  Ministers must accept that, although at first sight this looks like a giveaway Budget, it is in fact very complicated. Business people and those involved in enterprise cannot be motivated if they cannot see incentives. I predict that those who will benefit more than anyone else will be chartered accountants: they will have a field day as a result of a Budget which, when it is analysed in years to come, will be seen not as a giveaway but as a Budget which continued to hike up taxes and tried to hide that with spin and obfuscation. It would have been so much better if the Government had sought to cut taxes—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Geraint Davies: What a great Budget! It was not red nose day for the Opposition; it was red face day. We had a fantastic media reception, involving winners and more winners: pensioners, businesses and families. It has been reported that even Stella Hague, the Leader of the Opposition's mother, thought that this was a great Budget.
  Nevertheless, it is important to take a strategic view of the impact of the Budget on UK plc, as we move forward in the global economy during difficult times. The Budget will create a fairer, stronger Britain for the future. We should look at the big picture, rather than making puerile jokes about Roger the dodger. No doubt Stella was not very impressed by that. Anyway, we should consider the broader impact on the British economy.
  I think that we all welcome the lower tax rates: the reduction from 23p to 22p, the l0p tax band and the cash for families. Some 16,800 families in my constituency will benefit from that. We also welcome the stimulus for enterprise, the support for pensioners and the recommitment to health and education in the form of £40 billion. There is also extra money for accident and emergency services, and £2,000 for each school.
  All that is welcome, but I heard some scepticism from Opposition Members. Where was the money to come from? In fact, this is the stability dividend from the drawing of a line under the period of boom-and-bust chaos created by the last Government. The reality is that we inherited a debt cost of some £28 billion a year—debts which have now been transformed into budget surpluses. The reality is that, since the new Labour Government took power, nearly half a million more people are now in jobs—no longer claiming benefits, but creating economic wealth. The reality is that long-term interest rates are lower than they have been for 40 years, and that short-term interest rates have fallen seven times in succession. For that reason, we are spending less on social security than was anticipated.
  The current position contrasts with the vivid picture painted by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who seemed to be describing another

  451
  world—a world to which, presumably, he has now gone. The right hon. Gentleman conjured up a picture of escalating unemployment; as I have said, nearly half a million more people are now employed. He talked of recession—and, of course, there is a recession in wider terms. A quarter of the world is in recession. Global forecasts have been halved, and difficult times lie ahead; but we must face those times realistically.
  That does not mean a repeal of the independence of the Bank of England, which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be calling for and which would cause interest rates to hurtle up. It does not mean rejecting, in perpetuity, entry into the euro, which would drive away all international investment. Conservative Members keep badgering us about the need for sterling to go down. Sterling will go down only if the City and the international markets lose confidence in it, and that will happen only if those markets have confidence in the Conservative party's ever regaining power and, as a consequence, preventing Britain from joining the euro—and the reality is that no one thinks that will happen.
  Earlier this week, the Financial Times reported the International Monetary Fund as describing Britain as a glowing example to the world. One of our key objectives is to make work pay by guaranteeing an income of £10,000 for every working family in Britain, and—as we shall do through this Budget—lifting an extra 7,000 children out of poverty. Family support, in terms of income, is crucial to a Government whose priority is education, education, education: a Government who see that as the key to the liberation of our children, enabling them to be productive in a new economy and a new world.
  In the world of Tory poverty, children in millions of households went to school with low self-esteem, low nourishment and low prospects. That sounded the death knell of Britain's economy, but we have turned the situation around.
  I welcome the structural tax changes that will eliminate some of the distortions that we have inherited—distortions that were not tackled during the 18 solemn years of Tory rule. The move on mortgage interest relief at source is particularly brave. MIRAS is a distortion of the housing market which causes normal people to invest enormous amounts in housing rather than in British industry. It has also made the UK economy too sensitive to interest rates. We want to consider the prospect of joining the euro; we do not want interest rates to be set on a pan-European basis, and then to find that there is a particular sensitivity in the UK economy. That prospect has been eliminated. Moneys have been recycled more fairly and effectively, supporting enterprise and families.
  I welcome the alignment of national insurance and tax, which goes hand in hand with the transfer of responsibilities for national insurance to the Inland Revenue. That is good for business, for the markets and for Britain. I also welcome the new tapering of business taxation. Corporation tax is at 30 per cent., an all-time low, the tax for small and medium enterprises is at 20 per cent. and the tax for companies that are starting up is just 10 per cent. The Budget is creating a ratchet for the generation of a new enterprise culture in Britain of prosperity and employment.
  The support for SMEs will encourage rational risk taking. Lower capital gains tax, regional research and development tax credits and university cash for science and innovation are all to be independently welcomed.
  452
  For a new Government, their approach on environmental sustainability is forward looking and brave. They have taken the opportunity with both hands. The tax on fuel, the investment in transport, which is yet to be announced, the neutral system of business energy tax, combined with reductions in national insurance, the attack on company cars—it is about time that we did something about them— and supporting company schemes that provide communal transport for employees, are all to be welcomed.
  We are creating a virtuous investment environment in Britain which is based on low tax, high skills, an open economy, market access to Europe, stability and an end of boom and bust. The fact that it is an environment in which English is spoken will be well received by the north Americans, the Japanese and others. There will be opportunities for more and more investment in a new Britain and new world.
  The Budget has been good for families, the elderly, small business and the environment. Well done Gordon for making Britain great again.
  8.47 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I shall concentrate on matters in the Budget that particularly affect my constituency. I begin with a point that I raised with the Prime Minister this afternoon at Question Time, although I did not, of course, get a satisfactory reply.
  In my constituency, which forms a large chunk of rural Devon, 80.4 per cent. of householders have cars. Those cars are necessary to their everyday lives. Users are of all ages. If they did not have access to a car, many elderly people in rural areas would have to move out of the villages and their homes elsewhere, and move into towns and cities. It is mobility, and the flexibility of that mobility, that make the car so important, yet today, those people face paying £3.13 for a gallon of unleaded petrol.
  The Prime Minister seemed to indicate to the House this afternoon that, because of some of the pluses in the Budget, it did not matter that cars are being taxed at that level, but, in rural areas, there is a distorted effect. People living in rural areas will not enjoy any benefit that the Budget has given them in any other measure because they will need to spend the extra money keeping their car on the road.
  The Government have increased the fuel tax escalator to 6 per cent. The tax has kicked in in three Budgets in two years; it has rocketed up since the 1997 general election. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) say how the Conservatives would not only oppose but vote against the measure, which has been of great concern to me over many years, particularly on my constituents' behalf.
  If the Government and the Prime Minister in particular are not willing to listen to Conservative Members about how unfair the measure is to people living in rural areas, perhaps he will look at the Hansard of yesterday's debate on the Budget, when his former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), said that he would be torn to pieces by his mainly rural constituents because of the imposition of that tax on petrol. It does discriminate against those who live and work in rural areas.
  Many of those car drivers are also self-employed people. In rural areas, starting up small businesses is very important. People have a choice in rural areas: they either

  453
  start a small business or they go and work somewhere, very often somewhere quite a long way away. Encouraging entrepreneurs in rural areas is therefore extremely important. However, those people are being hit not only by additional petrol costs but by the increase in class 4 national insurance contributions, which will affect 500,000 self-employed people.
  We have heard much today, particularly from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on large businesses' support for the Budget. However, the response from small businesses has not been so favourable. I should like to quote two responses that we have received today.
  The first is from Brian Prime, chairman of the policy unit of the Federation of Small Business, who estimates that increased class 4 national insurance contributions— from 6 to 7 per cent.—will hurt not only those additional self-employed people but
  "The real entrepreneurs and risk takers—the sole traders will miss out on the corporation tax changes, but will be hit by increases to national insurance contribution."
  The Federation of Small Business said that the Budget has
  "completely missed the target where the majority of small firms were concerned".
  Again we heard the Government praying in aid the support of the Confederation of British Industry and big businesses. However, as Conservative Members know, if one is really serious about developing entrepreneurial skills across the United Kingdom, whether in rural areas or in towns, one realises that it is small businesses—the genuine entrepreneurs—who create wealth and growth. They are the people who, in the main, create the jobs. The Government should take seriously the fact that the Budget has hit that sector.
  It would be wrong for me not to take this opportunity to talk about another sector, which includes many small businesses, which I know have made representations to the Government prior to the Budget: the road haulage industry. In his speech today, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), quite astonishingly, described road hauliers as whingers, which I am sure will not go down well with his own hauliers—I imagine road hauliers live in most constituencies.
  In my rural constituency, in Devon, I have many road hauliers. I have also received a whole bundle of letters from such hauliers who are small businesses, many of which were established by owner operators, employing up to 12 or 20 people. They are very important employers in my constituency, but are now fearful—as they were before the Budget—about the very future of their businesses. The Government ignored the representations that they received in a document that was sent, before the Budget—it was also sent to hon. Members—from the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association.
  Hon. Members are aware of the issues that the associations raised in their representations to the Government, and the urgency with which they wanted the Government to deal with their problems in the Budget. However, their concerns have not only been ignored by the Government, but been exacerbated in the Budget because of the increased tax on diesel.
  Therefore, not only will we lose individual small businesses, but there will be a sea-change in how the industry operates. I believe that the change—the way in
  454
  which businesses are so-called "flagging out"—will gather momentum, with businesses establishing themselves across the channel rather than operating in the United Kingdom.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who is in the Chamber, for raising the issue on the Floor of the House in a previous debate, in the hope that, prior to the Budget, the Government would listen not only to the industry but to representations from hon. Members on both sides the House.
  It was with absolute dismay that I read the information provided today by the Road Haulage Association, after it had analysed the Budget's impact on the haulage industry. I beg the indulgence of the House to read it out. The increase will affect all my haulage companies. It says:
  "Britain's hauliers reacted with 'anger and disbelief, to today's announcement by the Chancellor that Duty on Diesel Fuel is to be raised by more than 11 per cent.
  According to the Road Haulage Association, the rise will add more than £20,000 to the annual fuel bill of an average haulier"—
  fuel costs in the industry often represent about 36 per cent. of business costs, so this is a huge increase on a section of their costs—
  "(vehicle fleet of 10 40te gvw artics), pushing their total average fuel bill beyond £200,000 for the very first time. The hike means that since the new Government came to power in 1997, fuel costs for the average haulier have increased by more than £50,000."
  Hauling goods around the country is important, but nowhere more so than in the south-west peninsula. In Devon and Cornwall, we have to haul goods further because of the topography of the region. We are trying to encourage new investment and to persuade new companies to establish themselves there. The cost of hauling goods once they are manufactured is critical to the decision on where in the country to locate. The increase in diesel duty has not only put a block on investment but jeopardised the companies that already exist in my constituency.
  Commenting on the increases, the director of the Road Haulage Association said today:
  "The reaction of my members to this increase will be one of anger and disbelief. Despite strong joint representations…the Chancellor has just rung the death knell for over 53,000 jobs in the UK haulage industry. It is particularly bad for hauliers who are competing against unfair competition from abroad. Increasing numbers of my members are asking how they can get out from under this Government"—
  by flagging out. The flagging out package will enable them to avoid the United Kingdom's very much higher vehicle excise duty, as well as giving them access to cheap foreign fuel. Many hauliers are simply awaiting the outcome of the Government's review of vehicle excise duty before making that decision, but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Richard Page.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I start by apologising to the House for inadvertently making a misleading statement last Monday week. I was standing in this very spot, and I said to the House:
  "I rather like Budgets, because they are just about the only Government announcements that are made to the House before they are made to the media."—[Official Report, 1 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 834.]

  455
  An hon. Friend of mine said, "Just wait and see." I have to say that my hon. Friend was right and I was wrong. I got it wrong because the headline-grabbing measures announced by the Chancellor yesterday—the decision to abolish MIRAS and the married couples tax allowance, the increase in child benefit, the creation of partnership shares and the l0p starting rate for income tax—were all trailed in the weekend press.
  The Observer had the proposals for a minimum guaranteed weekly income for the over-50s. The Sunday Telegraph had the tax break for research and development plus cuts in corporation tax for small firms. I can cite many further examples, but the basic point is clear. Before coming to the House, the Government leaked the details of the Budget on a selective basis so that each newspaper could have its mini-exclusive. It shows the Government's hypocrisy that, a couple of weeks ago, the Home Secretary went to the courts as a "matter of principle" to prevent the press leaking details of a report submitted to it before it was submitted to the House. Yet, when we have the Treasury leaking like a sieve about the Budget, even without the support of Charlie Whelan, we hear nothing about that principle, as it would compromise Labour's manipulation of the media. Spin today is, indeed, everything.
  I genuinely congratulate the Chancellor on his performance. It was a superb presentation. I take nothing away from him. If I were an ice-skating judge, I would give him 5.9 out of six for performance.
  However, the marks for content would be considerably lower. I have been in the House long enough to know that the mood created by a Budget, with much waving of Order Papers from the Government side on a Tuesday, more often than not turns decidedly sour in the weeks that follow. In that one hour, five minutes and 40 seconds—I am told that that was the Chancellor's presentation time— we heard nothing but a flood of facts, figures, details and projections. Not a single financial stone was untouched.
  I thank the Chancellor for his consistent praise for the previous Conservative Government. He again made much of the present strength of the economy, speaking about the deficits reducing and, in the same breath, repeating Labour's manifesto commitment, saying:
  "We said in our manifesto we would work within the existing spending plans for our first two years"
  That means working within the figures of the previous Conservative Government.
  We have seen the success that has flowed from that, because the Government inherited a golden legacy. However, the two years are up and the Government are starting to fly blind. For me and many in the media, a sober analysis of the Budget shows that millions of taxpayers will be out of pocket within two years, particularly thanks to the changes to the upper earnings limit for national insurance, which The Daily Telegraph has described as the "forgotten tax". It will rise by 18 per cent., cutting take-home pay over the next two years. The measure will be particularly damaging for constituencies with a profile similar to that of South-West Hertfordshire.
  The Government have started to gamble and they have got themselves into a box because of their actions in their first Budget. I admit that there was a potential for an increase in inflation. I understand that they were reluctant to use their powers to reduce consumer expenditure. Instead, through interest rate hikes and bashing industry
  456
  at the start, they have ensured that our exports have been hit by a high pound. The recent reductions in interest rates have merely been following world figures. The effect of our strong pound continues to damage our industry, in addition to the extra taxes that the president of the CBI has eloquently referred to. If rates are reduced further, the price of British goods might become more attractive, but inflation would become a threat. If it is held, unemployment looks set to rise.
  That is what the Government are planning. The National Audit Office today endorsed the predictions of several financial bodies that a further 400,000 will become unemployed over the next two years. With falling output, the Secretary of State's call for increased efficiency will result in an increase in unemployment.
  Of the measures in the Budget, particularly those affecting small businesses, I support the continuation of the 40 per cent. write-off allowance against investment for small business. The idea was blocked by the previous Government, but I have always supported it. I have made my views clear several times. However, it is not extra money, but merely a continuation of the allowance. I would like a higher percentage that was more closely focused on the means of production rather than being spread all over. In other countries, particularly Japan, the idea has been used as a specific generator.
  I welcome the l0p starting rate for tax on profit for small business, but, again, I must record my admiration for the Chancellor's careful choice of words. He said:
  "Every company making a profit of up to £50,000 will benefit."
  On closer examination, that 10 per cent. applies only to the first £10,000, after which a taper comes in. For a company earning £50,000 profit, the measure will be tax neutral.
  I am slightly concerned about the various arrangements to help small business. The Chancellor referred to the
  "one-stop open-door service…to offer loan guarantees, to support innovation, to advise on electronic commerce and deliver, for the first time, an automated payroll service".—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 175–79.]
  I wonder whether that will cause confusion, because I understood that business links was the one-stop shop. I do not know whether the new service will be through business links, or separate from it.
  I am sorry that the Budget contained no mention of the threat that the country will face from the amount of business that will be done through the internet, where the collection of tax will become so much more difficult. In horse-race betting, for example, people who bet abroad through the internet completely avoid paying any tax. That trend will spread through sectors of the service economy.
  Behind the Budget are a large number of narrow, targeted measures, and the Budget must appeal to as wide a range of interest groups as possible. Everyone is in favour of the general economy and particular expenditure that Sir Anthony Eden talked about in the 1950s. George Bernard Shaw said that Governments who rob Peter to pay Paul can always rely upon the support of Paul. The trouble with this Budget is that it is built on that foundation, and you cannot fool all the people all the time.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: The background to the debate is that there are three levels of taxation in the world. One, in the United States, has created 13 million jobs in the past six years. Here in the UK, we have created 2.5 million jobs. In the euro zone, there has been a net loss of 699,000 jobs.
  The Budget shows that we are on the cusp of moving away from a free-enterprise, low-tax economy towards a higher-tax economy. It was breathtaking for the Prime Minister to state today that the Budget would lower tax. The Government came into power with the level of tax at 38.1 per cent. of GDP. Page 154 of the Red Book clearly states that that will go up to 39.7 per cent., as projected for 2003–04. The level of tax was £315 billion in 1997; it is projected to be £425 billion in 2003–04.
  Another lesson from the United States is that we should have fewer regulations and less intervention in business. The huge growth in jobs in America is because of micro-businesses. Businesses with a turnover of less than $500,000 are exempt from the minimum wage and all sorts of discriminatory legislation. In contrast, since the Government came to power, there have been 2,000 new directives. Ian Fletcher, of the British Chambers of Commerce, has calculated that they will cost £500 million to set up and £500 million a year to administer.
  There are signs in the Red Book that the cost of the Budget will be in increased unemployment. In the west midlands, unemployment is nudging up from 4.6 to 4.9 per cent. In my two boroughs, it is rising from 4.1 to 4.5 per cent., and from 2.5 to 2.8 per cent. Regrettably, the Red Book states that social security benefits will march away. In 1998–98, the figure will be £93.5 billion, rising to a projected £106.4 billion in 2001–02.
  In my constituency—a rural one—the last census referred to manufacturing and a large agricultural element, but distribution and storage are major industries and employers in Shropshire. There is nothing in Shropshire that does not move by diesel-powered truck: it is estimated that 97 per cent. of freight moves by road in rural areas. In that regard, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her generous comments earlier. Haulage is being savaged by the Government. That is an extraordinary feature of their taxation policies, because it is one area of policy which remains 100 per cent. in the Government's hands.
  Mr. Alan Johnson: And Europe's.
  Mr. Paterson: No, there is no European impact on vehicle excise duty and petrol or diesel duty.
  We are talking about a major strategic industry. If we doubled rail investment, it is unlikely that more than about 10 per cent. of freight would go by rail. In 10 years' time, it is likely that 90 per cent. will still go by road. The Red Book contains an astonishing increase in duty: not the escalator of 6 per cent. that we were promised but an increase of 11.6 per cent., which puts 28p a gallon diesel.
  Thirty-five per cent. of the cost of running a lorry is diesel, and more than 85 per cent. of the price of diesel is tax. The average small haulier, running perhaps 10 trucks, has had to pay an extra £35,000 a year since the Government came to power, and now the Government have added a further £20,000. That means an increase of
  458
  £9 billion to £10 billion in fuel duties in this Parliament. The diesel-petrol escalator is worth more than 1p on income tax.
  Our diesel is easily the most expensive in Europe. To fill a large truck with two tanks with 1,200 litres costs £756 here, as opposed to £438 in France or £354 in Luxembourg. I mention those countries because, in September, the French Government, who have a more intelligent attitude to their haulage industry, introduced a rebate to help French hauliers to compete with those of Luxembourg.
  Vehicle excise duty is also totally out of line with the duties in other European countries. UK VED for a 38-tonne vehicle is £3,210; in France it is £486; and in Portugal it is down to £308. The Budget contains a savage hike in VED for a 40-tonne vehicle, up to £5,750. That gives a French operator a comparative advantage of £2,700, or about 3.5 per cent. of operating costs.
  We discussed this issue in European Standing Committee A this morning, the Minister for Transport in London gaily said that we have lower social costs and management costs; but there is not a haulier in the country making a margin of 3.5 per cent., so our hauliers are already out of pocket on VED alone.
  There was a move in the Budget to push people towards fitting catalytic converters so that they can burn ultra-low sulphur diesel. That is a chimera. To convert a Euro 1 engine costs £4,000 and a Euro 2 engine £3,500. The £1,000 rebate is not enough because—this is a critical fact that the Government have completely missed—the fuel does not generate the same amount of energy as ordinary diesel. A large haulier, Newell and Wright in Sheffield, converted 130 38-tonne vehicles and reported an 8 per cent. increase in fuel consumption that cost them £250,000 a year.
  There is worse news on ultra-low sulphur diesel: more crude oil needs to be burned to get a given amount, so more carbon dioxide is produced in the refinery as well as more diesel being burned in the lorry. That cannot help the Government's environmental commitments.
  The fundamental flaw is that the freight journey has to be made. There is no marginal impact in making freight more expensive, because the load has to be carried. Either it can be carried by a foreign-owned truck or the domestic haulier is forced to go abroad or be put out of business.
  The Kyoto accord requires us to reduce emissions by 12.5 per cent. from 1990 levels. According to the Library, in 1990 power stations emitted 54 million tonnes of carbon; road transport 30 million; and other sources 76 million. That is 159 million tonnes in all. However, only 16 per cent.—emitting a maximum of 5 million tonnes—of that traffic was goods vehicles. Therefore, page 84 of the Red Book does not add up. I do not envisage that the carbon dioxide reductions that the Government have promised will come about and I would be grateful if the Minister would explain how they will do so.
  I foresee the end of the British road haulage industry as we know it. Today, the Road Haulage Association has been flooded out with calls from people who want to take up its offer of a streamlined package of legal fees and administration costs to flag out abroad. The director general of the RHA has asked:
  "What can we do to get out from under this Government?"

  459
  and has said that the association's members are, "voting with their wheels". Nowhere will that be more obvious than in Northern Ireland. All the road hauliers there will be based in the Republic.
  The damage to the industry is considerable. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, more than 26,000 jobs will go in the haulage industry, but there is worse, as the economy as a whole will be seriously damaged. Every business is made less competitive by the swingeing increase in transport costs and that is particularly so in a constituency such as mine. The load has to be carried. As it is estimated that a further 26,000 jobs will go in the general economy, the job losses will amount to more than 53,000, which is more than the west midlands would lose if BMW took the drastic decision to move Longbridge production to Hungary.
  The loss in tax revenue is a bigger down side. In 1998, the Excise lost £411 million. By 2002, it will be losing more than £1 billion in excise duty. I know hauliers who have not filled up a single truck in this country for two years. If they flag out and base abroad, many domestic-oriented British hauliers will be using foreign-purchased fuel. The total reduction in gross domestic product could be as high as £2.1 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: I shall take a few moments to deal with the small business aspect of the Budget, and I welcome the new tax regimes. However, I shall concentrate on the venture capital side. Last year, the Chancellor said that venture capital trusts would be reformed, and that initiative will continue this year. Frankly, in the past couple of decades, various Governments have recognised that small businesses are generally under-capitalised. They also suffer from far too much red tape and bureaucracy and from not being able to get skilled employees at the right time.
  On under-capitalisation, it has always been difficult for Governments to inject public money into private businesses, even though small businesses find it extremely difficult to get hold of that capitalisation to provide them with the stability that they need to allow them to grow successfully and provide employment opportunities.
  Far too many small businesses are just about managing. They really are under-capitalised and more than afraid of going to their banks to borrow money. Even if they did so, the banks would not be able to provide the sort of real capital that would give the businesses the stability that they need.
  Venture capital trusts have perhaps concentrated on high-tech industries, which offer the opportunity of making not exactly a quick buck, but not a slow one either. They have supported businesses that have the opportunity of a meteoric rise. Such businesses are relatively small and, by their very nature, do not employ many people. Most high-tech businesses have a low ratio of employees.
  How are we to help the majority of small businesses to get the capital that they need? I suspect that most of the help has to come from the private sector. Venture capital companies cannot provide low levels of help for small
  460
  companies cost effectively. Amounts under £250,000 are difficult to invest and expensive too. However, the fact that venture capital companies and individuals find it difficult to get out of the investment when they want to realise some of the profit is one reason for those high-risk reward profiles. The reason for that is largely the huge hurdle between small private companies that have some outside investment and their ability to be listed on the stock exchange or even sell out to another company.
  I hope that the Government—perhaps through the regional development agencies—may consider an opportunity to provide an interim step. We have heard from the Prime Minister that he wants us to consider American models. One of those models can be found in what is called the over-the-counter market. It offers an opportunity for private individuals, small venture capital companies and regional operations to invest in relatively small businesses that they may know and support. They may know the product or management. They may genuinely support a company that they believe to have good opportunities for growth.
  Such a company cannot go to the stock exchange, and it is not cost effective to get in small amounts either from venture capital trusts or from small venture capital investments by bigger companies. The opportunity exists for private individuals and regional investment companies to support indigenous small business—not necessarily high-tech business, although they could be included.
  I believe that a number of private individuals would welcome such an opportunity. Many people who are reasonably well off and who have decent investment portfolios sometimes find it rather boring to receive a return on their investments that is broadly the FTSE average. They would like something a bit more spicy for their money or something more local with which they can have a closer connection. Yet there is no such opportunity in the United Kingdom.
  Some years ago, the Conservative Government tried to provide business expansion schemes. I am sorry that the schemes were largely misused for property companies, in which there was little risk, simply so that a tax shelter could be achieved for investment. That idea was not successful, but that does not mean that the intention was not right. I believe that opportunities must exist between the situation in which individuals put relatively small amounts of money into family businesses and that in which venture capital companies seek to invest the £250,000 or £500,000 that would make their investment both cost and time effective.
  I am talking of investment of between £50,000 and £250,000 in companies that have been going for perhaps two or three years and which have an opportunity to expand. That level of investment simply is not available. Because of the nature of venture capital trusts, it is not likely to come from them. Such investment is equally unlikely to be attractive to some individuals because of the lack of opportunity to move the company on to the next stage and to realise a return on their investment.
  I hope that the Treasury will examine the American models and consider how regional development agencies might be able to assist local or regional over-the-counter markets to provide opportunities for individuals to invest in small companies that they may know or wish to support. They could provide an added opportunity for real investment that would cure the under-capitalisation of much small business.

  461
  Successive Governments have recognised the problem, but have found it difficult to provide a model for putting public money into private companies. The Government must try to provide the means by which private individuals may more successfully promote and invest in small businesses.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said that he was initially rather impressed by the presentation of the Budget speech, but became progressively disillusioned as he read the detail. I completely agree. We have learned from the Government that the packaging may be good, but the substance always turns out to be disappointing. The rhetoric of the Budget speech is beginning to fade, and we are faced with the reality of the Budget as set out in the Red Book. We have always known that this is a tax-raising Government—they broke all their promises on tax within a few months of taking office in their first Budget—but that reputation was confirmed in yesterday's Budget statement.
  The Chancellor had an opportunity to repair the damage of the first two Budgets, because, as a result of the earlier tax increases, tax revenue is buoyant. He could have reversed earlier tax increases, but he did not. Therefore, if all the Budgets are taken together, the Government are committed to a £40.7 billion tax increase during this Parliament. That figure is derived from Government documents and was not materially altered by the Budget we heard yesterday. Therefore, the supposed tax reductions, and the other handouts and benefits, are funded from other tax increases in the same Budget or from previously announced tax increases that will take effect in the coming financial year.
  Naturally, the Chancellor did his best to try to disguise those facts, but they have been exposed by Conservative Members in the debate today. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition started the process earlier today when he pointed out that the Chancellor had boasted a lot about the new measures for enterprise and business, while saying nothing in his speech about a much bigger tax increase—the £240 million extra national insurance contributions from the self-employed. That measure is coyly referred to in the Budget report as a reform of the contribution system.
  A helpful press release provided a list of some of the enterprise measures. Some are well meaning and may have merit and we shall scrutinise them carefully when we come to the Finance Bill, but they are essentially tinkering at the margin. A £20 million venture capital challenge is all very exciting, but it hardly offsets the £25 billion extra burden of business taxation that the Government have already levied.
  Nor have the Government learned the lesson that one of the best things that Government can do for businesses, especially small businesses, is to stay out of the way. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and others referred to the regulatory burden and pointed out that businesses usually do best when they have least to do with Whitehall and meddlesome Ministers who have no business experience. To take just one example, the working time directive is contained in 72 pages of
  462
  guidance, and even that is called a basic guide. The minimum wage regulations take up 112 pages. It is not surprising that the British Chambers of Commerce have estimated that the extra regulations so far in this Parliament will impose an extra burden on British businesses of £5 billion every year. If the Government really wanted to help business, they could start by simplifying those regulations. Instead, they have decided to set up a new body called the Small Business Service, which will give businesses advice on how they can comply with all the regulations. Businesses do not want new bodies: they want simplified regulations and fewer of them.
  Mr. O'Neill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for not doing so? I would normally give way, but I want to answer some of the points raised in the debate, including his. I am short of time and the Paymaster General has to speak as well.
  Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister went to Milan to speak to the socialist convention, where he lectured his European Union colleagues on how they should adopt the United States business practices of low taxation, fewer regulations and less Government interference. That is what he said, but it is not what he does—instead, he is converging on the wrong economy. If he really believed what he said, why does he not have a convergence programme with the United States? Instead, we are converging with the European Union economies. The EU is increasingly a high-tax, high-cost, high-regulation, high-unemployment zone, yet it is that disease which the Prime Minister invites this country to catch all over again. It is hardly surprising that his remarks were greeted with amused contempt by his colleagues, who pointed out—if not to him then certainly to each other—that he was telling them to adopt the US model while doing the opposite in his own country, as demonstrated by yesterday's Budget.
  Increased regulation is not the only problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) complained about additional complexity in the tax system. Take stamp duty: the Chancellor inherited two rates of stamp duty, but now we are to have four. The right hon. Gentleman said, completely misleadingly, that the measure was all about householders and that only those who buy expensive houses will pay the additional rate—but most stamp duty is paid by the commercial sector, so it is the firms and enterprises that the Chancellor says he wants to help which will pay the additional taxation. The same is true of corporation tax; the Chancellor inherited three bands of corporation tax, but now we are to have five. The story is the same on income tax; the right hon. Gentleman inherited three bands, but now we are to have five. Massive additional complexity is being built into the tax system with which the Chancellor expects people to comply.
  The much-leaked l0p rate of income tax is advanced as a means of tackling poverty, but if the Government were really interested in tackling poverty, they would take people out of taxation altogether, because a l0p tax band is not a good way to help people on lower incomes. If the Government are serious about helping people on the bottom of the income scale, they should reverse

  463
  the disgraceful decision to end the repayment of dividend tax credits to non-taxpayers—a matter we debated a few months ago. There are 300,000 non-taxpaying pensioners who, from April this year, will not be able to reclaim those dividend tax credits. They are among the most disadvantaged people in the country, yet the Government have decided to do nothing to help them.
  Instead, the Government are bringing in a 10p rate of income tax, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) pointed out, abolishing the 20p band, which the Government are doing simultaneously, pushes people upward into the higher 23p band as well as downward into the new l0p band. That has been spotted by commentators outside the House, and David Major, a partner in Deloitte and Touche, is quoted in today's newspaper as saying:
  "There may be an illusion that he has given something away with the l0p band…What he has done is to abolish the 20p band to more than pay for the l0p band."
  There we have it—another example of stealth taxation. The Chancellor says that he will bring in a tax credit for children, but he will do so a full year after he abolishes the married couple's allowance. Therefore, for a full year he has the benefit of the money from abolishing one allowance before giving some of it back to some people by introducing a measure of greater complexity in a future Budget.
  We have also heard about the relentless increase in indirect taxes, especially excise duties on tobacco and fuel. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) raised the issue of tobacco smuggling, which has become epidemic and results in lost revenue of at least £1.5 billion a year, perhaps more.
  It is noticeable that the Budget report now estimates that the revenue from tobacco will be £7 billion next year. However, last year's pre-Budget report estimated that the revenue would be £8.9 billion, so nearly £2 billion in revenue has suddenly disappeared. I think I know where it has gone: it has gone overseas or been lost through smuggling. In giving his reasons for increasing tobacco taxation, the Chancellor referred to the importance of dissuading young people from starting smoking. However, if they buy tobacco from uncontrolled outlets in clubs, pubs and car parks, they are more likely to take it up.
  When in opposition, the Prime Minister was fond of saying that we should be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. The cause of this crime is the Government's widening even further the gap between our rates of duty and those of continental Europe. It is a particularly odd policy move from a Government who are committed in principle to tax harmonisation in Europe— indeed, the Paymaster General, who is about to reply to the debate, chairs a Committee on tax harmonisation. Yet the Government are doing the opposite at home: they are disharmonising and making the gap bigger.
  Another example is fuel duties. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) who said that increased fuel duties are particularly unfair on the rural motorist for whom a car is not a luxury, but a necessity. The rural motorist was abandoned long ago by this Government. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) highlighted another serious problem. He has done a tremendous amount of work raising the profile of this issue, so the Government are fully aware of it.
  464
  Quite simply, the British haulage industry is being rendered uncompetitive in European terms as a result not of anything that it has done, but of something the Government have done to it. The Government are erecting a green smokescreen: under the guise of an environmental measure, they are piling tax upon tax. That is bad not just for the haulage industry directly but for manufacturing industry as a whole, because all manufactured goods must be transported.
  The Government's policy is particularly destructive because they have singled out diesel for special increases. Diesel is the fuel of industry—if the Government do not know that, someone should have pointed it out. We are talking not about the private motorist but about British jobs—particularly those in constituencies with a heavy manufacturing bias. Diesel is to increase by another 12 per cent. Even the low-sulphur diesel, to which the Chancellor said that he would give an "additional tax advantage", has increased by 10 per cent. If the Chancellor is considering any more special tax advantages, I hope that he will think again. I do not want a tax advantage if it means an extra 10 per cent. rate of duty.
  The haulage industry must not only try to pass on some of the costs to the rest of British industry—and thereby make it uncompetitive—but must face competition from abroad. We have the most expensive fuels in Europe and there is a smuggling problem in northern Ireland. I tabled a parliamentary question asking whether the Government had estimated the amount of fuel that is being smuggled across the border by criminal gangs and paramilitaries. They replied that no estimate had been made. That is not good enough. We are talking about colossal sums of money which induce criminality. The tobacco and fuel tax increases are certainly bad for individual taxpayers, for industry, for competitiveness, for employment and for the rule of law—and, in the longer term, they are bad for the Revenue as well.
  I turn briefly to the overall impact of the Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) raised, quite rightly, the prospect of a manufacturing recession. The Budget report records that manufacturing output will fall this year by between 1 and 1.5 per cent. That is not only a technical recession, but a severe one. My hon. Friend also said that he does not believe the Government's growth forecasts. They, too, are optimistic. Almost all outside commentators estimate growth to be well below Government estimates, not only this year but next year. That would make any manufacturing recession even worse.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) spoke eloquently in favour of an energy tax, but, if that is introduced, it will be another hit on manufacturing industry. He may have put forward a good environmental case, but he entirely overlooked the industrial damage that will be caused.
  Mr. O'Neill: I want to make two points. First, if there are to be energy taxes, they must be fiscally neutral, and the Government have accepted that. The attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and the general thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's argument therefore has no substance. Secondly, vehicle excise duty is a complicated issue and there is much special pleading by the road haulage industry. Some of us have sympathy with the industry, but VED will not

  465
  necessarily undermine the opportunities available manufacturing industry in this country. The Oppositie spokesman has not done justice to that case—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has been far too long.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is intolerable that a well-considered case advanced by the British haulage industry should be dismissed as special pleading by Government Members in that way. The industry has made a good case, which the Government have not answered at all. The industry would have more respect for the Government, as would we, if its case for a lower or non-existent escalator had been answered by Ministers. We shall shortly hear a reply to the debate and we shall give the Paymaster General an opportunity to answer that case, but so far we have heard nothing.
  On the fiscal neutrality of the energy tax, we should be forgiven for being a little cynical about whether the Government will pocket something along the way.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not because I am answering some of the points that he made.
  By definition, the firms and sectors that pay the tax will not be those that will be reimbursed from the revenue. Manufacturing, as a whole, will pay more than its share of the tax, and the money will flow back to different sectors, mainly the service sector. There will be a net distribution of wealth from manufacturing to the service sector. I hope that hon. Members with large manufacturing concerns in their constituencies—I certainly have some in mine—will bear that in mind before they advance the case for the tax on environmental grounds alone.
  The estimates on which the Budget is based are extremely shaky. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who has told me that he cannot attend this part of the debate, put forward the good idea that the National Audit Office should audit and check parts of the Budget that it is excluded from auditing at present.
  The Government have given in on unemployment. They used to assume that it would simply be flat. They have now agreed that it is more realistic to accept the National Audit Office assumption of an increase in unemployment over the next few years. I am afraid that very little in the Budget will prevent that 400,000 increase in unemployment that the NAO is projecting.
  All the Government schemes in the world will do nothing unless the economy generates real new jobs, and the Government keep taxes down and reduce the cost of employing people. I do not believe that the Government have understood that message. If they have understood it, they have not acted on it. They are squandering the golden economic legacy that we left to them, and the country as a whole will pay the price.
  9.45 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The official Opposition have been whistling in the wind this evening to keep up their spirits in the face of the congratulations that the Government have received on their economic policies and yesterday's Budget, from sources that range from the International Monetary Fund to the mother of the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs. Hague.
  During the debate, the Opposition adopted not so much a kitchen table approach as a pick-and-mix approach. The quote from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who welcomed the help for small business in the Budget and described the Budget as not bad for business, was not echoed by many of his hon. Friends, despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman is vice-chairman of the Conservative party.
  The comments of the shadow Chancellor, who described MIRAS as having outlived its usefulness and said that it should be abolished—the sooner the better— were not echoed in the Opposition's official policy this evening, presumably because the shadow Chancellor had to rush off to the shadow Cabinet meeting. The shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry suggested that we had deliberately timed the debate in order to deny him the opportunity to attend that meeting.
  The Leader of the Opposition said that if we were going to phase out the married couples allowance, we should replace it with a better-targeted allowance for families who need help. That is precisely what we have done, but did the Opposition stick to that policy? No. They are into their kitchen table pick and mix.
  The Opposition could not explain why Sir Ronnie Hampel, chairman of ICI, welcomed the overall approach of continuing the direction adopted, in order to strengthen the foundations for business growth; nor could they explain why Alan Leighton, the chief executive of Asda, said that he welcomed the Budget and called it a Budget for individuals, a Budget for families, a Budget for enterprise, saying that the benefits that it will bring will flow through to every sector.
  The Opposition could not explain why they disagreed with Lord Harris, the chairman of Carpetright, who said:
  "I think it is a good budget for my business. This is a budget that will help people to spend, especially at the bottom end of the income scale."
  Throughout the debate this evening, the Opposition complained about what they did not like, denied what they had been committed to in government and said nothing about what they would do to tackle the skills shortage, investment, the productivity gap, help for families, incentives to help people into work and investment in our small businesses. They speak of their golden legacy, but even they do not believe that they left us one, because they cannot tell us now what they would do to help the economy.
  In their many contributions to the debate, my hon. Friends touched on various aspects of the Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) welcomed the Small Business Service and said how important that would be. He welcomed the Marshall report and, in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), he re-emphasised the importance of taxing the bad and helping the

  467
  good—exactly what we are doing—to deal with the issues and challenges arising from the Kyoto conference and our international obligations on greenhouse gases.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) made an interesting speech, going further than the Budget with regard to environmental commitment, but, none the less, raising important points about how to tackle the environmental problems that we face.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) underlined the importance of the Budget in helping those in most need. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) reinforced that point, but went on to deal with the importance of introducing employee share ownership.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) also made important points about how many families and pensioners in her constituency will benefit from the Budget, and those points were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) spoke of a meeting today in her constituency at which pensioners told her that there is something for everyone in the Budget, and a bit more for those who need it most. She summed up the assessment of the Budget across the board. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies had to admit that as a result of its analysis today. A single pensioner will now receive £500 a year more than when the previous Government left office and pensioner couples will receive £800 a year more.
  Central to the Government's strategy is the need to tackle the employment and poverty traps, to deal with skills shortages and to encourage investment in our economy.
  Opposition Members referred to the fuel escalator. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that it was a policy which she had been unhappy with for some time. Presumably, she was alluding to the fact that it was her Government who introduced the fuel escalator, and even though she was unhappy then, she decided not to say anything, and has only now discovered the problem.
  Mrs. Browning: I articulated that on several occasions. The hon. Lady might like to know that, during one television interview that I gave after a Conservative Budget, someone said that I sounded less enthusiastic than the Liberal Democrat representative.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) may wish to take that up with the hon. Lady, but perhaps not now.
  Just to reinforce the point, the policy that the hon. Lady now decries was started by the Conservative Government for good environmental reasons, but she wants to forget that. That is part of the previous Government's amnesia.
  Mr. Townend: Will the hon. Lady accept that the Conservative party has changed its policy? [Laughter.] How can she laugh when new Labour has changed all the policies of old Labour? It is no longer in favour of nationalisation and wants to privatise; it now supports business and enterprise. It has changed its policy. Will she not accept that we have changed ours?
  Dawn Primarolo: I offer the hon. Gentleman a challenge. When he can come to the Chamber and tell
  468
  us the united policies of Conservative Members, we will consider listening to them. Not only do the hon. Gentlemen and his hon. Friends want to forget the 18 years of Conservative Government and encourage the electorate to pretend that they never happened: they now think that they can have opposition without responsibility and without policy. But perhaps that is a bit unkind. They probably want opposition with 1,000 policies, because each of them needs to change his policy each day.
  Mr. Lansley: Does the Minister still subscribe to the view expressed in the Labour manifesto that it is an explicit objective of a Labour Government to raise the trend rate of growth of the United Kingdom economy? On what assumption about the trend rate of growth is the Budget based and why has she not subjected that assumption to audit by the National Audit Office?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is avidly reading the Red Book so he will see what we are doing in a whole range of areas—tackling the productivity gap, investing in skills, investing in small business and creating sustainable growth. That is precisely what the Government are about.
  The Budget is locking in the economic stability that the Government are creating and sustaining. We are introducing a small business tax rate of l0p. We are rebuilding our public services with extra resources for school books and for accident and emergency departments. We are making work pay with a new l0p starting rate of tax and a cut in the basic rate of tax to 22p next year. Conservative Members say that, somehow, the disappearance of the 20p rate means that people are not better off, but they should study their figures a little more closely. People are better off as a result of the l0p starting rate.
  Mr. Townend: By how much?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman shouts his intervention across the Chamber, but I will take it. Individuals will be better off by in excess of £300.
  Mr. Townend rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Townend: Will the Minister tell the House how much the average taxpayer will save with the l0p rate, given that the Government have done away with the 20p rate? According to my calculations, the £150 saving comes down to £60.
  Dawn Primarolo: For people in 2 million households, the measure halves the rate of tax that they will be paying. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can understand that clearly.
  The Budget is about locking in economic stability, controlling public finances, ensuring that we are investing and ensuring that we cut borrowing and continue to do so. It is about raising—
  Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: I do not have time to give way. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

  469
  The Budget is about raising productivity on a foundation of stability. We must work to raise productivity. We must deliver better skills, innovation, competition, information technology and a secure environment for small businesses. Yesterday's Budget introduced seven major reforms for a knowledge-based enterprise economy, opening it up for all. The Budget invests in families by ensuring that the new children's tax credit will maximise support to those families with the lowest income. It raises child benefit, which the Conservatives froze, to a higher level than at any time since its introduction.
  The Budget gives a fair deal to pensioners, with £100 for the winter payment and a guaranteed minimum income which will be linked to earnings. It will build a better society, which will ensure that we have a fairer society in which we support each other and ensure that there is opportunity for all to fulfil their potential. The Budget is about making sure that nobody is excluded; everybody should be included in the prosperity of our nation.
  The Budget is about helping the British people. Conservative Members are interested only in helping themselves. When they talk about the Budget, they deny their past and want to take the credit for our future. They will be sorely disappointed. This is a popular Budget. It has been widely recognised as such and welcomed by this country as a way forward for the Labour Government.
  It being Ten o 'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Testicular Cancer
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
  10 pm
  Ms Linda Perham: It is estimated that a third of all men will develop some form of cancer. Worldwide, the number of cases of testicular cancer has risen: the number of cases has doubled in 20 years, and is expected to double every 20 years on the basis of today's trends.
  The increased incidence of testicular cancer is linked to a decline in sperm count. Cases of prostate cancer are also increasing. Scientists have predicted that, in 20 years' time, one in four men may risk developing prostate cancer. That is double a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.
  I decided to speak about testicular cancer in order to draw attention to the work of a charity called the Orchid Cancer Appeal. It was started by one of my constituents, Colin Osborne, who was diagnosed as suffering from testicular cancer in 1994. He was one of approximately 1,500 men who are diagnosed every year.
  During Colin's treatment, his chance of survival kept falling. First it was 80 per cent.; then it was 40 per cent.; then it was 20 per cent. That was very worrying not only for Colin, but for his wife and family: his wife had become pregnant with their second child at the same time as his diagnosis. Through his determination and courage, however, Colin managed to get through all his treatments.
  During Colin's treatment, he was aware of the financial crisis affecting the men's cancer unit that was treating him. The unit, led by Professor Tim Oliver, is based at St. Bartholomew's hospital, in the department of medical oncology. As well as providing care for patients in east London through its partnership with Oldchurch hospital, it has links with the major cancer centres in Essex and East Anglia as part of the Anglian germ cell cancer group comprising Southend, Colchester, Norwich, Ipswich and Cambridge.
  Colin knew that, without the work of the unit, he would probably not be alive, and that inspired him to do something to help the unit. He started a fund-raising organisation—the Orchid Cancer Appeal. He gained great support, and the first event raised £20,000. In July 1997, the Orchid appeal was recognised by Diana, Princess of Wales, and a donation was made by the Princess of Wales's charities trust. The Orchid Cancer Appeal is now a registered charity. It has attracted a number of high-profile celebrity supporters, and boasts Michael Parkinson as its president, Steve Davis—the snooker champion—as patron, and other sporting stars as vice-presidents, such as 1966 world cup winners Sir Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters, and the former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash.
  I have been very impressed by Colin's tenacity and commitment, and his fighting spirit. Ever since my invitation to the launch of the Orchid appeal in October 1997 at Planet Hollywood, I have been a firm supporter, attending fund-raising events and sponsoring a reception in the House of Commons in November 1998.
  The aims of the appeal are to
  "sponsor more research into the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of the cancers involving the male sex organs",

  471
  such as testicular and prostate cancer, and to target aspects of cancer research and treatment. In comparison with women, men are not very aware of their risks of cancer. Many men do not know that they have a prostate gland, let alone what function it performs; yet cancer of the prostate is the commonest cancer in men after lung cancer, and its incidence is rising fast. The same lack of awareness is prevalent in young men with regard to testicular cancer.
  Jane Griffiths: Is there not a pressing need for young men to become aware of the possibility of contracting testicular cancer, which, by and large, strikes young men? Should not parents and teachers instil that awareness in them, and encourage them to examine themselves?
  Ms Perham: I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention. As she knows, testicular cancer predominantly affects men aged between 15 and 40, yet few regularly check for lumps. The fact that it affects 15-year-old boys makes it important that parents make their sons aware of potential problems. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), who has started the all-party group on male cancers and is involved in the Everyman campaign to combat cancer.
  The Orchid Cancer Appeal is raising funds to support three research developments. The first is to develop new diagnostic tools both to detect the cancer without needing to lose a testicle to make the diagnosis—which happens at present—and to investigate the cause of declining sperm count, which is now known to be a major precursor of the cancer.
  The second is to support a combined clinical and laboratory programme aimed at translating new knowledge on the genes that are involved in making testis cancer sensitive to chemotherapy to develop a new approach to treating prostate cancer. The final programme is to support epidemiological research into understanding what causes the large difference in prostate cancer deaths between the west, which has intermediate incidence, the middle and far east, which has low incidence, and Africa, which has high incidence.
  Testicular cancer, which starts as a lump in the testicle, quickly enlarges and then seeds to glands in the abdomen. It then seeds to other organs such as the liver, lung and, ultimately, the brain, via the bloodstream. If the cancer is caught early on, only one testicle may need to be removed.
  The way in which to treat testicular cancer has, until now, been to remove the infected area, or to undergo a course of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is often very distressing for the patients. Hair loss and severe infections can occur in the short term because of the treatment.
  Recent research has involved developing ways in which to give shorter courses of chemotherapy to patients who have early highly curable diseases. There is now a one-day treatment without hair loss. That is proving to be as good as radiotherapy for stage 1 seminoma. New evidence shows that two thirds of patients may have damage in the other testicle, so attempting to conserve the
  472
  testicle with the tumour is becoming ever more important, especially as the victiMs of the disease are usually young, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) has pointed out.
  Testicular cancer is the most common form of cancer in young men aged 24 to 35. If the testicle were to be removed and the other testicle became infected, a young man could be left infertile. That could be very sad for the men affected, adding to the stress and worry already caused by having such a disease.
  Testicular cancer is an unusual cancer because it can sometimes be eliminated very quickly; the cancer is particularly susceptible to treatment. The number of drugs that work when other, more conventional drugs have failed to work is increasing. That sets apart testicular cancer from other cancers, and scientists are asking whether they will be able to learn something valuable from a study of the cancer, which could help in the treatment of other cancers.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work of BACUP—the British Association of Cancer United Patients—and the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund in advising patients about the problems and looking after them in the traumatic period, has been important? Does she further agree that, because of the success in testicular cancer treatment, we now need to look at reducing the doses of drugs that are given to people because secondary cancers may develop later in life among those young people? It is a British success story in that our cure rates are as good as anywhere else in the world. Now we can think about reducing the number of drugs and the amount of drugs that are given to patients.
  Ms Perham: I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I pay tribute to him as chair of the all-party group on cancer. I congratulate him on his inspirational, energetic work in focusing attention inside and outside the House on cancer issues.
  One scientific discovery often leads to another. That has happened in the advance of treatment for testicular cancer. New knowledge from bone marrow transplantation and leukaemia treatment has led to a development. Patients can now be given double the dosage of chemotherapy that was previously considered to be acceptable. The research has helped patients who have not recovered after one or two conventional treatments, and has led to more research, which has opened up treatments for more common adult cancers, such as cancers of the breast and the bladder.
  Currently, improving resistance to, and the early detection of, testicular cancer is regarded as the best way of improving long-term survival. Research is being conducted into screening techniques for testicular and prostate cancer, and into the genes involved in making testicular cancer so sensitive to chemotherapy—in the hope that scientists will be able to make prostate cancer, which is currently resistant to chemotherapy, respond like testicular cancer. If the relevant genes can be identified, potential hereditary risks can be recognised.
  The Royal Hospitals NHS trust's men's cancer unit has conducted research into the part that diet plays in developing cancer. Poor nutrition, particularly lack of vitamin A, is increasingly thought to be a factor in many

  473
  different types of cancer, which may help to explain the large number of deaths from cancer around the east end of London.
  I am so impressed with what Colin has done with the charity. By learning from a cancer for which we have a 95 per cent. cure rate, we may learn to develop treatment for currently untreatable cancers.
  The Orchid appeal is initially focusing on east London and East Anglia, not least because Colin Osborne is a north-east Londoner, but also because of the relative lack of funding in those areas in the past 15 years. There are plans, however, to work towards achieving national and overseas targets as part of the charity's research. That may be helpful in explaining why there is global variation in the incidence of testicular and prostate cancer. The funding issue is the obvious reason why the appeal has been started.
  In a written answer given, on 9 November 1998, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), central records showed that totals of over £18 million for breast cancer research, over £10 million for cervical cancer research, and a mere £265,000 for prostate cancer research were provided in the five-year period 1993–98. In the past few years, much good work has been done to highlight women's cancers. There is now a very active and well-supported all-party group on breast cancer. I am therefore very pleased, as I said, that a new all-party group on male cancers was formed on 17 November 1998.
  I have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East, who has been very active in working with the Everyman campaign of the Institute of Cancer Research. I should like to mention also the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who, on 12 May 1998, initiated a debate in the House on the subject of prostate cancer screening.
  I am very encouraged by the interest and support shown by hon. Members. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in congratulating my constituent, Colin Osborne, and all those who have been involved in the Orchid Cancer Appeal on their work in promoting awareness of male cancers. I should like my hon. Friend also to give some indication of the Government's view on the future of screening, treatment and research into cancers affecting men.
  10.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for llford, North (Ms Perham) on raising the subject today, and on her very thoughtful and constructive comments. I also join her in applauding and congratulating Colin Osborne on his strength and determination, not only in his fight with cancer, but in continuing the fight for all other men through the Orchid Cancer Appeal—a charity that Colin established and which raises considerable sums for research.
  Little is known about the causes of testicular cancer. There may be a family history of testicular tumours, and northern Europeans have a greater incidence of the disease than do southern Europeans, with Denmark having the highest percentage of cases. The cancer is rare in non-Caucasians, except among Maoris in New Zealand. Similarly, the causes of prostate cancer are poorly
  474
  understood—although we know that a family history increases the risk of developing the disease. There is evidence also that a high-fat and low-vegetable diet increases the risk.
  Therefore, unlike lung cancer—of which we know that smoking greatly increases the risk—we are not yet able to advise men of ways in which they might reduce their risk of developing prostate and testicular cancer. There are other steps that we can and are taking, but, because so little is known about these cancers, the Government are committed to raising self-awareness of symptoms so that early diagnosis and referral can be made. I shall say a few more words about that in a moment.
  My hon. Friend referred to the incidence of the disease and its mortality rates. Testicular cancer is the most common cancer in men in the UK aged between 20 and 34, an age at which cancer is comparatively rare. Around 1,000 new cases in total are registered each year, over half of which occur in men under 35. Incidence rates are rising for both testicular and prostate cancer, but it is encouraging that the overall mortality rate for both cancers has fallen. Indeed, for testicular cancer the death rate halved in the 20 years to 1992, and there has also been a welcome, but modest, fall in mortality rates for prostate cancer since 1993. However, the fact remains that prostate cancer is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer deaths in men.
  As the Orchid Cancer Appeal recognises, research into the causes and treatment of these cancers is vital. The Government are firmly committed to encouraging research into the causes, prevention, early detection and treatment of all cancers, including testicular and prostate cancers. The Department of Health spent £8.4 million on cancer research in 1996–97. The Scottish Office spent a further £500,000 and, as part of the NHS research and development programme, an additional £1.2 million has been spent.
  The research and development strategic framework for the use of the national health service R and D funding is being reviewed. As part of that review, five topic working groups have been established to consider research coverage in key areas. One such group is considering cancer. The outcome of the reviews will help guide future priorities for research expenditure through the NHS research and development levy.
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The council, as many hon. Members will know, is an independent body deciding what research to support according to its own expert judgment. The council spends, on average, £13 million a year directly on research into cancer, and much other research funded by the council is also relevant to our understanding of cancer—for example, research into genetics and health, the immune system and infections.
  One area in which there is considerable scientific interest is recent evidence that has suggested a possible role for environmental oestrogens, which have been linked to falling sperm counts. As my hon. Friend mentioned, some reports suggest that there is a connection between low sperm counts and testicular cancer. The United Kingdom, I am glad to say, is playing an important part in international activities in this field, not least through the Medical Research Council's reproductive biology unit, and the Institute for Environment and

  475
  Health. However, despite a lot of research, it is still not clear that sperm counts have been falling over the years and we know of no evidence that low sperm counts, as such, indicate a risk of developing testicular cancer.
  In April last year, we announced a £1.7 million programme of epidemiological research over three to four years into the possible relationships between chemical exposure, sperm counts, and penile congenital abnormalities. This is a joint programme involving three Government Departments and the European Chemical Industry Council. We are also funding an 18-month epidemiological study of testicular cancer, prostate cancer and the condition now known as—I am going to have trouble with this one, Mr. Deputy Speaker— cryptorchidism, in which the testicles have incompletely descended, which is known to lead to an increased risk of testicular cancer.
  On the subject of screening and awareness, there is currently no certain method by which a man can reduce his risk of developing testicular cancer. There is also no effective screening method for testicular cancer, so the focus must be on raising awareness, early detection and high-quality treatment.
  The Department of Health launched a campaign to encourage testicular awareness in the hope of reducing death from this disease. The Department, in conjunction with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, published the leaflet "A Whole New Ball Game" in the summer of 1995. Distribution of the leaflet is targeted on the age group most at risk, young men at universities and sixth form colleges, as well as GP surgeries, pharmacies and so on. The aim is to make men aware of what is normal and, when there are any unusual changes, to realise the importance of contacting a doctor early to ensure the maximum chance of cure.
  There is also no method by which a man can reduce his risk of prostate cancer. Of course, there are calls for the introduction of a screening programme for prostate cancer. The Department of Health's standing group on health technology therefore made prostate cancer one of its original priority areas for health technology assessment. The Department commissioned two systematic reviews of the diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer from the university of Bristol and the Institute of Cancer Research.
  The results of the two reviews were published early in 1997. They produced a clear recommendation that the current evidence did not support the introduction of a national screening programme for prostate cancer with the available technology. I am well aware that that recommendation came as a disappointment to many, but it is important to understand the reasons for it.
  Current evidence suggests that the introduction of a screening programme would result in unnecessary, painful and potentially harmful treatment for many men. Although prostate cancer can be a killer, the evidence suggests that many prostate cancers are slow growing and unlikely to cause clinically important symptoms during a man's life. Autopsy studies show that 30 per cent. of men over 50 who had no symptoms of prostate cancer while alive had histological evidence of prostate cancer at the time of death. That figure rises to over 50 per cent. in men over 80 years of age.
  476
  It is ethical to offer someone a screening test only when it is likely to do more good than harm. Given the lack of evidence of benefit and the possibility of harm, the reviews concluded that a national prostate screening programme could not be justified. It was on the basis of those studies that the national screening committee recommended that there was no case for a national prostate screening programme. Ministers accepted the recommendation, and guidance issued in June of last year advised health authorities that prostate cancer screening should not be routinely offered to patients.
  However, prostate cancer continues to be a priority for the Department of Health. The Department's health technology assessment steering committee recently agreed to fund a £200,000, 12-month feasibility study for a trial of treatments of localised prostate cancer. It is expected that the study will lead to further research. The national screening committee continues to keep the position under close review.
  I am aware of the excellent work achieved by Professor Tim Oliver of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, who leads the group that includes north-east Thames hospitals, hospitals in Ipswich and west Suffolk and Addenbrooke's. Professor Oliver, who specialises in cancer of the testis, has achieved a formidable 97 per cent. success rate in treating it.
  We are continuing to improve cancer treatment and care. Fortunately, testicular cancer is highly susceptible to modern methods of treatment. The survival rate for those with early-stage disease is between 95 and 100 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to some important advances in treatment. Combination chemotherapy has proved highly successful for patients with metastatic disease and about 90 per cent. can be cured.
  The Government are determined to improve services for all cancers, including men's cancers. A great deal of work has already been undertaken to implement the recommendations contained in the Calman-Hine cancer framework and supplemented by subsequent guidance. A key element has been the identification of cancer units and cancer centres and the local agreement about which cancers should be treated at each hospital.
  The Government have signalled their commitment to making cancer waits a priority. The White Paper "The new NHS" guarantees that everyone with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their GP deciding that they need to be seen urgently and requesting an appointment. Those arrangements have been guaranteed for everyone with suspected breast cancer by April 1999 and for all other cases of suspected cancer by 2000. We recognise that that will be particularly challenging for urological cancers such as prostate cancer. Achievement of the target will bring about real benefit by enabling prompt diagnosis.
  Cancer is one of four target areas in the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", which set out our aim to reduce the death rate from cancer among people aged under 65 by at least one fifth by the year 2010. Progress on those targets through local partnerships and healthy settings, involving business and workplaces, will have a major impact on the health of men. Health care services will be encouraged to respond to the needs of the local communities—for example, where needs are identified,

  477
  consideration should be given to having well men clinics, which could bring male-specific cancer, such as testicular cancer, to attention earlier.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: How much money from the Wellcome foundation is involved here? Can we have an assurance that any lack of screening is not connected with a shortage of financial resources?
  Mr. Hutton: I do not have the figures for the Wellcome foundation with me, but I can assure my hon. Friend that resources are not an issue in this case.
  The Government welcome initiatives such as the Orchid Cancer Appeal and the Everyman campaign launched by the Institute of Cancer Research last year.
  478
  My predecessor—the current Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—indicated our support to the first all-party parliamentary group for male cancer. It is through initiatives such as those that we can increase public awareness of the symptoms and need for early diagnosis for those cancers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North has done a singular service to the House tonight in allowing us the opportunity to discuss these important issues. I am sure that she will continue to take a close interest in these matters and, together, we will continue to improve the services for our constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Electronic Range Simulators (London)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of electronic range simulators in London. [71662]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are currently three electronic range simulators in Greater London; these are located in Wellington Barracks in Central London, Cavalry Barracks in Hounslow, and at RAF Uxbridge. In addition, the simulator at RAF St. Mawgan in Cornwall will move to RAF Northolt in September this year.

  Defence Agencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed in the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency; and what the figure was at the time of its establishment. [72806]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brigadier P. D. Foxton to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 10 March 1999
  I refer to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the staff currently employed within the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA) and when the Agency was established. As Chief Executive of ABSDA I am replying as this falls within my area of responsibility.
  The numbers of staff currently employed within ABSDA are 3,666 civilians and 376 military. When the Agency was established in April 1995 the figures were 5,800 civilians and 600 military.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he proposes in his Department's police manpower over the next five years. [73133]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: The policing needs of the Department are kept under review at all times. Certain options are currently being studied, and announcements will be made at the appropriate time. Police numbers will not, however, be reduced below the level needed to fulfil long-term commitments.

  Army Technical Support Centre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which targets the Army Technical Support Centre did not meet in 1997–98; and what monitoring he has undertaken for those targets in 1998–99. [72817]
  208
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Army Technical Support Centre. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brigadier A. D. Ball to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 10 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Key Target achievement for 1997–98 for the Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA), as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the ATSA.
  As reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, ATSA did not achieve 2 out of its 9 key Targets set for 1997–98. These were:

  Key Target 1: Influence equipment design by attaining an involvement of 80% of MoD(PE) ILS projects wherein ATSA's contribution is equal or greater than one half man-year of effort.

  Key Target 9: Respond to 100% of Equipment Failure Reports (or equivalent) submissions within 14 calendar days of receipt.

  These Key Targets were both new for that year and were untested for achievability when set. They subsequently proved unreasonable within the Agency's operating resource constraints. The Agency's actual achievement and the business impact for each target was analysed by the Agency's Owner, the Director General of Equipment Support (Army) (DGES(A)). Despite non-achievement, the customers remained satisfied with the Agency's performance in both areas over the year. Both targets were more precisely defined and agreed by the Owner and customers so as to meet more effectively their needs through the following year.
  Performance against the subsequent Key Targets for 1998–99 is monitored by the Chief Executive and the Executive Management Board of the Agency on a monthly basis. This performance is reported quarterly to the Agency's Owner and annually to Ministers through publication of the Next Steps Report and the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts. Key Target achievement is also considered by the National Audit Office during the annual submission of the Accounts for external audit.
  As at 26th February 1999, the Agency is on target to achieve these redefined Key Targets for 1998–99.
  I hope that you find this information helpful.

  Dr. Asaf Durakovic
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to introduce testing for British Gulf War veterans using protocols recommended by Dr. Asaf Durakovic; [74716]

  (2) what discussions his Department has held with Dr. Asaf Durakovic; and if he will make a statement. [74715]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Dr. Asaf Durakovic is Clinical Professor of Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University, Washington DC. He discussed his current work in general terms with MOD officials at a meeting last month, when he explained that, in conjunction with others, he is carrying out a study into uranium levels amongst veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict, in which a small number of UK Gulf veterans are participating. Our understanding is that Dr. Durakovic and his colleagues plan to publish their findings later this year: hence we look forward to seeing full details of the methodology they are using and the results obtained in due course.

  MOD continues to advise UK Gulf veterans who are concerned that their health has been adversely affected by service during the Gulf conflict, including by possible exposure to depleted uranium (DU), that they are entitled to seek a referral to the Gulf veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) for a full medical assessment. Any tests

  209
  which are considered clinically appropriate by the examining MAP physician, including those to detect the presence of uranium, will be arranged.

  Auxiliary Oiler Contract
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Auxiliary Oiler contract is(a) on schedule and (b) proceeding to budget; and if he will make a statement; [75125]

  (2) what (a) detailed and (b) major changes his Department has sought to make to the design of the ships under the Auxiliary Oiler contract; what was the cost to his Department of such changes and what measures have been taken to ensure that costs do not increase on the contract; and if he will make a statement; [75123]

  (3) what stage the work on the Auxiliary Oiler contract has reached for (a) the first and (b) the second ship; and if he will make a statement. [75124]

  Mr. Spellar
  Progress continues on the design, material procurement and construction of the two ships. Construction of the central section of the first ship, comprising four major blocks, is nearing completion. For the second ship, fabrication of units for the first major block has recently started. A small number of detailed design changes have been agreed, costing the MOD around £0.5 million, mostly related to "Spend to Save" programmes to achieve reduction in through life operating costs. None of these changes affects the delivery schedule and the project remains within budget. The prime contractor is currently reviewing its overall work programme. The outcome of this review will be discussed with MOD officials shortly. It is not possible to state at this stage the extent to which this might result in delay to the deliver of the ships, although some slippage is anticipated.

  Training Cycle
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) in what ways he will reduce the burden of training on individual army units in the training cycle; [75275]

  (2) what plans he has to achieve a more balanced operational and training cycle for the United Kingdom's deployable divisions in the UK and in Germany. [75273]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As part of the Strategic Defence Review, we plan to introduce by 2001 a new formation readiness cycle in which each deployable brigade will carry out a three year cycle with formation-level training, commitments and other tasks. This new cycle will enable units to achieve required readiness states and to balance training requirements with operational commitments. It will be made possible by the reorganisation of army formations, including creation of a new mechanised brigade, into a more balanced force structure of two deployable divisions, one armoured and one mechanised, and will as a result help to reduce overstretch and the burden of training on individual units in the cycle.

  Vectra Technologies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role Vectra Technologies has at the RN base Clyde; and what experience that organisation has in work on nuclear submarines. [75248]
  210
  Mr. Spellar
  Vectra Technologies supply specialist safety, engineering and project management services. It is an approved Defence contractor, providing the Royal HM Naval Base Clyde with expert consultancy support in the production of safety cases for nuclear support services, in the development of nuclear safety management systems, and on management system audits.

  Vectra Technologies has current experience in working for the MOD on nuclear submarines at HM Naval Base Devonport, where they have a contract for the deep cleaning of reactor compartments and for the provision of Health Physics Monitors. The company also provided Health Physics Supervisors and Monitors at the HM Naval Base Clyde between November 1992 and June 1997.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further preparations are being made for a possible NATO force in Kosovo. [75693]

  Mr. George Robertson
  NATO remains ready to lead an international force in Kosovo to help implement an interim political agreement. Should such a force be required, it must be ready to go into Kosovo as quickly as possible after an agreement. This means that we must have forces ready in the region.

  The Government announced on 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 3, the deployment of some 2,225 personnel of 4 Armoured Brigade Headquarters and the Lead Armoured Battle Group to Greece and Macedonia, and enablers for the headquarters of Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps (HQ ARRC). On 26 February, the Government announced the deployment of the majority of the remaining equipment and personnel of 4 Armoured Brigade Headquarters and the Lead Armoured Battle Group. Additional engineering and support assets are also being deployed to provide necessary engineering infrastructure support: their deployment was planned as part of the overall force, but has been brought forward to cover a longer than anticipated stay in Macedonia. NATO has now decided to deploy advance elements of the HQ ARRC to manage the build up of NATO forces in Macedonia. The UK is the framework nation for this headquarters.

  Together with national support elements and the British contribution to HQ ARRC, I expect the total number of British personnel in Greece and Macedonia by mid-March to be some 4,800. This figure is consistent with the overall British contribution of some 8,000 which I announced to the House on 11 February 1999, Official Report, columns 565–66. It is a substantial number, and clearly signals our resolution to support the efforts of the international community.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department takes to ensure the compatibility of equipment held by the Falkland Islands defence force and that held by British troops stationed on the islands. [75641]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Falkland Islands Defence Force, FIDF, is raised and funded independently by the Falkland Islands Government. We encourage the FIDF to
  211
  purchase compatible equipment but are not in a position to require that they do so. The compatibility of forces is fostered by combined UK/FIDF exercises.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the decision to reduce Tristar flights to the Falklands. [75640]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 120, to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what gapping of(a) officers and (b) other crew exists on each Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel. [75556]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following billets on RFA ships were gapped as at 5 March 1999.

  Gapped billets

  RFA vessel

  (a) Officers

  (b) Other crew

  Argus

  —

  1

  Bayleaf

  2

  2

  Fort George

  —

  3

  Fort Grange

  1

  —

  Oakleaf

  1

  —

  Olna

  —

  align="right">2

  Olwen

  5

  align="right">4

  The total gapped billets are therefore 21. This figure is subject to change on a daily basis.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of deck officers employed by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary; and what is the planned complement. [75555]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The total number of seagoing Deck Officers currently employed by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is 212. The planned seagoing complement, which includes a margin for leave and training, is 229. A further 22 Deck Officers are in complemented billets ashore.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Regional Television
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment he has made of the prospects for removing regional anomalies in television coverage following the introduction of digital terrestrial television services; [75464]

  (2) if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on communities receiving appropriate regional television broadcasting; [75463]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the cost of (a) using digital terrestrial television transmitters to remove regional anomalies in analogue broadcasting and (b) using digital capacity to simulcast different regional variations from a single transmitter in order to remove these anomalies. [75462]
  212
  Janet Anderson
  Responsibility for the delivery of analogue and digital terrestrial television (DTT) services rests with the BBC and Independent Television Commission. The ITC recently received an encouraging report of a study it commissioned into the prospects for increasing DTT coverage. The ITC will soon commence planning for the next phase of DTT transmitter in conjunction with the BBC. The prime objective of this work is further to extend DTT coverage. The Government have made it clear to the ITC and BBC that delivery of regional services is an important element to consider in development of the digital transmission network. The studies are, at this stage, designed to look at general principles and will not focus on the costs of employing digital transmissions to remove regional anomalies.

  London Tourist Board
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the total funding his Department gave to the London Tourist Board in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, and (d) 1998. [75278]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government do not provide funding directly to the London Tourist Board. It does, however, directly fund the English Tourist Board which has for many years provided funding to the LTB and other regional tourist boards to complement the ETB's role in delivering national and regional programmes for tourism. Also, since 1996–97, a proportion of the Government's grant-in-aid to the BTA has been earmarked to help fund the LTB's Focus London campaign, which promotes London overseas as a major tourist destination and as the gateway to Britain. The funding that the LTB has received from the ETB and the BTA is as follows:

  £

  ETB

  BTA

  1995–96

  791,153

  —

  1996–97

  546,110

  650,000

  1997–98

  489,828

  923,000

  1998–99

  447,310

  1,500,000

  Airport Capacity
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions about incoming passenger and airport capacity in England. [75424]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: Discussions took place at official level last year on incoming passenger forecasts. My Department's new Tourism Strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", makes explicit reference to the Government's work on preparing a UK airports policy looking some 30 years ahead which will reflect our policies on sustainable development and integrated transport. My Department and DETR will maintain close liaison during the preparation of this document.

  Tourism Strategy
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his strategy for tourism, "Tomorrow's Tourism", what initiatives the
  213
  Government are taking to widen access to tourism for the 40 per cent. of the population who do not take a long holiday. [75697]

  Janet Anderson
  "Tomorrow's Tourism" makes it clear that, if we are to widen access to tourism, we must first find out from those who do not take holidays what prevents them from doing so. Research into this is currently being carried out by the English Tourist Board. This will help to identify the market potential as well as any special needs which are not currently being met, and the level of training needed, to make sure that tourism businesses are able to cater for all customers.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75877]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 195.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council if(a) she, (b) civil servants in her Department or (c) special advisers in her Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75872]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 531. There have been no instances of members of departmental select committees giving me or the Parliamentary Secretary drafts of select committee reports, or of parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, have there been any occasions on which members of departmental select committees have given such material to civil servants or special advisers in my Department. This excludes embargoed copies of reports issued under House of Commons Standing Orders.

  However, as chair of the Modernisation Committee, I am responsible for drawing up its draft reports and these are also seen by my immediate advisers, that is, members of my private office and one or two officials who advise me on parliamentary matters and one of my special advisers. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I also see some of the papers of the Domestic Committees; these are also seen by my immediate advisers.

  As chair of the Cabinet Committee on future legislation, I have also been consulted about the possibility of legislation to enact the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.
  214

  Millennium Compliance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council when she will publish the Government's recent quarterly report on millennium computer compliance; and if she will arrange to meet transport providers to ensure that insurance cover is available for travel on 1 January 2000. [75679]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I will be announcing the results of the latest quarterly review shortly.

  Responsibility for the transport and insurance industries rests with the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions and Treasury respectively. I therefore have no plans to meet transport providers, nor have such providers sought a meeting.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Business Partnerships
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what support(a) TECs and (b) his Department give to education business partnerships; [75616]

  (2) what plans he has for education business partnerships to be supported in the future by (a) TECs and (b) his Department. [75617]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My Department supports a range of programmes which promote education business links—principally, work experience for pupils mentoring programmes and teacher placements to industry. Support for these programmes in the year ahead, made available through Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs), will be £13.5 million. My Department also provides £145,000 support per year to the National Education Business Partnership Network.

  The support that we make available to Education Business Partnerships through TECs has been an important element in the TEC Review which has been under way. I am today announcing some changes to the operation of TECs, arising from the first phase of the TEC Review. These will strengthen partnership and accountability, improve the quality of work-based training and streamline contracting arrangements.

  In the light of the TEC Review, the responses we have received to the "Learning Age" Green Paper, the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) Quinquennial Review report—which has been published today and copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses—and the setting-up of the new local learning partnerships, I propose now to undertake a wider assessment of how we can best meet the learning and skills challenge. We shall also take into account the forthcoming Moser Report on basic skills, the University for Industry Corporate Plan, the further report of the Skills Task Force and the Social Exclusion Unit report on disaffected 16 to 18-year-olds.

  Drawing on the TEC Review, we will want to examine the local and national arrangements relating to the delivery of lifelong learning, work-force development and skills, excluding higher education. This will include consideration of new opportunities for business involvement in meeting the skills challenge.
  215
  I have today written inviting all those concerned with this key part of the learning and skills agenda to contribute to this process, following which I intend to publish specific proposals in the summer. I will, of course, work closely with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—as he takes forward his proposal to establish the new Small Business Service—and the Deputy Prime Minister on the role of Regional Development Agencies.

  Our aim is to ensure that we have the skills required for the new century in which knowledge, application and our capacity to learn will be crucial both to individual employability and economic success. As we set out in the "Learning Age" Green Paper, our goals are to increase the number of people engaged in learning; promote excellence and quality in its delivery; ensure coherent provision of further education and work-based training; provide support for all young people in making the transition from school to further learning or employment; involve employers in the promotion of lifelong learning; ensure that provision best meets the economy's needs for skills, creativity and innovation; make the most effective use of resources; and meet our National Learning Targets.

  School Transport
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review the current statutory three-mile requirement for the provision of free school transport. [74820]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The School Travel Advisory Group, formed with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Health and other interested parties, together with officials in my Department, is already considering the legislation governing home-to-school transport, including the three-mile walking distance, and will offer advice in due course.

  Education Budgets
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what in the last five years for which information is available was the expenditure per pupil in full-time education in the(a) whole education budget, (b) general schools budget, (c) potential budget and (d) aggregate schools budget. [74977]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table gives, for schools in England for the financial years 1994–95 to 1998–99 inclusive, the averages of the(a) General Schools Budget, (b) Potential Schools Budget and (c) Aggregated Schools Budget, per pupil. Information on the whole education budget, per pupil, is not held centrally.

  LEA-Maintained schools in England Average Per pupil

  £

  ASB

  PSB

  GSB

  1998–99

  1,893

  2,090

  2,563

  1997–98

  1,839

  2,028

  2,471

  1996–97

  1,814

  2,005

  2,453

  1995–96

  1,752

  1,948

  2,398

  1994–95

  1,730

  1,990

  2,399

  216

  IT Initiatives
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been made available for information technology initiatives since May 1997 for(a) initial teacher training and (b) schools. [75021]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In respect of initial teacher training (ITT), the Teacher Training Agency has allocated just over £6 million for measures to improve the use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) across the curriculum. This includes £1 million to support implementation of Qualified Teacher Status standards and the ITT National Curriculum for primary English and mathematics. During this period, support for £666 million of ICT-related initiatives in schools in England has been announced as part of a £1 billion programme to implement the National Grid for Learning.

  Higher Education (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the amount of funding per student in higher education in Durham in the last five years. [74976]

  Mr. Mudie
  The following tables show, for each of the last five years, public funding per student at the University of Durham from recurrent grant from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and tuition fees paid from public funds.

  Consistent data for the five years concerned are not available. For the years 1994–95 to 1996–97, the figures are based on data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and the unit of funding is in respect of full-time undergraduate and postgraduate students combined. For 1997–98 to 1998–99, the figures are based on data from the HEFCE and the unit of funding is in respect of full-time undergraduate students.

  Table 1

  Academic year

  Public funds 1(£ million)

  Students 2(Thousand)

  Funding per student (£)

  1994–95

  40.7

  7.9

  5,150

  1995–96

  42.4

  8.0

  5,300

  1996–97

  44.0

  8.4

  5,240

  1 HESA 'Resources of Higher Education Institution'. Published in June 1996, June 1997 and May 1998

  2 HESA 'Students in Higher Education Institution', published May 1996, July 1997 and June 1998

  Table 2

  Academic year

  Public funds 1(£ million)

  Students 2(Thousand)

  Funding per Student (£)

  1997–98

  42.4

  7.9

  5,370

  1998–99

  45.1

  8.1

  5,570

  1 HEFCE recurrent funding circulars in February 1997 and March 1998

  2 Student numbers are those with the University's maximum aggregate student number (MaSN)—Predominantly full-time undergraduate students

  217
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many mature students entered higher education in Durham in each year since 1995. [74978]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information is given in the following table.

  Mature 1 entrants to higher education courses at the University of Durham

  Year

  Mature entrants2

  1995–96

  1,860

  1996–97

  1,310

  1997–98

  1,470

  1Mature students are defined as postgraduates aged 25 and over and undergraduates aged 21 and over.

  2The numbers are census counts of enrolments, at 1 December, onto the first year of both full-time and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate HE courses.

  Note:

  Provisional higher education entrant figures for 1998–99 will be available in April 1999

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress the Government have made against their target of(a) placing 20,000 classroom assistants in schools by 2001–02 and (b) placing 2,000 more classroom assistants in schools by April 1999. [74737]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As part of the National Literacy Strategy, we have allocated £22 million to the Additional Literacy Support programme in 1999–2000. This will fund the deployment of about 2,000 full-time (or equivalent) classroom assistants. This is the first step in meeting our overall figure of an additional 20,000 full-time posts (or equivalent) by 2002. Further funding will be made available to create these additional posts in the years 2000–2001 and 2001–2002

  Local Government Expenditure (Schools)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much of the allocation to local government in England earmarked for schools in July 1997 was received by schools. [74734]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Of the unhypothecated £1,017 million education SSA increase for 1998–99, which derived from the July 1997 announcement, £916 million has been reflected in LEAs General Schools Budgets (excluding capital items and including Annual Maintenance Grant for comparability).

  FE Colleges
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pay awards have been made by further education colleges for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 in the categories (a) 0 per cent., (b) greater than 0 per cent. but less than 1 per cent., (c) greater than 1 per cent. but less than 2 per cent., (d) greater than 2 per cent. but less than 4 per cent., (e) greater than 4 per cent. but less than 6 per cent. and (f) 6 per cent. or more. [74970]

  Mr. Mudie
  This information is not held centrally.
  218
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many colleges of further education are in financial health category (i) A, (ii) B and (iii) C in(a) the North West and (b) England. [74969]

  Mr. Mudie
  The following table shows the categories of colleges' financial health:

  North West

  England

  A

  32(51%)

  204(47%)

  B

  26(41%)

  146(34%)

  C

  5(8%)

  85(19%)

  Total

  63

  435

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions he has met representatives of BT to discuss internet connections to further education colleges. [75447]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the BT Chairman for discussion on a range of issues. Other Ministers have also had contact with representatives of the company. These meetings have typically covered a range of issues, rather than specifically relating to internet connections to FE colleges.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the average(a) capital and (b) running cost per link to the internet for further education colleges; and if he will list the range of such costs; [75444]

  (2) what steps he is taking to monitor the terms under which free connections to the internet for further education colleges are being made; and if he will make a statement; [75445]

  (3) (a) how many and (b) what percentage of further education colleges have been connected to the internet free of installation charge to date. [75448]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information relating specifically to the terms and arrangements for FE colleges access to the internet is not held centrally.

  Discretionary Rate Relief
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate his Department has made of the total cost up to the end of the current financial year to schools of the removal of discretionary rate relief [74722]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  None. There has been no change in the position that local authorities do not have the power to grant discretionary rate relief to schools of which they are themselves the ultimate occupier. Education authorities are responsible for ensuring that their own schools are in a position to meet their financial obligations.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of youngsters currently attending special schools will be sent to mainstream schools as a result of the Programme of Action for meeting special educational needs. [74815]
  219
  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are not setting targets for the number of pupils with special educational needs that will in future be accommodated in mainstream schools. We have made it clear to local education authorities that, in line with their duties under the Education Act 1996 to arrange suitable provision for pupils with special educational needs, they should continue to give due weight to the views of parents—both where parents wish their children to attend special schools and where they wish them to attend mainstream schools. We expect that in future increasing numbers of mainstream schools will be able to offer high-quality provision to pupils with special educational needs.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations he has received from parents of pupils attending special schools in Essex in respect of the Programme of Action for meeting special educational needs; and how many parents supported the policy of inclusion within mainstream schools. [74813]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Responses from parents both to the Green Paper "Excellence for all" and the subsequent Programme of Action were not recorded on a territorial basis.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from Essex Local Education Authority in respect of the Programme of Action for meeting special educational needs; and what proposals he has received from Essex LEA to shut special schools. [74812]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have received no representations from Essex LEA in respect of the Programme of Action. Essex has made no formal proposal to the Department to close a special school.

  Youth Community Action Plan
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's policy concerning Article 1.3 of the amended proposals establishing a community action plan for youth (COM(98)695–98/0197(COD) as regards the development of a European education area; and what is his voting position thereon. [75082]

  Mr. Mudie
  The UK, with a number of other EU Member States, takes the view that the basis of the concept of a European education area in European Community law is doubtful. We would therefore oppose the use of this formulation on Community legislation.

  Literacy Summer Schools
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many literacy summer schools have been established since 1 May 1997; how many children have attended; and what proportion of all school children they represent. [74773]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Since 1 May 1997, the Government have made available funding to establish 607 literacy summer schools, catering for over 18,000 pupils. This summer, the literacy summer schools programme will run in over 900 schools with 27,000 pupils in 220
  attendance. This represents nearly 5 per cent. of the overall Year 6 cohort of pupils attending primary schools in England.

  Advanced Skills Teachers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many advanced skills teachers are currently in post. [74783]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of teachers who had been appointed to Advanced Skills Teacher posts by 22 February 1999 was 112.

  Parent Governors
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many parent governors of schools there were in each of the last 10 years. [74767]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the actions he has taken to improve teacher training; indicating the cost involved; and if he will make a statement. [74784]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set new requirements to improve initial teacher training (ITT). These represent a major step change in the expectations and requirements of new teachers and include:

  (a) new high standards for the award of Qualified Teacher Status introduced for all trainees graduating from May 1998. These ensure that all new teachers have the necessary knowledge, understanding and skills to do their job effectively;

  (b) national curricula in primary English and mathematics and the effective use of information and communication technology (ICT) in subject teaching for all trainees introduced from September 1998;

  (c) national curricula in secondary English and mathematics and science for all phases will come into force in September 1999;

  (d) an induction year was introduced by the Teaching and Higher Education 1998 Act. This will give all new teachers, from September 1999, structured support and training to consolidate and extend the skills they gained in initial training. Teachers who fall short of the standards will not be able to be confirmed as members of the profession.

  The Teacher Training Agency (TTA) has been asked to support the introduction of the new requirements and has been funded to undertake a range of measures, which include:

  (a) development of exemplification materials to assist in the implementation of the national curriculum for ICT in all subjects and phases, to ensure accurate assessment of trainees against the standards (including video and CD ROM formats) and the requirements in the standards concerned with teaching pupils from ethnic minority groups;

  (b) assisting providers to improve the quality of their provision. The Agency is in the process of producing material to assist providers in auditing trainees' subject knowledge in English and mathematics and to improve the partnerships between higher education institutions and schools;

  (c) mounting conferences for providers to brief them on the new requirements and to assist all new providers in developing course proposals;

  221

  (d) visiting all ITT providers with unsatisfactory or borderline Ofsted report grades and assists them to develop a programme for improvement;

  (e) assisting in the development of trainees ICT skills through the provision of intensive two day ICT courses for all those trainees who have to follow the new curriculum need additional help.

  To support the implementation of the new curriculum for the use of ICT across the curricula the TTA to date has awarded ITT providers with additional funding totalling just over £6 million. A further £1 million was awarded for the implementation of the primary English and maths curricula. Other costs of developing the national curricula and exemplification materials fall within TTA's budget and are not disaggregated.

  Our Green Paper on the modernisation of the teaching profession, "Teachers: meeting the challenge of change", published in December, sets out major new proposals to strengthen teacher training further as part of modernising the profession.

  We are also giving priority to skilling serving teachers and have backed this with some £500 million in the Standards Fund this year, the majority of which supports in-service training.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the programme of British assistance to Sudan. [73836]

  Clare Short
  We were a major donor in the 1998 crisis. There will be substantial humanitarian needs in Sudan this year and we are prepared to continue to help. The UN World Food Programme (WFP) currently holds enough food stocks until at least early summer. I am therefore authorising an initial pledge for 1999 of £4 million for humanitarian assistance which will be available to international NGOs and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). We shall monitor the situation closely in the coming months and, as needs become clearer, we shall respond further as required. We shall continue our dialogue with the UN on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Operation Lifeline Sudan and will press for progress on the peace process which remains crucial to resolving Sudan's long term problems.

  Chernobyl
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid her Department is currently providing to assist victims of the Chernobyl disaster. [73838]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We provide assistance in response to the Chernobyl disaster through the European Community and through DFID's bilateral aid programme. In total, the Government have provided over £20 million since 1997. The bulk of our support has been for the re-building of the sarcophagus, but we also give modest direct support to Chernobyl charities, especially those helping children.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department 222
  is taking to promote debt relief initiatives for highly indebted poor countries; and if she will make a statement. [73842]

  Clare Short
  The Chancellor and I have recently proposed faster and deeper debt relief for poor countries. We are working for agreement to cancel $50 billion of debt, and for the money saved from debt repayments to be used to reduce poverty. We are contributing to the review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. The review is examining how the initiative needs to be redesigned, to ensure that the countries can escape from the burden of debt which prevents them from tackling poverty effectively.

  Palestinian Authority
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of aid in contributing to the development of(a) economic opportunity and (b) civil society in the Palestinian Authority. [73843]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Assistance from donors, including the Department for International Development, has been crucial in attempting to foster development in the West Bank and Gaza, although the weakness of the peace process and reduction in opportunities to work in Israel have led to a growth in poverty. We are working to help the Palestinian Authority to build a legal and institutional framework in which the private sector and civil society can flourish. But greater transparency and accountability are required, and economic opportunity remains constrained by severely restricted access to outside markets.

  Tanzania
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she held on development during her visit to Tanzania in 1998. [73844]

  Clare Short
  I visited Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world, in August 1998. I discussed a range of development issues with the President, government and opposition politicians, and private sector and civil society representatives. I outlined Britain's policy for international development, which matches closely with Tanzania's own poverty eradication strategy. We discussed the urgent need to tackle corruption and to reform the health and education sectors.

  British Council
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met the chairman of the British Council to discuss collaboration on development projects. [73846]

  Clare Short
  I met Baroness Kennedy, the Chairperson of the British Council, on 26 January. We agreed that, although the Council and my Department have different objectives, there is room for collaboration on some activities.

  Good Governance
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the linkage of good Government criteria to the provision of aid by her Department. [73847]
  223
  Clare Short
  Good governance, which brings effective, equitable and transparent administration and which works to secure all human rights for all, is essential for sustainable development. It is not an optional extra. We support the reduction of poverty and this includes effective and accountable government.

  Kosovo and Montenegro
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the current humanitarian situation in Kosovo and Montenegro; and if she will make a statement. [73848]

  Clare Short
  There has been a continuation of violence in Kosovo, leading to continuing displacement of civilians. In recent weeks, an estimated 9,000 people have been driven from their homes. Fighting north of Pristina has also prevented the return of 15,000 people displaced from around 17 villages.

  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, (UNHCR) in consultation with NGO partners, believe the number of displaced people inside Kosovo stands at about 210,000, while there are an estimated 25,000 displaced in Montenegro.

  UNHCR report that assistance has continued almost uninterrupted throughout the month of February despite the violence and severe weather, and that they have succeeded in gaining access to those newly displaced, (except where fighting is actually occurring). UNHCR has coordinated and led three multi-agency convoys every day, six days per week. DFID continue to keep in close touch with the main humanitarian agencies.

  Bananas (Windward Isles)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the implementation of the banana recovery plan in the Windward Isles. [73849]

  Clare Short
  With the Department for International Development's (DFID) active support, the European Commission have committed substantial funds, including STABEX, together with a technical assistance team, to support the Windward Islands banana industry Production Recovery Plan. However, more still needs to be done by the industry—in terms of restructuring, the planning and management of production, and the implementation of the certified grower programme—in order to establish itself on a commercially viable basis. Both DFID and the Commission continue to encourage and support this essential process.

  Labour Standards (Developing Countries)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the role of company codes of conduct in protecting labour standards in developing countries. [73850]

  Clare Short
  Codes of conduct have considerable potential as a tool for protecting labour rights in developing countries. Last year, my department produced a widely circulated report entitled "A review of UK company codes of conduct". The report contained an analysis of the content of UK company's voluntary codes and showed that codes of conduct are being used by a224
  small, but growing, number of UK companies which source their products from overseas. The best of these codes included specific references to the International Labour Office's (ILO) core labour conventions. There is less consensus on the best means of monitoring the effectiveness of codes. We are working to find ways of implementing and monitoring codes in order to assist UK companies work with their suppliers to improve the conditions of workers in poorer countries. My Department is also supporting the Ethical Trading Initiative whose members—companies, development NGOs and Trades Unions—are piloting best practice through monitoring the ETI code of conduct.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support the Government are giving to initiatives to raise public awareness in developing countries on codes of conduct on labour standards. [75234]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development has supported the following initiatives to assist in raising awareness of codes of conduct on labour standards in developing countries:The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) which provides practical support to efforts to develop codes of conduct and promote positive engagement between UK importers and their developing country suppliers to improve workers conditions (£530,400 over 3 years).
  ETI is currently carrying out three pilot projects in the horticulture industry in Zimbabwe; the wine industry in South Africa and the clothing industry in China. The pilot projects are designed to identify ways that companies can improve labour standards amongst their suppliers by addressing the ETI code of conduct. This involves building capacity locally to ensure that there is an understanding of how the ETI code of conduct works.
  ETI has also conducted a consultation exercise of developing country based NGOs for their views on codes of conduct (£25,000).
  Support to a British based NGO—Women Working World wide—to carry out work in Asia (Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia, India and Sri Lanka) and Central America (Nicaragua, Honduras, Dominican Republic and Guatemala) to inform women workers about company's codes of conduct as a part of a workers' awareness and education campaign. (£44,000).

  GDP-Aid Ratio
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she estimates that the internationally agreed target for a proportion of gross domestic product to be spent on humanitarian aid will be reached by the United Kingdom. [73851]

  Clare Short
  As we pledged, we have reversed the decline in development spending which continued throughout the life of the previous administration. The oda/GNP ratio for 1997 was 0.26 per cent. The Comprehensive Spending Review announced a significant increase of £1.6 billion in development spending which will increase the oda/GNP ratio to an estimated 0.30 per cent. by 2001. We have not set a target date for reaching 0.7 per cent.

  Lomé Agreement
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with EU and ACP ministers on the successor to the current Lomé agreement. [73852]
  225
  Clare Short
  I met Commissioner Pinheiro and ACP and EU Ministers in Dakar on 8–9 February for the first substantive Ministerial discussion of successor arrangements to the Lomé Convention. The meeting made good progress. There was a consensus on the main objectives of the next Convention and, although the ACP were not ready to accept the inclusion of good governance as a new essential element, they agreed to work on reaching a common definition of the concept. There was a large measure of agreement on development strategies, providing support for private sector development and the need to rationalise the existing instruments and improve aid management procedures. Progress was more limited on the future of support for short term fluctuations in earnings from basic products. The EU proposed updated, more flexible and more effective arrangements for helping countries where economic and wider reforms were jeopardised from such fluctuations, but the ACP continue to favour the retention of current arrangements. I participated in the discussion on trade and economic co-operation, the area of greatest divergence between the ACP and EU positions. I put the case for alternatives to the Commission's favoured regional free trade option. This was taken up by the ACP and reflected in the final report.

  St. Helena
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to visit the Island of St. Helena to discuss ways of improving the standard of living of islanders. [73853]

  Clare Short
  I have no plans to visit St. Helena. The framework for the island's development over the period 1997/98–1999/2000, and the level and scope of HMG development assistance, is set out in the Country Policy Plan agreed by HMG and the St. Helena Government in 1997. A new CPP, for the period 2000/01–2003/04, is scheduled to be agreed by the end of 1999.

  Caribbean
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to review the assistance programme for Caribbean states. [73854]

  Clare Short
  Documents outlining our strategies for the next three years will be published in the course of this year and early next year. The strategies are being prepared in consultation with a wide variety of local and other stakeholders.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid to Zimbabwe. [73855]

  Clare Short
  A Country Strategy Paper for Zimbabwe will be published shortly. The strategy will focus on reducing poverty in Zimbabwe in line with the objectives of the White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty". Copies—like all our Country Strategies—will be placed in the Library of the House.
  226

  Conflict Reduction
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's conflict-reduction strategy. [73856]

  Clare Short
  My Department's conflict reduction strategy is set out in our Policy Statement on Conflict Reduction and Humanitarian Assistance. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Private Investment
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the contribution made by private investment in supporting overseas aid projects. [73857]

  Clare Short
  Private investment can bring substantial economic benefits to developing countries; partnership with business can therefore support development assistance projects overseas, and help promote the achievement of the International Development Goals. We have established a new Business Partnership Unit in the Department and have instituted new arrangements to consult the private sector when drawing up our country strategies.

  Humanitarian Emergencies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to improve the effectiveness of its response to humanitarian emergencies; and if she will make a statement. [73858]

  Clare Short
  We have recently published a Policy Statement outlining our strategies for conflict reduction and humanitarian assistance. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Following a disaster, most lives are saved by immediate local effort. We are giving priority to building up the disaster response capacity of communities and institutions in disaster-prone poor countries. We also look first to agencies that are well established in the country and have the local knowledge and expertise to deliver assistance most quickly and effectively. It is important that we not only save lives and relieve suffering following a humanitarian crisis but also reduce risks and vulnerability to future crises. Therefore, we are assisting disaster-prone countries to include risk reduction, disaster management and mitigation in their development planning process and supporting community initiatives to reduce their vulnerability to risks. This includes analysing common hazards and their impact on poor people, and assessing the effect of recurrent crises on achieving the targets of sustainable international development.

  Much of my Department's humanitarian response is channelled through the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the United Nations humanitarian agencies and non-governmental organisations. We are working closely with these agencies to strengthen international systems for dealing with humanitarian crises, particularly to improve response capacity and accountability, and the development of common standards for technical performance and reporting. We are also

  227
  promoting better co-ordination within the European Union, especially through the European Community Humanitarian Office.

  Debt Targets
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the target set of reducing the debts of the poorest countries by £50 billion. [73920]

  Clare Short
  The Government are committed to the international development targets, which include halving the proportion of people living in absolute poverty by 2015. For the poorest, most indebted countries, who are similarly committed to poverty eradication, faster and deeper debt relief is required to enable them to invest sufficient resources in poverty reduction programmes to meet these targets. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have therefore challenged the international community to increase debt relief and increase aid flows to poor countries. Our objective over the coming months is to get agreement to cancel $50 billion of debt and to increase development assistance to $60 billion by the year 2000.

  Ethical Trading
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government are taking to raise public awareness of ethically and fairly traded products. [75233]

  Clare Short
  Both I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have spoken at a number of public events aimed at raising awareness of ethical and fair trade. DFID also supports the Ethical Trading Initiative, whose work includes promoting positive engagement between UK importers and developing country suppliers. We are also supporting, through our development awareness funding, a range of activities which are designed to raise public awareness in this area.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if(a) she, (b) civil servants in her Department or (c) special advisers in her Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75880]

  Clare Short
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 531. There have been no instances of members of select committees giving me, or my ministerial colleagues, drafts or select committee reports, or of parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor, to the best of my knowledge have there been any occasions on which members of select committees have given such material to civil servants or special advisers in my Department. This excludes embargoed copies of reports issued under House of Commons Standing Orders.

  Colombia (Sniffer Dogs)
  Mr. Alan Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had 228
  with colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the immunisation of sniffer dogs sent by her Department to assist in rescue work in Colombia. [75230]

  Clare Short
  My Department did not send any dogs to Colombia following the recent earthquake and therefore there have been no discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about immunisation.

  Biotechnology Companies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the biotechnology companies which have placed staff(a) on secondment and (b) on placement within her Department since 1 May 1997. [74843]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]No biotechnology companies have placed staff(a) on secondment or (b) on placement within my Department since 1 May 1997.

  PHARE Programme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met her colleagues from other member states of the European Union to discuss matters relating to the PHARE Programme. [73840]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets with colleagues at the Development Council, the last of which was held on 30 November 1998. PHARE was not specifically on the agenda. She has regular informal contact with her counterparts regarding a range of issues including the PHARE programme.

PRIME MINISTER

  Single Currency
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a White Paper setting out the constitutional, economic and political implications of the UK joining the European single currency. [73873]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy on the single currency was set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 583–88.

  Secondary School Funding
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the central Government funding per pupil at secondary schools in(a) Staffordshire and (b) Hertfordshire in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [73878]

  The Prime Minister
  The secondary standard spending assessment per pupil allocation for 1999–2000 is £2,759 for Staffordshire and £3,023 for Hertfordshire.

  We inherited the current system for calculating Standard Spending Assessments from the previous Government. The Government will be carrying out research over the next few years as part of a review of the way different Local Education Authorities are funded.
  229
  The aim of this review will be to secure a fairer way of allocating resources from central Government to local authorities.

  Engagements
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 March. [73871]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Turkey; and if he will list the people he met on his visit. [74623]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last visited Turkey on 19 May 1998. During his visit he met the President of the Turkish Republic, Mr. Suleyman Demirel, the Prime Minister, Mr. Mesut Yilmaz, the Foreign Minister, Mr. Ismail Cem, and the President of the Human Rights Association, Mr. Akin Birdal, who was recovering in hospital.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for discussions with the Turkish Government about forthcoming elections in Turkey; and if he will encourage Turkey to invite foreign election observers to witness the elections; and if he will make a statement. [74632]

  Ms Quin
  Our Embassy in Ankara is closely following the forthcoming elections in Turkey.

  On the question of election monitoring, we encourage all OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) Participating States to acknowledge their standing commitment to election observation as expressed in the OSCE Copenhagen Document of 1990.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey on proceedings against Abdullah Öcalan; and if he will make a statement. [74627]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 797.

  Dubai
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has had from the Government of Dubai to his note verbale of 10 November 1998. [74625]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Government of Dubai have not replied to our Note Verbale of 10 November 1998 requesting Mr. Atkinson's release on the basis of the decision of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. His trial concluded on 13 December 1998 and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.
  230

  European Communities Budget
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place copies of the audits of budget line A-3021 of the European Communities in the Library; and if he will list the sponsors and referees who supported the successful applicants for that budget line. [75079]

  Ms Quin
  The Report on Beneficiaries of Community Grants 1997 was placed in the Library last year. The 1998 Report will be placed in the Library when it is published.

  Decisions on spending under this budget line are made by the Commission alone.

  EU Fifth Framework Programme
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there has been a change in the view of EU partners on Israel's participation in the Fifth Framework Programme since his answer of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 395. [75181]

  Ms Quin
  The UK has always supported Israel's Association with the Fifth Framework Programme in principle. It became clear recently that EU partners were also moving towards a positive view, and we were able to see this agreed at the General Affairs Council on 22 February.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the EU will decide on Israel's participation in the Fifth Framework Programme of research. [75165]

  Ms Quin
  The EU General Affairs Council on 22 February agreed to Israel's participation in the Fifth Framework Programme of Research.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what criteria are used by the EU to decide on the participation of non-EU member states in the Fifth Framework Programme. [75167]

  Ms Quin
  There are no generalised criteria. Proposals for third country association with the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5), and for project-by-project participation by researchers from third countries, are assessed on their individual merits in the context of the EU's interests.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent(a) each of the 10 Central and Eastern European countries, (b) Cyprus, (c) Israel and (d) Switzerland meet the criteria for participation in the Fifth Framework Programme. [75166]

  Ms Quin
  These countries are at various stages in the process of negotiation for full participation as countries associated with the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5). There are no generalised criteria: each case is assessed on its merits in the context of the EU's interests.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries to which(a) the British Government and (b) United Kingdom companies over the last five years have sold arms, the type of weapons sold and the total value of sales. [75516]
  231
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The forthcoming Annual Report on Strategic Exports will list by country of destination the numbers of export licences issued by this Government between 2 May and 31 December 1997 in each equipment category and give details of the military equipment for which licences have been granted. It will also set out the value of defence exports to each country in 1997. This information will also be given in future reports.

  As regards information on export licensing decisions taken by the previous administration, it was normal practice for such statistics to be placed periodically in the Library of the House. However, as the then Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), made clear in her answer of 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71, such information should be treated as indicative only. As regards information on actual defence exports in the last five years, I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 31 March 1998, Official Report, columns 444–45.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the removal of the Lan Chile flight on the people of the Falklands. [75642]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Lan Chile link has commercial and social benefits to communities in both the Falklands and southern Chile. We would regret any action which penalised these communities. We have expressed our regret to the Chilean Government over their decision to ask Lan Chile to suspend flights to the Falklands and said we do not believe this to be justified. We hope that Lan Chile will continue to fly to the Falklands after 31 March.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the extent of human rights violations on vessels operating in waters around the Falklands. [75639]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Both HMG and the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) take seriously any violation of human rights on vessels fishing in Falkland Islands waters while there are clearly considerable difficulties in assessing the conditions on board such fishing vessels, every effort is made to monitor the situation. The FIG investigate all cases where complaints are made. A successful prosecution was brought against the Captain of a fishing vessel in April last year. We continue to work closely with FIG on this issue.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take if Lan Chile does not continue its flights to the Falklands after 31 March. [75888]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  While we hope that Lan Chile will continue to fly to the Falklands, we are considering other options with the Falkland Islands Government, including flights to other countries, improve surface travel, and the possibility of the Falkland Islands Government leasing their own aircraft.
  232

  EU Officials
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 505, concerning indicted EU officials, when the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), proposes to write to the hon. Member for Ludlow. [75723]

  Ms Quin
  I continue to press the European Commission for the information requested by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I will write as soon as it is received.

  Foreign Media Articles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 2 March 1999,Official Report, columns 684–85, for what reason he does not hold it to be a worthwhile use of resources to record which of the Prime Minister's articles for publication by the foreign press his Department has facilitated placing. [75549]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The resources available to the FCO News Department and press and public affairs sections in our overseas posts are already fully committed in support of the FCO' s objectives. To maintain the records proposed by the right hon. Member would therefore require the diversion of resources from other more essential activity.

  Russia
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his visit to Murmansk. [75772]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had the opportunity, as part of his trip to Russia, to visit the Murmansk region on 3 March to see for himself the scale of one of the largest concentrations of nuclear reactors, spent fuel and waste in the world.

  The sheer number of nuclear submarines awaiting decommissioning is stretching the Russian facilities to breaking point. My right hon. Friend saw for himself the "Lepse", which has been used as a storage vessel for spent nuclear fuel rods for the past twenty years and is now in a rapidly deteriorating state in Murmansk Harbour.

  My right hon. Friend also met Foreign Minister Ivanov, who welcomed UK assistance in the management of Russian nuclear waste. In particular, my right hon. Friend stressed the importance we attach to Russia reaching agreement with donors on liability and taxation in the field of nuclear assistance.

  Whilst at Murmansk, my right hon. Friend was pleased to be able to announce a new British programme, backed by over £3 million in additional funds, to help Russia with these problems.

  We are not alone in seeking to resolve these issues. It will take a coordinated international effort and other countries are already making a contribution. The countries of Scandinavia, the United States and the European Union, amongst others, already have programmes dealing with the decommissioning of Russian nuclear submarines

  233
  and the management of spent nuclear fuel and waste. We hope to work with these other countries and with Russia in building a wider international programme of assistance.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with the Russian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister about Russian defence exports in Syria; [75799]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his talks with the Russian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. [75771]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Foreign Minister Ivanov in Moscow on 4 March, and had further talks with him and Prime Minister Primakov in Sochi on 5 March. The talks covered a number of current foreign policy issues, including Iraq and Kosovo, Russia's discussion with the IMF, and human rights. The Foreign Secretary emphasised the need for rapid agreement between Russia and the IMF, which he reinforced with a personal message from the Prime Minister. On Kosovo, the Foreign Secretary welcomed Russia's continuing involvement in the search for a lasting settlement. On Iraq, both sides agreed to continue working together for a common position in the Security Council. Arms exports to Syria were not specifically discussed, but the Foreign Secretary and Ivanov agreed on the need to avoid destabilising and uncontrolled arms exports. Ivanov plans to visit the UK in May.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Prime Minister about the Christian school in St. Petersburg that is under siege. [75804]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made no representations to the Russian Prime Minister about the Christian school in St. Petersburg. Our representatives in St. Petersburg and Moscow are, however, following the situation closely as it develops.

  South Africa
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) Spain, (b) France, (c) Portugal, (d) Italy and (e) Greece about their refusal to endorse the free trade agreement with South Africa. [75768]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: At the General Affairs Council on 22 February, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I attended, the UK pressed hard for endorsement of a Trade & Cooperation Agreement between the EU and South Africa. My hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also urged member states to support the latest deal, most recently at the informal European Council on 26 February.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps were taken by(a) special advisers, (b) Ministers, (c) officials or (d) other persons on behalf of his Department to seek to obtain (i) a draft copy and (ii) the key conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone; [75887]
  234
  (2) on what date and at what time he told the Permanent Secretary that he had received (a) the leaked draft and (b) the leaked key conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone; [75885]

  (3) if he informed the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that he had received from him the copy of the leaked draft of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone. [75886]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 4 March 1999,Official Report, columns 875–76.

  Foreign Affairs Committee
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many copies were made of the leaked Foreign Affairs Committee documents on(a) its Human Rights inquiry and (b) its European Union enlargement inquiry; and to whom they were circulated; [75859]

  (2) what means the copies of the leaked Foreign Affairs Committee documents on (a) its Human Rights inquiry and (b) its European Union enlargement inquiry were sent to him or his Department; [75860]

  (3) when (a) he, (b) his Ministers, (c) his officials, (d) his advisers and (e) departmental parliamentary private secretaries first had sight of the leaked Foreign Affairs Committee documents on (i) its Human Rights inquiry and (ii) its European Union enlargement inquiry; and what use he and they made of the leaked documents. [75861]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the 4 March 1999,Official Report, column 876.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when proposals for a directive concerning the regulations for growing and sale of genetically modified crops were first received by his Department from the European Commission; what observations were made by his Department prior to publication of the draft directive and on what evidence these observations were based; on what dates relevant explanatory memoranda were signed by ministers and placed in the Vote Office; and if he will publish the terms of such memoranda in the Official Report. [72178]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms was negotiated in the late 1980s and adopted on 23 April 1990. The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 were made under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and came into force on 1 February 1993.

  The European Commission adopted a Report on the review of Directive 90/220 on 10 December 1996. Following this, the Commission published its proposal for

  235
  the amendment of Directive 90/220 in February 1998. UK Government officials participated in discussions on the draft proposal, prior to its adoption by the Commission, during meetings of the 90/220 Competent Authorities.

  The Competent Authorities for Directive 90/220 submitted written comments on a Commission Working Document in Autumn 1997. These focused on, among other issues, the difficulties in implementing the current directive due to differences between Member States about interpretation and delays by the Commission. These comments were based on experience of operating the directive. The views of interested parties were actively sought throughout this process.

  An Orientation Debate was held in the June 1998 Council of Environment Ministers under the British Presidency of the European Union. Negotiations were subsequently held under the Austrian Presidency and the proposal was further considered by Ministers at the December 1998 Environment Council. The German Presidency has not yet indicated its timetable for discussion of the proposal.

  Explanatory Memorandum 6378/98 covering the Commission's proposal was submitted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 23 March 1998. EM 6378/98 was considered by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee on 29 April 1998. The committee recommended that the document was of political interest and requested further information. The Minister for the Environment responded to the points raised by the Committee in a letter dated 27 November 1997. At their meeting of 9 December 1998, the Committee recommended the proposal for debate in Standing Committee A. The debate has yet to take place, but will be held in good time before any decision is taken in the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which parts of (a) the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and (b) the European Directive 90/220 concerning the growing of genetically modified crops for purposes of research are administered by his Department; how many applications he has received for such cultivation and where the locations of such cultivations are publicly listed; what surveillance is undertaken by officers of his Department in respect of such activities; and what tests are applied by them in advising the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his officials concerning applications to them for cultivation for market sales. [72177]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for research purposes are governed by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 (amended 1995 and 1997) which give effect to Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Together, these Regulations implement Council Directive 90/220/EEC
  "on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms",
  of which Part B refers to deliberate releases for research and development purposes. These regulations are administered by my Department, in consultation with MAFF, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. This is
  236
  a matter for which the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies will also be responsible after devolution.

  Since the regulations came into force on 1 February 1993, 153 consents have been issued for the release of genetically modified crops. Details of these consents, including the locations at which they have been released, are on the statutory public register held in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  All applications received by my Department for the release of genetically modified crops, either for research or for marketing, are copied for comment to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment which advises the Secretary of State on the safety of GMOs in the environment also advises MAFF Ministers.

  The Secretary of State has delegated the inspection and enforcement powers provided under Part VI of the Environment Protection Act 1990 to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. HSE specialist inspectors visit a proportion of release sites to ensure that the releases are being conducted in accordance to the specifications set out in the consent. Full reports of the inspections are sent to DETR.

  Seahorse and Exodus Incident
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department has received on the Seahorse and Exodus incident of March 1997; if his Department has been informed of the findings of the investigation; if he will deposit those findings in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [74440]

  Dr. Reid
  A collision occurred between the United Kingdom registered fishing vessel Seahorse and the Irish registered fishing vessel Exodus in Bantry Bay, Ireland in March 1997. One crew member of the Exodus died. The Marine Accidents Investigation Branch undertook an Inspector's Investigation into the incident. The Inspector's report has not been published but a copy was forwarded to the Irish Maritime Authorities. The collision took place in Irish waters and the Irish Maritime Authorities are undertaking their own investigation into the incident. Their report will be published in due course. Following the incident the master of the Seahorse was successfully prosecuted by the Irish Authorities for a breach of the International Collision Regulations.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the cost-effectiveness of campaigns to improve the take-up of energy efficiency measures in the domestic sector. [75207]

  Mr. Meale
  Each of the schemes to improve take-up of energy efficiency measures in the domestic sector is monitored, performance, including cost effectiveness,
  237
  is reviewed at regular intervals and schemes are amended where that is appropriate. For example:
  The performance of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is reviewed quarterly, and a full review of the scheme is taking place as part of the Government's review of fuel poverty policy.
  Independent impact assessment of the Best Practice Programme, which covers the managed housing stock, is undertaken on an ongoing basis.
  Each of the Energy Saving Trust's projects is monitored and assessed. In addition the Trust's programme of work for my Department is reviewed quarterly, and a full evaluation of the Trust's programmes is planned in the next year.
  The Energy Regulator's Standards Of Performance schemes were recently reviewed by NAO.

  London River Services
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to ensure that the introduction of new commuter services on the River Thames does not undermine established tourist operations; [75265]

  (2) what representations his Department has received concerning the honouring by London River Services after 1 April 1999 of agreements and licences which the Port of London Authority entered into with boat operators; [75261]

  (3) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that agreements and licences which the Port of London Authority entered into with boat operators are honoured by London River Services after 1 April. [75262]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has received a number of representations from and on behalf of Catamaran Cruisers Ltd. and the Thames Passenger Services Federation about this matter. London River Services Ltd. (LRSL) has been set up to manage river services operating from the piers currently owned by the Port of London Authority and certain other new piers.

  The Government support LRSL's objectives, which are to:
  Provide a comprehensive network of high quality river boat services (commuter and leisure) to meet London's river travel needs, having regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation;
  Maximise passenger benefits and usage within the funds available;
  Support multi-modal travel facilities;
  Develop and improve the infrastructure and information services which support the river network.

  In pursuing these objectives within the context of the Government's Thames 2000 initiative, we believe that opportunities will be created for improving and expanding services on the River to the potential benefit of all operators. Neither the Government nor LRS has any wish to undermine existing operators, especially those which deliver a good quality of service and which have invested in new vessels and facilities.

  At the operational level, it is for LRS to determine how best to meet these objectives, having regard both to developing the market for river services and the potential impact on the sustainability of existing operators' services. I understand that LRS's proposals have generally been well received by boat operators; and that they are
  238
  currently in active discussion with Catamaran Cruisers Ltd. about the latter's applications for new licences and are hopeful that an agreed solution can be reached.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that London River Services does not sell the Thames piers in its ownership. [75263]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Whilst LT retains the right to dispose of assets that are not required for the purposes of its business, the Government believe that its subsidiary, London River Services Ltd., would not be able to fulfil the objectives it was set up to achieve—and which we fully support—without retaining ownership of the key central London piers. Other assets may be disposed of only with the Secretary of State's consent.

  In due course it is intended that ownership of the piers should pass to Transport for London. One of Transport for London's main transport duties will be to implement the Mayor's integrated transport strategy. In drawing up that strategy the Mayor will be under a duty to have regard to the desirability of encouraging the use of the River Thames, in particular for the provision of passenger transport services and for the transport of freight.

  Landfill
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the statutory status of the EU Landfill of Waste Common Position Paper 49/98 with regard to United Kingdom legislation. [75344]

  Mr. Meale
  The EU Landfill Directive is still being discussed at European Council and is in draft form. The Common Position paper [Common Position (EC) No 49/98] is the latest official version of the draft directive. As the Directive has not yet been adopted by the European Council, and has yet to enter into force in the European Union, it has no status in UK legislation.

  Public Safety Zones
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to issue guidance to local authorities on public safety zones. [75220]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The preparation of draft guidance is in hand. We hope to issue it for consultation in the Spring.

  Rural Public Transport
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new rural public transport routes have been created since 1997. [75501]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department does not collect detailed information on specific public transport routes.

  We have distributed the greater part of England's share of the additional £50 million a year for rural public transport to local authorities in the form of the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant. Local authorities have used this money to let contracts for new services, either serving communities

  239
  for the first time or enhancing existing routes, in accordance with the guidance which we issued to them. Many new services are now in operation.

  My Department will be gathering information from local authorities in the coming weeks to assess systematically the impact of this year's Rural Bus Subsidy Grant.

  We have also approved 46 bids, totalling £11.4 million, for grant under the Rural Bus Challenge competition to promote innovative local authority bus schemes in England, as well as making £4.2 million of the new money available each year for a Rural Transport Partnership scheme to reduce rural isolation and social exclusion by supporting community-based projects which enhance access to jobs and services.

  Road Accidents
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of road accidents caused by drivers falling asleep. [75266]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There is no national estimate of the number of accidents caused by drivers falling asleep. However, research has shown that tiredness is a principal factor in around 10 per cent. of all accidents. Accordingly, it is estimated that around 23,000–24,000 injury accidents a year result from driver fatigue.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he or his ministers have received any advance copy or draft or briefing on the contents of any select committee report before its due publication date and time; and if he will make a statement. [75766]

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75868]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: I refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999, Official Report, column 531. There have been no instances of members of Select Committees giving me, or my ministerial colleagues, drafts of Select Committee reports, or of parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, have there been any occasions on which members of Select Committees have given such material to civil servants or special advisers in my Department. This excludes embargoed copies of reports issued under House of Commons Standing Orders.

  Millennium Compliance (Water Industry)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contingency plans he has for making water available in the event of the interruption of supplies caused by the millennium non-compliance of computer systems in the water industry; and if he will make a statement. [76057]
  240
  Mr. Meale
  In accordance with the Security and Emergency Measures Direction issued by my Department last year, all water and sewerage companies are required to have plans in place to deal with any emergency. The new plans are required to be independently certified and must be with the Department by 1 April. Water companies expect to complete the testing and any rectification of embedded IT systems by the end of July and they will also test and, if necessary, upgrade their contingency plans. The Director-General of Water Services is monitoring the water industry's progress in ensuring that potential millennium problems are minimised and he has appointed an independent assessor to check on the completion of the rectification work by water companies and the testing of their contingency plans. The assessor's report will be published by OFWAT in the summer.

  National Parks (Appointees)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those of his appointees currently serving on national park authorities who have military backgrounds. [75569]

  Mr. Meale
  We do not hold a comprehensive central record of the military service undertaken by Secretary of State appointees to the National Park Authorities; there is no specific requirement for candidates to list military service as part of the appointments process. I will undertake some inquiries and write to the hon. Member.

  Housing
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking to follow up the proposal, in his July 1998 statement on housing and regeneration policy, for a single allocation to local housing authorities for capital investment in housing; and if he will make a statement. [76017]

  Ms Armstrong
  In October, my Department issued a consultation paper on creating a single housing allocation for capital investment to local authorities, which followed up proposals contained in the Deputy Prime Minister's statement on housing and regeneration policy in July 1998. A single capital allocation for housing is part of the Government's agenda for modernising local government finance. It aims to give local authorities more discretion in deciding their capital programme for housing. The proposal will have some impact on distribution to authorities with high levels of capital receipts relative to need. Such authorities will be expected to make a greater contribution to capital investment in housing in their area from these resources. Authorities with greater need will receive more resources.

  Most respondents to the consultation paper welcomed the main principle of our proposals. Some expressed concerns about the effect on the distribution of resources between local authorities, the possible impact on private sector renewal activity, and the timing of the change. I have given careful consideration to all these issues, but I have concluded that we should proceed as planned with the introduction of a single housing capital allocation in 2000–01. The guidance to be issued to local authorities for this year's Housing Investment Programme will cover the detailed implementation of the single pot. It will also

  241
  address concerns raised in consultation responses about the importance of taking full account of the needs of the private sector in authorities' housing strategies.

  I accept that some arrangements will be necessary to facilitate the transition to a single allocation. My officials will shortly be writing to the local authority associations with details of the arrangements we propose to make.

  Racing Pigeons
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received a report of the research which he commissioned into the predation of racing pigeons; and if he will make a statement. [75571]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department has received a draft final report from the contractors, which will be published as soon as possible.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of freight was transported by rail in the last year for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the capacity of the railways to deal with increases in demand. [75300]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1997, rail accounted for 7 per cent. of total tonne kilometres moved in Great Britain. The need to further develop rail freight is one of the key reasons for setting up the Strategic Rail Authority. One of the Authority's most important tasks will be to address the needs of freight as well as passengers, and the balance between the capacity demands of each.

  Planning
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to(a) speed up and (b) simplify planning procedures. [75303]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are committed to making the planning system operate more efficiently and effectively. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning set out a range of measures to achieve this in the Modernising Planning Statement he published on 15 January 1998. This included proposals to improve the delivery of local plans and unitary development plans; increase the regional ownership and effectiveness of regional planning guidance; speed up the handling of planning appeals; and improve local planning performance through "Best Value".

  The Government have recently published for public consultation a draft revised Planning Policy Guidance note 12 (PPG12) on improving the quality and speed of development plan preparation and a draft PPG11 on more streamlined and inclusive arrangements for regional planning guidance. Good practice guides on development briefs and the one-stop-shop approach to development-related approvals were published in April 1998 and the Department is funding a good practice guide on "Best Value" in planning being drawn up by the Planning Officers' Society. A number of other initiatives are underway, including reviews of consultation procedures for planning applications and of procedures for handling
  242
  listed building consent applications, and inclusion of streamlining planning decisions for business as a theme for the first year of Beacon Councils in the prospectus issued in February 1999.

  The Government issued for consultation last year proposals to improve appeal procedures and are currently considering the outcome. Proposals to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects are being developed for consultation. The Department sets targets for the handling of planning appeals by the Planning Inspectorate. We have recently published improved, long-term targets so that, by 2001–02, the Inspectorate will be expected to decide 80 per cent. of appeals by written representations within 16 weeks; 80 per cent. of appeals by hearing within 22 weeks; and 80 per cent. of appeals by inquiry within 30 weeks.

  The Department is continuing to monitor closely local authorities' performance in reaching decisions on planning applications and publishes regular Planning Performance Checklists. My right hon. Friend is currently holding a series of meetings with a selection of local authorities in each English region to discuss what more might be done to improve handling of planning applications as well as development plan preparation and to share good practice. These meetings are part of our wider commitment to work in partnership with local government to deliver a modernised planning system. We have recently agreed with the Local Government Association a Planning Concordat which sets out our shared objectives as the basis for taking our partnership forward.

  Big Leaf Mahogany
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase international protection for big leaf mahogany; and if he will ban its import. [75301]

  Mr. Meale
  All populations in the Americas of Big-leaf mahogany(Swietenia macrophylla) are already listed on Appendix III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and Annex C of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulation, which implements CITES within the European Union. Imports of Big-leaf mahogany therefore require an export permit or certificate issued by the country of origin before they can enter the EU. In addition, the importer has to provide a notification form. By this close monitoring, the EU aims to ensure that international trade remains at sustainable levels.

  Regeneration
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of single regeneration budget money under rounds one to four was targeted on schemes in non-conurbation localities which have areas of multiple deprivation comparable with conurbation areas; and if he will make a statement. [75308]

  Mr. Meale
  Support from the SRB is given to partnerships under a bidding process which includes a competitive element. Bids are judged against programme objectives and assessment criteria given in a Bidding Guidance for each round. SRB (Challenge Fund) Rounds 1 to 4 are under way with over 600 regeneration schemes
  243
  being supported. The table gives an estimate of the proportion of SRB Rounds 1–3 resources by seven groupings.

  Area type

  Total SRB spend rounds 1–3 estimated £million

  Percentage of total SRB spend

  London Borough

  822

  26

  Metropolitan Cities and Districts

  1,289

  41

  Non-metropolitan Cities

  313

  10

  Districts with industrial areas or new towns

  429

  14

  Resort, port and retirement

  126

  4

  Urban and rural-urban mixed

  83

  3

  Remoter mainly rural

  65

  2

  England

  3,127

  100

  Note:

  The estimates for rounds 1–3 are based on data from an exercise carried out by the University of Cambridge as part of their evaluation of the SRB—'The distribution of SRB CF Expenditure in relation to Local Area Needs in England' and which was published in March 1998. A similar analysis for Round 4 funding is not yet available.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to tackle the causes of social and economic decline in(a) conurbation localities, (b) non-conurbation localities and (c) rural areas. [75309]

  Mr. Meale
  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out details of the New Deal for Regeneration in his Housing and Regeneration Policy statement on 22 July 1998, which will receive over £3 billion over the next three years. This included a reshaped Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) with about 80 per cent. of new SRB resources targeted on the most deprived areas, based on the 1998 Index of Local Deprivation. SRB resources may contribute to schemes also supported by European funding, including Structural Funds. Also there is a new programme, the New Deal for Communities, which combats social exclusion through focused and intensive neighbourhood renewal, in the most deprived neighbourhoods.

  English Partnerships promote job creation, inward investment and environmental improvement by bringing derelict, vacant and contaminated land back into productive use.

  Rural areas benefit from resources directed through the SRB. The Rural Challenge Fund previously managed by the Rural Development Commission (RDC) has been incorporated into the SRB and bids covering rural areas will be eligible for SRB support. In addition, the RDC's rural regeneration programmes continue to support a variety of regeneration projects in the rural development areas designated by the RDC, as do English Partnerships and European structural funds in Objective 5b areas. The Government will be setting out their policies for rural England in a White Paper to be published later in the year.

  The regional activities of English Partnerships, the administration of the SRB and the RDCs' rural regeneration programmes will transfer to new Regional Development Agencies on 1 April 1999 (from April 2000 in London).
  244
  The Government strongly support the Local Government Association's New Commitment to Regeneration initiative which is seeking a more co-ordinated and flexible approach to regeneration in 22 pathfinder areas through the preparation of comprehensive regeneration strategies for their areas.

  The Government will be setting out their policies for cities and towns in an Urban White Paper to be published later this year.

  Electoral Review
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes next to implement the periodic electoral review recommendations which he has received from the Local Government Commission for England; what is his policy for implementing future reviews; and if he will make a statement. [76016]

  Ms Armstrong
  Where we accept the LGC periodic electoral review recommendations our intention is to implement them as soon as practicable on a normal election day whilst ensuring that no council holds whole council elections in consecutive years.

  Accordingly we are now proposing, for those district councils and county councils where final recommendations are received no later than July 2000, and where we accept them, that implementation should be on the normal election day in May 2001. For those district councils and county councils where final recommendations are received between August 2000 and July 2002 and, where we accept them, implementation should be on the normal election day in May 2003.

  This means that in May 2001, the normal election day for all county councils in England, there will be additional whole council elections for certain district councils. In May 2003, the normal election day for all whole council district council elections, there will be additional elections for certain county councils.

  We are not making any special proposals for implementing the Commission's reviews of London boroughs. We envisage their implementation on the next normal election day for the boroughs in May 2002, a timetable consistent with the Commission's recommendations being received between June 1999 and January 2000.

  We are now consulting the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Commission, the Parliamentary Boundary Commission and the main political parties on the proposals. Following this consultation we will decide how to proceed.

  Airports Policy
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the timetable for the review of his Department's UK airports policy and implementation of resulting recommendations. [75425]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We announced in "A New Deal for Transport" (Cm 3950) that we will prepare a UK airports policy looking some 30 years ahead, and that in
  245
  doing so we will take account of the Inspector's report on the Heathrow Terminal 5 Inquiry. After the Secretary of State has received the Inspector's report, the Government will, of course, need to consider it carefully before we can come to decisions on his recommendations and can publish the new airports policy. In the meantime we are pressing ahead with preparatory studies needed for the review of airports policy.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents there have been in each of the last five years of objects falling from commercial airlines over the UK; and how many such falling objects have caused(a) personal injury and (b) damage to building. [75676]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of incidents of falling objects reported to the Civil Aviation Authority are as follows:

  Total number of incidents

  Number causing damage on ground

  Personal injury

  1994

  52

  27

  0

  1995

  41

  23

  0

  1996

  56

  32

  0

  1997

  61

  29

  0

  1998

  60

  34

  0

  Note:

  These objects include ice fragments and other miscellaneous items. Generally it is not possible to confirm the precise origin of such objects. The figures for incidents of damage on the ground include damage to items such as cars, garden furniture and patios as well as buildings.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision he is making for the cost of rail services secured by the English Passenger Transport Executive in 1999–2000. [76409]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A special grant report has been laid before the House today for the payment of Metropolitan Railway Passenger Service Grant in 1999–2000 to English Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs). The main purpose of the grant is to provide support to those PTAs for the local rail services provided by franchise operators and secured by the PTAs' Passenger Transport Executives under the terms of the franchise agreements with franchisees and the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising.

  Ships (Inspections)
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many ships were found to be unhygienic as a result of the inspections of ships for nuisances; and how many special notices were served under the provisions of the Public Health (Ships) Regulations 1979 in each year since 1990. [74968]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department does not keep central records on the results of tests made under the Environmental Health Act 1990 and the Public Health (Ships) Regulations 1979,
  246
  which are a local inspection function. However, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has provided figures on the number of ships detained under Merchant Shipping legislation where deficiencies have included food and hygiene items. Figures before 1994–95 are not available.

  Year

  Number of ships detained where deficiencies included food and hygiene items

  1994–95

  48

  1995–96

  63

  1996–97

  64

  1997–98

  75

WALES

  Bell Pottinger Good Relations
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his decision to award the contract for providing information about the National Assembly to Bell Pottinger Good Relations. [73005]

  Mr. Michael
  My Department appointed Howell Henry Chaldecott Lury following a competition arranged by the Central Office of Information on behalf of the Welsh Office. They were appointed on the basis that they gave the strongest, most effective response to the tendered campaign.

  All competing Agencies were required to demonstrate that they could deal effectively with local issues and operate effectively with the Welsh Office in Cardiff. Howell Henry Chaldecott Lury invited sister company Bell Pottinger Good Relations to assist them in the competition to meet this requirement, and to provide wider expertise for the National Assembly for Wales campaign.

  This appointment was ratified by the Independent Advisory Committee on Advertising.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last discussed housing problems with council housing authorities; and if he will make a statement. [74180]

  Mr. Michael
  As Chair of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, I meet local authority housing representatives on a regular basis. At the last of these meetings on 15 December housing issues were discussed.

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

  A4042 (Llanover)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the pupils of Llanover Primary School concerning the speed limit on the A4042 in Llanover, near Abergavenny; what plans he has to review the speed limit on the road; and if he will make a statement. [74888]
  247
  Mr. Hain
  The Headteacher of Llanover Primary School sent the former Secretary of State a selection of letters from pupils concerning the speed of traffic along the nearby A4042 in May 1998.

  Since traffic generally travels at under 50 mph along this stretch of road past the village, there are no plans for a reduced speed limit as it would not essentially be self regulating.

  We will however continue to keep this part of the A4042 under review and will review the speed limit if there is any significant change in the situation there.

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

  As announced in the White Paper on the future of transport, a national review is under way to develop a speed policy that takes account of the contribution of reduced speeds to environmental and social objectives as well as to road safety.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes to make to his voted cash limits for the current year. [76353]

  Mr. Michael
  Subject to the approval of the related Supplementary Estimate, I propose to increase the cash limit on class XIV, vote 2 by £4,144,000 from £851,924,000 to £856,068,000. This increase results from an addition to the education programme for the purchase of school books, as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 9 March 1999,Official Report, columns 173–90. Schools will have until July of this year to spend their allocations of these extra resources. This increase will be met from the Reserve and will not add to the overall level of public expenditure.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce his decisions on the amended proposals to reconfigure NHS trusts in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. [76399]

  Mr. Michael
  I have today announced my decision to establish the University Hospital of Wales and Llandough NHS Trust and the Cardiff and District Community NHS Trust to become operational on 1 April 1999. This decision follows public consultation which ended on 28 January, and supports my vision for the NHS in Wales made in my statement to the House on 3 December 1998,Official Report, columns 1053–66. The establishment of these two trusts is a first step towards creating a single integrated health service for Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan with acute, community and mental health services delivered through a single trust. In order to bring as much certainty as possible to the process so that staff in the new trusts know exactly where they stand, a further public consultation will start in July on the details of the process of forming the single trust and on the timing, which it is hoped will be sooner rather than later.

  A copy of the press release detailing my announcement, along with a summary of all responses received by the Welsh Office on this matter during the consultation period, a copy of the report of the reconfiguration project
  248
  team on local consultation and a copy of the report of independent consultants who were commissioned to undertake an evaluation of the consultation proposals, has been placed in the Library of the House.

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

  Housing Association (House Starts)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the planned starts for homes to be built by housing associations in 1998–99. [75494]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Housing associations are expected to achieve starts on up to 2,300 homes during the year, of which approximately 70% will be new build.

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

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75879]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 531. There have been no instances of members of Select Committees giving me, or my ministerial colleagues, drafts of Select Committee reports, or of parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has there been any occasion on which members of Select Committees have given such material to civil servants or special advisers in my Department. This excludes embargoed copies of reports issued under House of Commons Standing Orders.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Interpreters
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the occasions on which cases have(a) collapsed and (b) gone to appeal on the basis of inadequate interpreter provision for defendants in each of the last two years. [75341]

  Mr. Hoon
  I regret that this information is not collected, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what professional standards and qualifications are required of interpreters working in English courts. [75342]

  Mr. Hoon
  Interpreters working in English courts are not required by law to have a formal qualification or to have reached a specific professional standard. However, all agencies in the criminal justice system are parties to an agreement with the aim that, by the end of 2001, every interpreter working in courts should be selected from the National Register of Public Service Interpreters or the
  249
  Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP) National Directory of sign Language Interpreters. An inter-agency working group is monitoring progress of the agreement. Those arranging interpreters are encouraged to find an interpreter from the National Register or Directory in the first instance. Where a person cannot be found from those sources, they will look elsewhere for an interpreter of at least the same standard.

  In the civil courts it is the responsibility of the plaintiff or defendant or their legal adviser to provide any foreign language interpreter. The court can refer inquiries from parties to appropriate lists. The Court Service has an agreement with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to provide a sign language interpreter, who must be registered by the CACDP, whenever such an interpreter is required.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures exist to ensure that accused persons whose first language is not English receive a fair trial in English courts. [75340]

  Mr. Hoon
  Where the accused's first language is not English, and he would not otherwise understand the proceedings, the court will arrange a foreign language or sign language interpreter for him at court. The only exception is where the defendant appears in court within up to two working days of being charged, where it is for the police or other prosecuting agency to make the necessary arrangements. The interpreter's fee is paid from public funds.

  Retirement Ages
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates are aged between 65 and 70 years. [75267]

  Mr. Hoon
  3,767 magistrates in England and Wales (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster) are aged between 65 and 70 years.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the retirement age for lay members of each of the tribunals for which he has responsibility. [75268]

  Mr. Hoon
  Of the tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor has ministerial responsibility, only three include a lay membership. They are lay members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal; service and medical members of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal; and surveyor members of the Lands Tribunal. Under the terms of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, lay members appointed to each of these tribunals on or after 31 March 1995 shall vacate office when they attain the age of 70. However, the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act contains provisions which allows the Lord Chancellor, in exceptional circumstances, to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75 and transitional provisions which preserve the pre-existing compulsory retirement age of the end of year of service in which they reach 72 for those already serving on 31 March 1995.
  250

  Legal Aid (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the legal aid budget was spent on cases pursued by foreign nationals in courts in England and Wales in(a) 1989 and
  (b) in each of the last three years. [75222]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not available. The nationality of an applicant is not one of the qualifying factors for legal aid. Therefore, the data collected by the Legal Aid Board and the courts do not identify separately applications made for legal aid by foreign nationals.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75869]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 531. There have been no instances of members of Select Committees giving me, or the Lord Chancellor, drafts of Select Committee reports, or of parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor to the best of my knowledge have there been any occasions on which members of Select Committees have given such material to any civil servant or the Special Adviser in my Department. This excludes embargoed copies of reports issued under House of Commons Standing Orders.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75881]

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if(a) ministers, (b) parliamentary private secretaries, (c) special advisers and (d) civil servants have discussed the contents of the Committee's reports with any members of the Social Security Committee prior to their publication; [75841]

  (2) if (a) ministers, (b) parliamentary private secretaries, (c) special advisers and (d) civil servants in his Department have received copies of any Social Security Select Committee (i) draft reports and (ii) reports prior to their publication. [75840]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 531. There have been no instances of members of Select

  251
  Committees giving me, or my Ministerial colleagues, drafts of Select Committee reports, or parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor to the best of my knowledge have there been any occasions on which members of Select Committees have given such material to civil servants or special advisers in this Department. This excludes embargoed copies of reports issued under House of Commons Standing Orders.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the groups of disabled people which will automatically be exempted from the new system of periodically reviewing awards of disability living allowance; [69224]

  (2) if the proposed system of periodically reviewing awards of disability living allowance announced on 28 January will include the safeguards announced on 9 February 1998 in respect of the Benefit Integrity Project. [69220]

  Mr. Bayley
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 February 1999, c. 381–82]: From April 1999 a new system of periodically reviewing entitlement to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) will be introduced. We intend to incorporate the lessons already learned and to evaluate and refine the process as it develops. At the outset, not only DLA recipients whose cases were examined by the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) will be excluded from the process, but also people in any one of the specific categories listed who were previously excluded from the action of the BIP will be excluded.

  Groups to be exempt at the outset:
  People receiving the higher rate of the DLA mobility component and either the highest or the middle rate of the DLA care component who are:

  Paraplegic;

  Tetraplegic;

  Quadriplegic;

  Both deaf and blind;

  Double amputees;

  Over the age of 65; or

  With an award made prior to April 1992.

  People receiving the higher rate of the DLA mobility component and the highest rate of the DLA care component with:

  Cystic Fibrosis;

  Dementia;

  Haemodialysis;

  Hyperkinetic Syndrome;

  Learning difficulty1

  Multiple Allergy Syndrome;

  Multiple Sclerosis;

  Motor Neurone Disease;

  Neurological Disease (including Muscular Dystrophy);

  Parkinson's Disease;

  Total Parenteral Nutrition or who are Severely Mentally Impaired.2

  People treated as being terminally ill under criteria set out in Section 66(2)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 will also be excluded, as will anyone with a fixed period award due to end within the next three years. Safeguards developed and introduced during the
  252
  lifetime of the BIP will be carried forward into the new process. This will include the changes in evidence gathering introduced on 9 February 1998; which ensured that no decision to reduce or remove entitlement to DLA is based solely on the information provided by the claimant.
  1 This category applies to people whose main disabling condition has been recorded as "mental subnormality"
  2 This category applies to people who meet the criteria set out in Section 73(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and Regulation 12(5)&(6) of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 68, on pensioner incomes, if the information requested is now available. [75028]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is now available and is in the tables.

  Pensioners receiving a means-tested benefit and not paying income tax

  Thousand

  Single male pensioners

  Single female pensioners

  Pensioner couples

  All pensioner benefit units

  60–64

  90

  100

  170

  360

  65–69

  70

  220

  200

  490

  70–74

  70

  300

  150

  520

  75–79

  80

  330

  140

  550

  80+

  100

  550

  130

  770

  Total

  400

  1,500

  790

  2,690

  Pensioners not receiving a means-tested benefit and not paying income tax

  Thousand

  Single male pensioners

  Single female pensioners

  Pensioner couples

  All pensioner benefit units

  60–64

  20

  20

  90

  130

  65–69

  40

  70

  190

  290

  70–74

  30

  130

  250

  400

  75–79

  40

  130

  190

  360

  80+

  50

  190

  150

  390

  Total

  170

  540

  870

  1,580

  Pensioners not receiving a means-tested benefit and paying income tax

  Thousand

  Single male pensioners

  Single female pensioners

  Pensioner couples

  All pensioner benefit units

  60–64

  110

  160

  910

  1,180

  65–69

  120

  220

  590

  930

  70–74

  100

  240

  420

  760

  75–79

  80

  190

  190

  450

  80+

  90

  190

  130

  400

  Total

  490

  990

  2,240

  3,720

  253

  Pensioners receiving a means-tested benefit and paying income tax

  Thousand

  Single male pensioners

  Single female pensioners

  Pensioner couples

  All pensioner benefit units

  60–64

  20

  40

  50

  100

  65–69

  20

  30

  20

  80

  70–74

  20

  50

  10

  80

  75–79

  20

  30

  *

  50

  80+

  20

  50

  10

  70

  Total

  90

  200

  90

  390

  Notes:

  1. Figures are given to the nearest 10,000 pensioner benefit units, although they are not necessarily accurate to that degree. Figures of less than 5,000 pensioners are denoted by'*'.

  2. Figures may not sum to row or column totals due to rounding.

  3. Figures should be treated with caution since taxpaying status is not directly measured by the Family Resources Survey, but has been imputed using a model based on policies announced up to and including the 1998 budget statement.

  4. Pensioner benefit units are defined as single people and couples (married or cohabiting) where at least one partner is aged over 59. Couples are allocated to age bands according to the age of the older partner.

  5. Taxpaying pensioner benefit units are defined as those where at least one individual in the benefit unit is modelled as liable to income tax.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1996–97

  Family Resources Survey
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate is provided by his Department's Family Resources Survey of the number and proportion of(a) local authority tenants, (b) other social tenants, (c) private renters and (d) owner occupiers who are families with dependent children. [75168]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Number and proportion of households with families and dependant children, by tenure type

  Tenure type

  Number

  Percentage

  Local authority tenants

  1,250,000

  28

  Other social tenants

  330,000

  30

  Private renters

  410,000

  21

  Owner occupiers

  3,940,000

  25

  Notes:

  1. "Local authority tenants" were defined as those households where the landlord was either a local authority/council, a New Town development or Scottish Homes and where the property did not go with the job of anyone in the household. "Other social tenants" was defined as those households where the landlord was either a Housing Association, a co-operative or a charitable trust and where the property did not go with the job of anyone in the household. "Private renters" were defined as those households where the landlord was an employer, friend or relative of a household member, or another private landlord or organisation. "Owner occupiers" were identified as those households that were either owned outright, being bought with the help of a mortgage or loan, or were part rented and part mortgaged.

  2. "Households with families and dependant children" were defined as those households where there was at least one couple or lone parent with at least one dependant child. Pensioner couples with any dependant children were also included in this definition.

  3. Absolute values are rounded to the nearest ten thousand. Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer.

  4. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  Source:

  1996–97 Family Resources Survey (GB).
  254

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the locations at which temperature readings were taken for the cold weather payments scheme in 1998–99. [75260]

  Angela Eagle
  72 weather stations are being used in the scheme this winter.

  A schedule of the weather stations and postcodes linked to each of them is contained in the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No. 2455), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has held with other Governments about extending bilateral agreements to protect the position of UK overseas pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [75237]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held no discussions about extending bilateral Social Security agreements to cover uprating of UK State Pensions paid to pensioners living overseas. Bilateral agreements can be the means of providing annual increases of Retirement Pension, but that is not their primary purpose. An agreement is not strictly necessary to allow payment of pension increases, as that could be achieved through changing UK domestic legislation.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children will benefit from this April's increase in child benefit in(a) the Medway towns and (b) Chatham and Aylesford. [75554]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Child Benefit is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Jonathan Shaw, dated 9 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many children will benefit from this April's increase in child benefit in (a) the Medway towns and (b) Chatham and Aylesford. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  Unfortunately the information to identify families, by region, who are receiving Child Benefit is not readily available. These figures could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I can however, explain the new rates of Child Benefit from April 1999. They will be £14.40 for the eldest child and £9.60 for each subsequent child. The increase for the eldest child includes the extra £2.50 a week announced in the March 1998 budget, plus uprating. This is an overall increase of £3.25 for a family with two children.
  I am sorry I could not be of more help on this occasion.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in(a) the Tamworth constituency and (b) Staffordshire will receive the increase in child benefit. [75656]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Child Benefit is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  255
  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 9 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many families in (a) the Tamworth constituency and (b) Staffordshire will receive the increase in child benefit. As Mr Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  Unfortunately the information to identify families, by region, who are receiving Child Benefit is not readily available. These figures could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I can however, explain the new rates of Child Benefit from April 1999. They will be £14.40 for the eldest child and £9.60 for each subsequent child. The increase for the eldest child includes the extra £2.50 a week announced in the March 1998 budget, plus uprating. This is an overall increase of £3.25 for a family with two children.
  I am sorry I could not be of more help on this occasion.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Attorney-General what official changes in prosecution policy were made in respect of the offences of(a) buggery, (b) indecent assault on a male, (c) indecency between males, (d) rape, (e) indecent assault on a female, (f) unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 years, (g) unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 years, (h) incest and (i) gross indecency with a child, between 1987 and 1997. [75033]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service reviews and prosecutes all cases in accordance with the principles set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The provisions of the Code are set out in the Director of Public Prosecution's Annual Report, copies of which are in the Library of the House. The Code, first published in 1986, was subsequently revised in 1992 and again in 1994. The 1994 edition of the Code simplifies the language of the Code; it clarifies the evidential criterion and the public interest factors in favour of a prosecution.

  The general principles set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors are supported by internal CPS guidance. The internal guidance is not presently in the public domain. In any event, tracing its development over the period covered by the question would not be practical and would involve a disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Newspapers and Magazines
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the total expenditure of his Department, agencies and related public bodies on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; if he will list (i) the titles taken and (ii) which titles have been added and which deleted since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [69198]

  Mr.Dewar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: My Departement purchases or obtains free of charge a wide range of newspapers and periodical publications. A list of
  256
  their titles and those added and deleted since 1 May 1997 has been placed in the House Library. Information about non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally. Details of the total cost for my Departments and Executive Agencies are as follows:

  Departments/agencies

  £

  The Scottish Office

  1996–97

  220,116

  1997–98

  212,431

  1998–99 (estimate)

  210,113

  1999–2000

  Budget not yet set

  Historic Scotland

  1996–97

  5,220

  1997–98

  5,644

  1998–99

  6,000

  1999–2000

  6,700

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  1996–97

  23,595

  1997–98

  26,264

  1998–99

  30,021

  1999–2000

  30,500

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  1996–97

  1,507

  1997–98

  1,906

  1998–99

  1,960

  1999–2000

  Budget not yet set

  Scottish Prison Service

  1996–97

  2,251

  1997–98

  2,624

  1998–99

  2,808

  1999–2000

  2,878

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  1996–97

  52

  1997–98

  71

  1998–99

  81

  1999–2000

  90

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  1996–97

  1,346

  1997–98

  1,704

  1998–99

  1,032

  1999–2000

  1,200

  Fisheries Research Services

  1996–97

  76,400

  1997–98

  79,300

  1998–99

  97,336

  1999–2000

  Budget not yet set

  General Register Office for Scotland

  1996–97

  975

  1997–98

  994

  1998–99

  1,009

  1999–2000

  1,044

  National Archives of Scotland (formerly Scottish Record Office)

  1996–97

  2,699

  1997–98

  2,371

  1998–99

  2,338

  1999–2000

  2,206

  Registers of Scotland

  1996–97

  Not available

  1997–98

  5,605

  1998–99

  5,524

  1999–2000

  5,700

  257

  Departments/agencies

  £

  Scottish Courts Administration

  1996–97

  643

  1997–98

  705

  1998–99

  721

  1999–2000

  756

  Scottish Court Service

  1996–97

  324

  1997–98

  338

  1998–99

  411

  1999–2000

  411

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by his Department since

  Task forces and policy reviews

  Review of the Scottish Roads Programme

  Consultation Paper: 'The Appraisal of Trunk Road Investment' (published August 1998)

  Review of Transport Policy

  Consultation Paper: 'Regional Transport Partnerships and the National Transport Forum for Scotland' (published January 1999)

  Consultation Paper: 'Local Transport Strategies Preliminary Guidance' (published February 1999)

  Working Group on Council Tax Collection

  Consultation Paper: 'It Pays to Collect' (published November 1998)

  Land Reform Policy Group

  Consultation Paper: 'Identifying the Problems' (published February 1998)

  Consultation Paper: 'Identifying the Solutions' (published September 1998)

  Series of public meetings (November 1998)

  Review of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Scotland

  Consultation Paper: 'People and Nature' (published September 1998)

  Scottish Water Industry Review

  Consultation Paper: 'Scottish Water Industry Review' (published July 1997)

  Working Group on Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses

  Consultation Paper: 'Towards a Just Conclusion' (published November 1998)

  Ministerial Action Group on Standards

  Consultation Paper: 'Setting Targets—Raising Standards in Schools' (published 4 March 1998)

  Review of Aspects of Gaelic Broadcasting

  Consultation Paper: 'A Review of Aspects of Gaelic Broadcasting' (published June 1998)

  Committee on Post-School Education and Training of Young People with Special Needs

  Consultation workshops (January 1999)

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  School Computers
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils there are per computer in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each local authority area. [74546]

  Mrs. Liddell
  According to the most recent Annual Survey of Listening, Viewing and Computing (ASLVC) conducted on behalf of The Scottish Office in 1998, there are 15 pupils per computer in primary schools, 49 per cent. of which are more than four years old and 6 pupils per computer in secondary schools, 54 per cent. of which are over four years old. The sampling arrangements for the ASLVC do not provide information 258
  May 1997 which (a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took. [74472]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: No members of task forces or policy reviews established since 1 May 1997 were recruited by way of public advertisement. Most task forces and reviews are short-term bodies established to give thorough consideration to important and difficult issues. External members are invited to sit on some task forces and reviews because they are able to contribute specific experience and expertise. In such cases, public advertising would be inappropriate and disproportionate. Since 1 October 1998, appointments to those task forces which qualify for classification as advisory non-departmental public bodies have come within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  The following task forces and policy reviews are engaged in public consultation exercises.

  at the local authority level. This information will be collected in future as part of the monitoring arrangements for the Excellence Fund.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS nursing vacancies there were at the latest available date. [74515]

  Mr. Galbraith
  As at 31 March 1998, there were 1,097 whole-time equivalent qualified nursing staff vacancies in the NHS in Scotland. This represents a vacancy rate of 3.5 per cent. part of which is turnover.
  259
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Internet (Schools)
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of schools have internet and e-mail access for pupils in each local authority area. [74531]

  Mrs. Liddell
  According to the most recent Annual Survey of Listening, Viewing and Computing (ASLVC) conducted on behalf of The Scottish Office in 1998, 22 per cent. of primary schools and 73 per cent. of secondary schools have some form of internet access. 39 per cent. of primary schools and 72 per cent. of secondary schools have e-mail facilities. The sampling arrangements for the ASLVC do not provide information at the local authority level. This information will be collected in future as part of the monitoring arrangements for the Excellence Fund.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Electoral Roll
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals are on the electoral roll in Scotland. [75507]

  Mr. McLeish
  There were 4,005,720 local government electors on the electoral registers for Scotland which came into force on 16 February 1998. Local government electors are also entitled to vote in Scottish Parliament elections. There were 3,992,502 Parliamentary electors on the registers which came into force on 16 February 1998. Numbers of electors on the electoral registers published on 16 February 1999 are not yet available centrally. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as this information can be obtained.

  Teachers
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total number of(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers in Scotland was in each year since 1992. [74510]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Number of full-time equivalent teachers in publicly funded primary and secondary schools in Scotland

  Primary

  Secondary

  1992–93

  22,747

  24,041

  1993–94

  22,472

  24,326

  1994–95

  22,659

  24,522

  1995–96

  22,550

  24,593

  1996–97

  22,483

  24,265

  1997–98

  22,187

  23,875

  As from 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the balance 260
  between Government expenditure spent in Scotland and Government revenues raised in Scotland in each of the last five years. [75710]

  Mr. Dewar
  The latest estimates of the fiscal position in Scotland were set out in Table 20 of Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1996–1997, published in November 1998.

  Gas-fired Power Station, Gartcosh
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce his decision on the application submitted by PowerGen for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct and operate a new natural gas-fired power station at Gartcosh, North Lanarkshire. [R] [76350]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have decided to refuse consent for PowerGen's application. This decision has been taken after careful consideration of the Report of the public inquiry into the application and all subsequent representations received (which related mainly to the Government's new energy policy), and is founded on the Reporter's recommendation that consent be refused. A copy of my decision letter will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a mater for the Scottish Parliament.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the estimated timetable for the tender and award of franchises for the passenger ferry services to Orkney and Shetland; and if he will make a statement. [75680]

  Mr. Dewar
  My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for transport in Scotland announced on 14 October 1998 the start of a competitive tendering process for a subsidy to provide lifeline ferry services to the Orkney and Shetland Islands from 2002.

  A draft initial proposals document was issued on 22 December 1998 to the Islands Councils and others for comments. Comments received are currently being assessed. A shortlist of potential operators is being draw up. Those selected will be invited soon to submit initial proposals for the services. It is estimated that an award of a contract will be made before the end of 1999.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Nurses
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many whole-time equivalent(a) bank, (b) agency and (c) contract nurses were employed, and at what cost, by health board area in each of the last 10 years. [74990]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 5 March 1999] [pursuant to his reply, 8 March 1999, c. 65–66]: The table in the previous reply was incorrectly reproduced.

  The information available for agency nursing staff is shown in the table. No cost data to match the staff numbers are available. Information for bank and contract nursing staff is not available centrally.
  261

  Agency nursing staff: average Whole Time Equivalent 1 by health board: year ending 30 September

  Health board

  21988

  21989

  21990

  21991

  21992

  21993

  21994

  21995

  21996

  21997

  2,31998

  Scotland2

  238.6

  187.3

  317.4

  255.6

  249.4

  301.1

  195.3

  382.6

  459.3

  455.7

  500.9

  Argyll & Clyde

  —

  1.3

  0.2

  1.1

  0.1

  4.6

  11.6

  39.0

  39.8

  57.0

  68.4

  Ayrshire & Arran

  2.1

  7.2

  1.7

  3.0

  0.2

  0.5

  0.4

  0.4

  0.0

  3.0

  6.0

  Borders

  19.8

  4.4

  —

  —

  0.0

  0.1

  0.3

  0.0

  3.0

  —

  0.2

  Dumfries & Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  0.4

  0.4

  1.3

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  2.3

  1.3

  0.6

  —

  3.7

  0.2

  1.8

  6.5

  2.3

  Forth Valley

  —

  1.1

  10.3

  0.1

  0.0

  0.4

  0.0

  17.3

  63.1

  54.1

  22.5

  Grampian

  13.0

  6.1

  8.0

  11.9

  35.3

  33.6

  26.5

  46.2

  29.4

  21.8

  38.3

  Greater Glasgow

  80.2

  66.0

  179.8

  155.2

  148.7

  127.3

  76.8

  92.8

  67.7

  110.9

  133.7

  Highland

  —

  —

  0.8

  0.5

  —

  0.5

  0.1

  2.4

  4.1

  12.3

  13.2

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  0.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  10.1

  Lothian

  123.5

  100.4

  111.2

  81.0

  64.0

  132.8

  75.8

  184.0

  249.0

  187.8

  203.8

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.2

  Shetland

  —

  0.8

  2.8

  0.9

  —

  —

  —

  0.0

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  1.8

  2.3

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.0

  1 To calculate the average, 1 W. T. E. is taken as a contribution of 37.5 hours per week x 52 = 1,950 hours per year.

  2 Data for 1997 and 1998 are based on one six month period ending 30 September. Data for 1991 to 1996 are based on two six month periods ending 31 March and 30 September. Data for 1988 to 1990 are based on two three month periods ending 31 March and 30 September.

  3 Provisional data

  Note:

  Rounding of individual figures may produce slight differences between the sum of constituent items and totals.

  Source:

  ISD(M)18

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  University Challenge
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is yet in a position to announce the outcome of the University Challenge competition. [76012]

  £million

  University of Leeds/University of Sheffield/University of York (White Rose Consortium)

  4.5

  University of Manchester/UMIST

  4.5

  University of Bath/University of Bristol

  3.75

  University of Birmingham/University of Warwick

  3

  University of Cambridge/The Babraham Institute

  3

  University of Cardiff/University of Wales College of Medicine

  3

  Imperial College, London

  3

  King's College London/Queen Mary and Westfield College London

  3

  London Business School/King's College London/Queen Mary and Westfield College/University College London

  3

  University of Oxford

  3

  University of Strathclyde/University of Glasgow

  3

  University College London/Institute of Cancer Research/Cancer Research Campaign Technologies Ltd./School of Pharmacy, University of London/Imperial Cancer Research Fund/Royal Veterinary College

  3

  University of Edinburgh/The Moredun Foundation/The Roslin Biotechnology Centre/The UK Astronomy Technology Centre of PPARC/Edinburgh Station of the British Geological Survey

  2.25

  Queen's University Belfast/University of Ulster

  2

  University of Aberystwyth/The Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER)

  1

  The total value of proposed awards is £45 million. Awards are subject to the applicants' compliance with all competition requirements. For awards to consortia of institutions, the university leading the bid is listed first.

  Late Payment
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the response by business to legislation on the late payment of debt. [71477]
  262
  Mr. Battle
  One of the Government's key science policy initiatives is to encourage the commercialisation of outcomes from our excellent research base. In that connection, I am delighted to be able to announce the winners of the University Challenge Fund Competition which has been funded and operated jointly by Government, the Wellcome Trust and the Gatsby Charitable Foundation.

  The successful applications are:

  Mr. Wills
  Late payment has a devastating impact on Britain's small businesses. This Government are determined to improve the UK's payment culture to ensure that small businesses can thrive and prosper.

  The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 commenced on 1 November 1998 and provides small suppliers with a statutory right to claim interest on late paid bills and transfers the cost of late payment from the supplier to the late payer.
  263
  My Department is working with the Credit Management Research Group at Leeds University to monitor the legislation, although it is too early to draw conclusions about its impact. However, evidence from the recent Grant Thornton International/Business Strategies Ltd. survey has shown an improvement in the time taken by business in the UK to pay its bills. In addition, evidence from other European Countries that have introduced legislation shows that effective legislation can tackle late payment, particularly when supported by other measures.

  Mortgages
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he will make the mortgage market more transparent for the benefit of consumers. [76352]

  Mr. Byers
  Consumers need clear and comparable information about loan offers so they can identify the best deal. I shall be working with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a package of measures to bring greater clarity, comparability and fairness to the marketing of mortgages and other types of credit.

  We will shortly specify the way in which the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) for low-start and discount mortgages is calculated to require it to reflect the interest and total charges throughout the entire life of the loan. This will ensure that lenders advertise these products on a basis which will permit consumers to compare more easily the cost of one offer with another.

  In the next two months, we shall also consult on proposals to limit the circumstances in which interest rates other than the APR can be shown in credit advertisements and pre-contractual information to those in which alternative interest rates give information which is of real use to consumers in choosing between products.

  We are also consulting on a proposal to require warnings such as "Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other loan secured on it" to be shown in all pre-contractual information. This change will ensure that such warnings are included in brochures, pre-contractual letters and other documents which set out details of loan offers. If we implement this change, we shall remove the requirement for such warnings on advertisements between programmes on radio, television and cinema where they seem to be less useful for consumers.

  We will shortly implement an EU Directive which requires only one formula to calculate the APR to be used throughout the European Union. This will enable consumers to make easy comparisons between different loan offers from lenders throughout Europe.

  We will also extend the scope for bodies in addition to the Director General of Fair Trading to take injunctive action under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994. Regulators, including the Financial Services Authority, as well as consumer bodies will receive these powers.

  Over the next year, we will consult on further measures to improve consumer protection.

  I am concerned that the current provisions on extortionate credit in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 do not adequately safeguard vulnerable consumers against
  264
  the charging of unjust interest rates. DTI has commissioned research on which we shall base proposals to improve consumer protection in this crucial area.

  We will also consult on a proposal to change Regulations on the terms on which loans are settled early, and to ensure that consumers know before they take out the loan the terms on which they can settle it. We propose to replace the Rule of 78 with a simpler formula which will be fair and equitable for consumers in a range of circumstances. We also propose to require reasonable indications of the terms of early settlement to be given in pre-contractual information so that consumers have another measure with which they can compare offers.

  We will also review the regulation of credit advertising with the aim of making the regulations simpler and more sharply focused on requiring informative and truthful advertising.

  Finally, we shall review the practice of exempting named mortgage lenders from the requirement to make regulated agreements under the Consumer Credit Act.

  British Ski Instructors
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the ability of British ski instructors to offer ski courses in France; and if he will make a statement. [74402]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department has received representations from the British Association of Ski Instructors (BASI), and from individual ski instructors, about difficulties which British-qualified ski instructors have been experiencing when trying to work in France on the basis of the their British qualifications. The Government have been pursuing this matter with the French authorities over the past year. Progress has been slower than we would have wished, but BASI are now talking to representatives of French ski instructors, with the aim of developing a joint technical test. This may offer the prospect of significant progress towards resolving this issue. My Department will, however, continue to keep in close touch with BASI on developments.

  World Trade Agreement (Genetically Modified Foodstuffs)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish those parts of the World Trade Agreement that prevent the United Kingdom, or any member state of the European Community from restricting the import of foodstuffs from the United States of America, solely on the grounds of their genetically modified character; the date and place when the agreement was concluded; the names and status of those persons negotiating and signing that agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom; and when that part relating to the import of such foods was considered by Parliament. [73723]

  Mr. Wilson
  Approval of genetically modified foodstuffs for importation into the EU is governed by EU legislation, specifically the Novel Foods Regulation (258/97/EC). The principles of this Regulation adhere to the WTO Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, which recognises the right of members to take measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant health but requires that any trade
  265
  measures are based on scientific principles and are not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. This agreement formed part of the WTO Agreement which concluded the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations on 15 December 1993. The WTO Agreement was negotiated by the European Commission in consultation with EC member states under the provisions of the EC Treaties. The Agreement was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom by Mr. Tim Sainsbury in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994. Under the Ponsonby rule, the Agreement was laid before Parliament in May 1994 and debated on 14 June 1994, Official Report, columns 521–601. The United Kingdom's instrument of Ratification to the WTO Agreement was deposited with the GATT Legal Adviser on 30 December 1994. For the EC, the WTO Agreement was accepted by means of a Council decision and assent given by the European Parliament. The Agreement entered into force on 1 January 1995. The main WTO Agreement was published as Treaty Series No. 57 of 1996 (Cm 3277), and the Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures as No. 54 of 1996 (Cm 3275). The UK's certified copy of the WTO Agreement resides in the Public Record Office.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes will be made to the cash limits for his Department. [76351]

  Mr. Byers
  Further to my answer given to the House on 11 February 1999,Official Report, columns 412–13, and subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary revised supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Class V, Vote 2—Department of Trade and Industry: Science—will be increased by £15,000,000 from £1,367,459,000 to £1,382,459,000. This net increase results from additional provision of £15,000,000 for part funding of the University Challenge Fund.

  This net increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the export credit guarantee cover given to non-military exports to Indonesia since May 1997. [74411]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since 1 May 1997 ECGD has issued guarantees in respect of two civil projects in Indonesia.

  These were, firstly, for power station extensions being undertaken by Allen Power of the Outer Islands Diesel Generating Plant and, secondly, for Reyrolle's provision of 500 KV transmission lines between Ungaran and Klaten and of a 500–150 KV sub-station at Klaten.

  Confectionery (Toys)
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which manufacturers of confectionery containing toys have provided instructions for action to be taken in the event of ingestion of such toys or their container; [73825]
  266
  (2) if he will consult consumer, safety and medical experts on the risks to children of choking on toys placed inside confectionery and the steps necessary to prevent it. [73827]

  Dr. Howells
  I am not aware of any manufacturers providing medical advice on action to be taken in the event of toys being ingested. All toys supplied in the UK—no matter how they are packaged—must meet the safety requirements of the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1995 which implement harmonised European requirements. Research undertaken by DTI has established that the main causes of choking involving children under three years of age are sweets, coins and food objects—none of which is required to be accompanied by medical advice.

  DTI has had the issue of choking accidents involving young children under review for some time; has considered information published in various papers; has considered various comments received; and has commissioned research on accident data collected by the Home Accident Surveillance System. However, I would of course welcome any new data or results of research that consumer organisations may be aware of.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which reporting category in the HASS system specifically covers choking on, or ingestion of, toys placed by manufacturers inside confectionery; [73826]

  (2) which manufacturers of confectionery containing toys have asked his Department for product-specific case listings from the Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System. [73828]

  Dr. Howells
  Injuries involving toys or parts of toys are recorded under category 21 of table 10 in the Home Accident Surveillance System report. Details of accidents, including case listings, can also be extracted from the database according to the accident mechanism, e.g. choking. The various ways in which HASS can be interrogated ensures that all the home accidents treated by the A&E departments of the participating hospitals can be accessed.

  Data from HASS records are freely available on request to manufacturers, organisations and individuals with an interest in consumer safety. Comprehensive lists of those requesting information are not maintained.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by his Department since May 1997 which(a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took. [74461]

  Mr. Straw
  No task forces or policy reviews established since May 1997 have had external members
  267
  recruited by public advertisement. Most task forces and policy reviews are short-term, established to give thorough consideration to important and difficult issues. External members are invited to take part in some reviews and task forces because they are able to contribute to specific experience and expertise. In such cases, public advertising would be inappropriate and disproportionate.

  Review

  Form of consultation

  Review to Consider Permanent UK-Wide Counter Terrorism Legislation

  Consultation document published 17 December 1998.

  Interdepartmental Review of Police Pensions

  Consultation document published on 31 March 1998.

  Working Party on Electoral Procedures

  Concerned the sale of the electoral register and not about the Working Party's remit as a whole. News release published on 3 August 1998 invited initial responses and is being followed up by meetings and correspondence with interested parties.

  Review of Family Court Welfare

  A joint consultation document from the Home Office, Lord Chancellor's Department and Department of Health was published in July 1998.

  Review of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Preventing Unsuitable People from Working with Children and Abuse of Trust

  Written public consultation in August/September 1998, supported by seminars. Further written consultation in January/February 1999.

  Review of Immigration and Asylum Appeals

  Consultation paper issued on 13 July 1998.

  Review on Measures on Community Safety

  Consultation paper published September 1997.

  Prisons-Probation Review

  Consultation paper issued 6 August 1998.

  Review of Anti-Social Behaviour

  Consultation paper issued September 1997.

  Sex Offences Review

  Consultation leaflet issued on 25 January 1999.

  Interdepartmental Review of Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses

  Views invited by letter and conference. The report of the Review's Working Group was published for consultation on 10 June 1998.

  Review of Arrangements for Confiscation of Criminal Assets

  Report issued for consultation in November 1998.

  Working Group considering a possible new offence of misuse of public office

  Expected to report later in 1999 via a consultation paper.

  Task Force on Youth Justice

  Draft guidance on establishing youth offending teams published for consultation in February 1998.

  Decision 276/1999/EC
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what the nineteenth recital of Decision 276/1999/EC refers; and what is his Department's policy in respect of it. [75055]

  Kate Hoey
  The 19th recital states that the Community action plan on promoting safer use of the internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks should take account of the work accomplished in the field of justice and home affairs. The Government support this proposal, which closely follows our own approach to this issue.

  Europol
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to make use of Council Act 1999/c26/01 of 3 November 1998 with regard to the supply and sharing of and access to Europol material; what data the United Kingdom have already supplied to (i) the Europol Agency and (ii) the Schengen authorities; for what reason storage is required under the Act; if Article 10.4 enables Europol to carry out intelligence assessments in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [75056]

  Kate Hoey
  The Europol Convention entered into force on 1 October 1998. Europol has not yet, however, taken up the full range of its activities. There are two
  268
  Since 1 October 1998, appointments to those task forces which qualify for classification as advisory non-departmental public bodies have come within the remit of the Commissioner of Public Appointments.

  Consultation exercises were associated with the following task forces and policy reviews:

  outstanding sets of implementing regulations yet to be agreed and two member states have yet to notify ratification of one of the protocols to the Convention.

  Once Europol is fully up and running, our law enforcement agencies will, through the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), make full use of the criminal intelligence analysis facilities Europol offers. In the meantime, information exchange takes place between the NCIS and United Kingdom liaison officers based at Europol's predecessor the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU).

  Article 2 of the Europol Convention sets out the objectives of Europol and Article 3 its tasks. Article 10 and related regulations, all of which have been deposited for scrutiny, set out the circumstances in which data will be collected, processed, used and exchanged. Europol will be able to store only data that are necessary to enable it to carry out its remit. In the case of personal data, prior permission will be needed from Europol's Management Board and from Europol's Independent Data Protection Authority before such data can be collected and stored in an analysis file.

  The assessment of information and intelligence relating to serious criminal activity in the United Kingdom is the responsibility of NCIS.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the planned level of involvement of Europol in internal EU fraud investigations. [75054]
  269
  Kate Hoey
  Europol's remit does not at present extend to fraud. As far as I am aware, no proposals have been made for Europol to become involved in internal European Union fraud investigations.

  Local Crime and Disorder Strategies
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures he has established to ensure that local crime and disorder strategies will be monitored, evaluated and audited for evidence of success; and if he will make a statement. [75247]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires the responsible authorities—the police and local authorities—to review progress against objectives and targets set in their strategies so as to monitor effectiveness. My Department will continue to work with the Audit Commission, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and other key partners to support the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships in their vital work.

  Community Orders
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of community orders were completed successfully at the latest date for which figures are available, and what were the relevant targets of his Department. [75241]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The table gives provisional results from 1997, shown against targets for 1997–98. While completions will continue to be collected and published, they are no longer key performance indicators and there are no current targets.

  Per cent.

  1997–98 target: to achieve the following completion rates within the framework of the enforcement requirements of National Standards

  1997 results (provisional)

  Probation order

  82

  85

  Community service order

  80

  78

  Supervision order

  80

  85

  Combination order

  80

  79

  Reconviction Rates
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were the (i) predicted and (ii) actual

  Actual reconviction rate within two years

  Rate adjusted for pseudo-reconvictions

  1994

  Community service—service order

  48

  41

  Probation with probation centre or specified activity requirement

  62

  57

  Other probation

  58

  52

  Combination order

  60

  55

  Custody

  56

  54

  1995 (1st quarter)

  Community service—service order

  51

  44

  Probation with probation centre or specified activity requirement

  62

  57

  Other probation

  58

  52

  Combination order

  60

  55

  Custody

  55

  53

  270
  reconviction rates for persons sentenced to (a) prison and (b) community orders over the last two years for which figures are available; [75240]

  (2) what was the two year reconviction rate, with adjustments for pseudo-reconvictions, for (a) community service orders, (b) probation orders, (c) probation centre with specific activities orders, (d) combination orders and (e) imprisonment at the latest date for which figures are available. [75239]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The most recent available information relates to samples of offenders commencing community penalties or discharged from custody in 1994 and in the first quarter of 1995. Results of a comparison between reconviction rates for the two types of disposal were reported in paragraphs 9.25 to 9.27 in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 1997".

  The following table contains actual and predicted reconviction rates (within two years of commencement of order or discharge from prison) that were used in this analysis:

  Community penalties 1

  Custody

  1994

  Actual reconviction rate within two years

  54

  56

  Predicted rate2

  53

  59

  Actual-Predicted

  1

  -3

  1995 (1st quarter)

  Actual reconviction rate within two years

  56

  55

  Predicted rate2

  54

  58

  Actual-Predicted

  2

  -3

  1 Probation, community service and combination orders

  2 Predicted on the basis of a prediction model applied to community penalty and custody results for a year

  The differences between actual and predicted rates do not take account of effect of pseudo-reconvictions. After allowing for the influence of pseudo-reconvictions (effectively a four percentage point adjustment in favour of community penalties) the difference between reconviction rates for those commencing orders or discharged from prison in 1994 was, using unrounded percentages, 0.1 percentage points in favour of custody. This suggests there is currently no discernible difference between reconviction rates for custody and community penalties. The difference for the 1995 samples indicates a similar picture with a difference in favour of custody of one percentage point after the adjustment for predicted rates and pseudo-reconvictions had been made.

  The two year reconviction rates for different types of community order and imprisonment are as follows:
  271

  Community Safety
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department is undertaking to ensure that other Government departments are identifying areas where they can improve community safety and reduce crime; and if he will make a statement. [75245]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are working with the Departments of Health and for Education and Employment to produce guidance on how the services for which they are responsible can make a constructive contribution to the work of local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. We will consider what more can be done to ensure that all Departments take account of community safety.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Audit Commission report Safety in Numbers, Promoting Community Safety. [75244]

  Civilian and traffic warden strength 1, by Police Force, as at 31 March 1997 and 30 September 1998

  Civilians2

  Traffic wardens

  31 March 1997

  30 September 1998

  31 March 1997

  30 September1998

  Avon and Somerset

  1,439

  1,435

  108

  101

  Bedfordshire

  484

  513

  31

  26

  Cambridgeshire

  607

  572

  39

  37

  Cheshire

  735

  786

  34

  33

  City of London

  347

  334

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  609

  585

  22

  24

  Cumbria

  451

  462

  21

  19

  Derbyshire

  723

  802

  50

  52

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,159

  1,224

  114

  117

  Dorset

  615

  691

  61

  46

  Durham

  583

  551

  22

  21

  Dyfed-Powys

  322

  346

  20

  16

  Essex

  1,199

  1,260

  136

  123

  Gloucestershire

  435

  451

  33

  35

  Greater Manchester

  2,612

  2,616

  208

  172

  Gwent

  452

  491

  34

  32

  Hampshire

  1,316

  1,381

  77

  72

  Hertfordshire

  818

  827

  72

  49

  Humberside

  718

  797

  60

  58

  Kent

  1,384

  1,502

  58

  36

  Lancashire

  1,126

  1,242

  115

  109

  Leicestershire

  755

  766

  79

  75

  Lincolnshire

  521

  524

  24

  25

  Merseyside

  1,343

  1,453

  132

  105

  Metropolitan Police

  13,493

  12,033

  1,383

  1,062

  Norfolk

  603

  641

  43

  42

  Northamptonshire

  554

  608

  25

  24

  Northumbria

  1,365

  1,430

  112

  73

  North Wales

  476

  489

  18

  15

  North Yorkshire

  520

  535

  26

  27

  Nottinghamshire

  1,003

  995

  68

  57

  South Wales

  1,206

  1,149

  106

  105

  South Yorkshire

  1,291

  1,254

  80

  82

  Staffordshire

  763

  878

  37

  31

  Suffolk

  522

  595

  33

  33

  Surrey

  727

  734

  30

  25

  Sussex

  1,149

  1,216

  140

  133

  Thames Valley

  1,825

  1,827

  117

  101

  Warwickshire

  376

  403

  12

  9

  West Mercia

  942

  979

  38

  30

  West Midlands

  2,739

  2,605

  210

  204

  West Yorkshire

  2,234

  2,281

  136

  123

  Wiltshire

  475

  542

  21

  17

  NCS

  n/a

  306

  0

  0

  NCIS

  n/a

  265

  0

  0

  Total strength

  53,011

  53,370

  4,181

  3,570

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest full-time equivalent

  2 Staff seconded to National Crime Squad (NCS) and National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) are not separately identified but are included in the force figures

  272
  Mr. Boateng
  I welcome the Audit Commission report; it provides a valuable analysis of progress to date and we are studying carefully the recommendations which it contains. We have worked closely with the Audit Commission and other key partners in developing the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. We intend to continue that co-operation so as to ensure that the initiative is effective.

  Police (Civilian Staff)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (i) civilian staff and (ii) traffic wardens were employed in each police force area on(a)the last date for which figures are available and (b)31 March 1997. [75246]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available information is set out in the table.
  273

  Crime (Costs)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the annual total cost of crime in each region of England and Wales, and in total in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [75338]

  Mr. Boateng
  No single measure of the total cost of crime currently exists for England and Wales. But within the context of the crime reduction programme, the Home Office is currently working to develop an estimate of the cost of crime, including the full costs to the victim.

  Outside Consultants
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of times since 1 May 1997 that his Department has employed outside consultants indicating in each case(a) the task and (b) the cost of the contract. [75449]

  Mr. Straw
  Information on the number of times since 1 May 1997 that the Department has employed outside consultants, the tasks they undertook and the cost of each contract is not recorded centrally and could be obtained at short notice only at disproportionate cost.

  However, a planned exercise will take place in April this year to gather information on the Department's use of consultants and it is expected that the data will be available during May. I will place this information in the Library when it is available, and will write to the hon. Member at the same time.

  Lighter Fuel Refills
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what age limit he proposes to introduce for the purchase of lighter fuel refills; [75469]

  (2) when he proposes to announce new regulations covering the sale of lighter fuel refills. [75468]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We are still considering the responses to the consultation paper on sales of gas lighter refills.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what publicity he plans to produce on the dangers of lighter fuel refills; and if he will make a statement. [75470]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health Education Authority includes information on the risk of volatile substance abuse, including lighter refills, in its general publicity material and information leaflets on drugs misuse.

  In addition, it is planning a publicity campaign targeted at retailers to raise awareness of the issue of volatile substance abuse. It will also inform retailers of their legal responsibilities when selling products that could be used for the purpose of volatile substance abuse.

  Wheel Clampers
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to regulate wheel dampers; and if he will make a statement. [75259]
  274
  Mr. Boateng
  In the transport White Paper "A new deal for Transport; Better for Everyone", we announced our intention to introduce regulation of wheel clamping on private land as part of a package of statutory measures to regulate the private security industry as a whole. I intend to bring forward firm proposals for regulating the private security industry, and will be making an announcement to that effect soon.

  Immigration
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to acknowledge the application of Mrs. Devi Singh-Clark for a residence visa on 16 November 1998 and to return her and her husband's passports. [75645]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that we are unable to identify the application of Mrs. Devi Singh-Clark from the details supplied by the hon. Member. If the hon. Member wishes to write to me giving Mrs. Devi Singh-Clark's date of birth and nationality and, if possible, her Home Office reference number, I will be able to provide him with the information requested.

  Deaths in Custody
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the procedure for disclosure in inquest cases to take account of the recommendations in the Annual Report of the Police Complaints Authority 1995–96 regarding deaths in police custody and the recommendations of the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the case of Kenneth Severin (C993/97 and A27/99). [75884]

  Mr. Boateng
  Guidance is shortly to be issued to Chief Officers of Police about the disclosure of documentary evidence to interested parties in advance of inquest hearings which concern deaths in police custody. The guidance advises that disclosure should be normal practice in all cases of deaths in police custody, as well as deaths arising from fatal road crashes involving the police.

  The Prison Service has reviewed its practice in relation to investigations into deaths in prison custody, as a result of which it proposes to investigate any death occurring after 1 April 1999 on the basis of disclosure, before the inquest, to those whom the Coroner believes to have a proper interest in preparing for it.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review whether the policy of the Prison Service in relation to disclosure of internal inquiry reports is in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and if he will make a statement. [75890]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service has reviewed its practice in relation to investigations into deaths in prison custody, as a result of which it proposes to investigate any death occurring on or after 1 April on the basis of disclosure, before the inquest, to those whom the Coroner believes to have a proper interest in preparing for it. This disclosure must not, of course, compromise the inquest or any criminal proceeding or infringe the legal rights of witnesses. Each case will be reviewed in accordance with the code.
  275
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will release to the family of the deceased the internal Prison Service inquiry report into the recent death at HMP Belmarsh of Peter Knox. [75892]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The report has been received by the director of dispersal prisons, who commissioned it. He will review the family's request under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, and in consultation with the Coroner. Members of the family have met the senior investigating officer who carried out this investigation. She has passed their specific concerns to the director.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Prisons Ombudsman regarding complaints about deaths in prison custody and the rights of a deceased person's family; and if he will make a statement. [75893]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prisons Ombudsman meets Home Office Ministers on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues. An internal Home Office review, which reported in November 1998, considered whether the Prisons Ombudsman's terms of reference should be extended to include the investigation of complaints relating to deaths in prison custody. The report recommended that a decision on this issue should be deferred until the Prison Service had established its policy on the disclosure of its internal investigation reports.

  A protocol allowing pre-inquest disclosure of investigation reports to properly interested parties is to be introduced on 1 April. We intend to reconsider whether the Prisons Ombudsman's remit should include deaths in custody once the impact of this protocol has been properly assessed.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken or proposes to take following the publication of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration's reports (C993/97 and A27/99) on his investigation into the complaint from the family of the late Kenneth Severn. [75889]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service has accepted the criticisms made by the Parliamentary Commissioner (Reports C993/97 and A27/99). In his reports, the Commissioner acknowledges the improvements in procedures which were made in the light of the three tragic deaths following restraint which occurred in 1995. Good progress has been made both locally and nationally by the Prison Service in improving control and restraint procedures, and improvements have been made at Belmarsh. I wish to acknowledge the contribution which the Parliamentary Commissioner's investigation and report has made to these.

  The Prison Service has accepted the Commissioner's judgment that the internal investigation report into Mr. Severin's death should now be made available to the family.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken following his meeting with the hon. Members for Erith and Thamesmead and for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) on 21 July 1998 concerning the deaths of Kenneth Severin, Alton Manning and Dennis Stevens. [75891]
  276
  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the then Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation, met with the hon. Members for Erith and Thamesmead and for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) on 21 July 1998 to discuss their concerns about the deaths of Kenneth Severin, Alton Manning and Dennis Stevens. Since that meeting, the Prison Service has continued to work on a range of measures to improve control and restraint training, investigations into deaths in prison custody and the handling of relatives following a death.

  A full review of policy on control and restraint procedures was carried out last year. A revised training syllabus for basic training is nearing completion which reinforces instructions that officers will release prisoners from restraint holds as quickly as possible. Improved monitoring and auditing of the use of force will be adopted by the introduction of a new Prison Service Order on the use of force, which is shortly to be issued.

  In the autumn of last year, a Prison Service instruction was issued reinforcing standardised procedures to be adopted in investigations into deaths in custody. At the same time, a Prison Service Order was issued outlining guidance and good practice in the sensitive handling of bereaved relatives during the traumatic aftermath of a death in custody. This work will continue with moves towards greater openness in pre-inquest disclosure of information to families from 1 April this year.

  Following the recent decision by the Crown Prosecution Service that no charges should be laid in connection with the death of Mr. Alton Manning at Blakenhurst in 1995, the Prison Service has commissioned an investigation as to the reinstatement or revocation of the certification of the prison custody officers involved.

  The death of Mr. Dennis Stevens at Dartmoor in 1995 is under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration following a complaint by Inquest on behalf of the family.

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if(a) he and (b) his officials had seen a copy of the edition of The Sunday Telegraph of 21 February containing a number of paragraphs from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report before he sought an injunction against that paper; and if he will make a statement. [75819]

  Mr. Straw
  No. Neither I nor my officials had seen a copy of The Sunday Telegraph of 21 February before I sought an injunction against that paper. I explained the circumstances and the information available to me, which led me to seek an injunction, in my oral statement to the House on 22 February 1999, Official Report, columns 21–34.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what time on 20 February he informed the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), that he intended to seek an injunction against The Sunday Telegraph; and if he will make a statement. [75817]
  277
  Mr. Straw
  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), was informed by a Private Secretary at around 8.30pm on Saturday 20 February that I intended to seek an injunction against The Sunday Telegraph.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what time on 20 February he informed the Prime Minister's Office he intended to seek an injunction against The Sunday Telegraph; and if he will make a statement. [75816]

  Mr. Straw
  The Prime Minister's Office was informed around 7pm on Saturday 20 February that I intended to seek an injunction against The Sunday Telegraph.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what time on 20 February he applied for an injunction against The Sunday Telegraph; and if he will make a statement. [75818]

  Mr. Straw
  The application was made by telephone by Counsel acting on my behalf between 8pm and 8.15pm on the evening of Saturday 20 February. I made an oral statement to the House on 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 21–34.

  Mentally Ill Offenders
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of offenders in each year for the last 10 years for which figures are available who have been directed under section 39 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for appropriate hospital treatment but have remained in prison. [74798]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information relates to receptions of persons into prisons in England and Wales under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and is given in the table.

  Reception of persons into prisons in England and Wales under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, 1989 to 1998

  Year

  Number of receptions into prisons

  1989

  165

  1990

  159

  1991

  121

  1992

  1—

  1993

  148

  1994

  271

  1995

  202

  1996

  216

  1997

  196

  19982

  192

  1 Not available

  2 Provisional

  Mrs. D. J. L. Sidey
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will ensure the return to Mrs. D. J. L. Sidey of 4 Hoskings Court, Strode Road, Buckfastleigh, South Devon TQ11 OPF, before the end of March of her passports currently at Lunar House, Croydon, including her old Chinese passport No. 2041144; [75205]
  278
  (2) if he will ensure that, when Mrs. D. J. L. Sidey of 4 Hoskings Court, Strode Road, Buckfastleigh, South Devon TQ11 OPF, receives her new passport from the Immigration and Nationality Department it is endorsed with the grant of indefinite leave to remain. [75204]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Mrs. Sidey's new and expired passports were returned to her on 1 March 1999 unendorsed, as requested in the letter of 5 February 1999.

  Prisoners (Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) nature, (b) content and (c) success rate of (i) alcoholism and (ii) drug rehabilitation programmes for prisoners. [74799]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service currently provides a range of rehabilitation programmes applicable to both drug and alcohol addiction. These include Minnesota 12-step, cognitive behavioural and relapse prevention programmes, in addition to longer-term therapeutic communities.

  Although the programmes vary in structure, content and delivery, they all incorporate educational and counselling group-work forms of therapy. Community drug agencies are involved in the development and delivery of all drug rehabilitation programmes and work in partnership with prison staff.

  Independent evaluation of the first tranche of drug rehabilitation programmes found completion rates to be broadly comparable to those achieved in the community. The Prison Service requires all rehabilitation programmes to gain central accreditation by April 2002 and, over the next three years, will commission independent research to assess the longer-term effects of rehabilitation upon offending and drug misuse.

  Prison Medical Service
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the joint report with the Health Department on the Prison Medical Service. [74800]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Department of Health and Home Office Ministers have been considering carefully the review's findings and recommendations, in consultation with other Ministers with an interest. I anticipate the Government will be in a position to make an announcement and publish the report shortly.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the number of prison medical officers and doctors needed by the Prison Service with a diploma in psychiatric medicine or a more advanced qualification; [74802]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of appropriately qualified prison medical officers needed for the Service; and if he will make a statement. [74804]

  Mr. George Howarth
  About 230 full-time or part-time doctors currently provide primary care in Prison Service establishments. There are 25 vacancies. The most recent survey indicates that at least 20 doctors have a postgraduate qualification in psychiatric medicine.
  279
  The issues of organisation, staffing and qualifications of staff working in prison health care are among those considered by a joint Prison Service and NHS Executive Working Group. The Group's Report is currently under consideration by the Government, and it is planned to publish the Report and to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have gained the Nottingham University Diploma in Prison Medicine since its inception; and what proportion of diploma holders are currently working in the Prison Service. [74803]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Nine prison doctors have graduated in the two-year Diploma in Prison Medicine since it started at the University of Nottingham in 1996. I was present when they all graduated in December 1998. They are all currently in the employment of the Prison Service.

  Prisoners (NHS Hospitals)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners(a) on remand and (b) sentenced are awaiting transfer to an NHS hospital. [74801]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 4 March 1999, the Mental Health Unit of the Home Office, which authorises transfers to hospital exercising the warrant of the Secretary of State, had 20 cases of remand prisoners on which medical reports had been submitted by prisons recommending transfer to hospital under section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983. On the same date, the Unit also had 18 cases of sentenced prisoners on whom medical

  Review

  Actual report date

  Anticipated report date

  Comments

  Review of prison drugs strategy

  May 1998

  —

  —

  —

  Independent commission on Voting Systems

  29 October 1998

  —

  —

  —

  Working group considering a possible new offence of misuse of public office

  —

  —

  Expects to report later this year via a consultation paper.

  —

  Review of the Prison Service Quantum project

  February 1999

  —

  —

  Made recommendations to enable the Prison Service to meet its business objectives through more efficient use of IT and processes.

  Review of prison investigation strategy

  Reported to Ministers in Autumn 1998

  —

  New procedures expected to be implemented in Summer 1999.

  —

  Prison Service quinquennial review

  —

  —

  Set up in August 1998 to review performance of the agency and alternative options for delivery of service. Has not yet reported.

  —

  Review of the operation of release of prisoners on temporary licence

  —

  —

  Started August 1997 and is ongoing.

  —

  Retail crime reduction action team

  —

  —

  Established in May 1998 to cut/reduce retail crime and develop intervention strategies which prevent the occurrence of retail crime.

  —

  280
  reports had been submitted by prisons recommending transfer to hospital under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75870]

  Mr. Straw
  Apart from the transcripts of evidence given by Ministers and officials, and embargoed copies of reports supplied in the normal way by Select Committees under House of Commons Standing Orders, there have been no instances of members of Select Committees giving me drafts of Select Committee reports, or of parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, have there been any occasions on which members of Select Committees have given such material to civil servants or special advisers in my Department.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71509]

  Mr. Straw
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 February 1999, c. 383–88]: I should like to update the information provided on Task Forces and Reviews, established by my Department since 1 May 1997. Some other, previous inaccuracies have also been corrected.
  281

  Review

  Actual report date

  Anticipated report date

  Comments

  Vehicle crime reduction action team

  —

  —

  Established in September 1998 — to achieve the Home Secretary's target for a 30% reduction in vehicle crime over a five-year period from September 1998.

  Review of the TOTE

  —

  April 1999

  To look at the scope of greater — private involvement in the Horserace Totalisator Board (the TOTE).

  —

  Review

  Actual report date

  Anticipated report date

  Terms of reference

  Working party on electoral procedures

  —

  —

  Established in January 1998 to review current electoral procedures.

  Task Force

  Human Rights Task Force

  —

  —

  Joint/Government/Officials/non-government organisation group announced at Commons third reading of the Human Rights Bill on 21 October 1988.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by her

  Reviews/task forces/advisory groups

  Costs (£)

  Reports published

  NIO

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Review

  56,170

  —

  NI Drugs Strategy Review

  51,945

  —

  Independent Commission on Policing

  1,067,685

  —

  Review of the Criminal Justice System in NI

  147,439

  Consultation Paper 27 August 1998

  Review of Information Services

  10,998

  November 1997

  DED

  New Deal in NI Task Force

  5,131

  —

  NI Skills Task Force

  —

  —

  Review of Training Centres and Further Education Colleges

  1,961

  September 1998

  Review of Industrial Development Support Services: NI

  8,192

  —

  Working Group to plan for a single NI Equality Commission

  2,540

  Consultation paper 2 February 1999

  Fundamental Review of the Economic Development Strategy in NI

  144,000

  —

  Implementation of the EU Directive on the Internal Market in Electricity

  32,000

  —

  Advisory Group on the NI Science Park

  1,168

  —

  University for Industry (NI) Advisory Group

  1,663

  —

  DENI

  Youth Service Policy Review Group

  60,400

  (i) Initial considerations December 1997

  (ii) Youth Service Policy Review, a Consultation Report, October 1998

  Working Group on the Strategic Promotion of Education for Mutual Understanding in schools

  —

  —

  Millennium Volunteers Advisory Group

  —

  —

  Working Party on Integrated Education

  1—

  Towards a Culture of Tolerance: Integrating Education December 1998

  Transformation Working Group

  1—

  —

  Strategic Management Group for Education Tehcnology in Schools

  43,198

  —

  Further Education Consultative Committee

  —

  —

  DHSS

  Review of the 1993 Strategy for the Support of the Voluntary Sector and for Community Development in NI

  11,689

  —

  Review of the District Councils' Community Services Programme

  24,000

  —

  The NI Strategy on Alcohol Misuse—A Policy Development Project

  2,653

  —

  282
  Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published.[71513]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:
  283

  Reviews/task forces/advisory groups

  Costs (£)

  Reports published

  Review of Ambulance Provision in NI

  12,000

  —

  Review of Services for Acutely III Children

  1,700

  September 1998

  Review of Cardiology Services in NI

  3,937

  —

  Nursing & Midwifery Workforce Advisory Group

  —

  —

  NI Advisory Committee on Blood Safety

  —

  —

  DOE

  Review of the NI Transport Holding Company

  10,000

  Announcement in Parliament 18 September 1998

  Review of Trust Ports in NI

  50,000

  Announcement in Parliament 12 May 1998

  1 This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on hospitality and entertainment in each month of 1998, broken down by department. [73893]

  £

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  NIO

  25,536

  20,872

  21,364

  17,097

  21,266

  25,276

  44,435

  18,987

  19,466

  38,698

  25,206

  21,431

  DANI

  2,513

  7,283

  2,313

  12,261

  7,781

  7,518

  4,779

  2,114

  2,207

  26

  3,666

  3,371

  DED

  24,734

  14,526

  33,241

  9,271

  17,970

  15,731

  24,988

  8,851

  14,275

  18,269

  13,493

  13,102

  DENI

  6,277

  4,462

  608 cr

  3,009

  1,517

  1,206

  2,248

  524

  3,395

  2,756

  1,777

  1,993

  DFP

  2,850

  4,988

  9,995

  4,450

  4,010

  10,333

  4,436

  2,511

  10,164

  3,341

  5,568

  6,641

  DHSS

  10,117

  13,830

  16,720

  5,337

  7,080

  10,890

  6,058

  2,944

  5,869

  6,444

  7,101

  8,786

  DOE

  6,911

  10,965

  12,974

  8,350

  14,563

  17,898

  10,717

  9,125

  7,415

  12,675

  9,104

  14,910

  78,938

  76,926

  95,999

  59,775

  74,187

  88,852

  97,661

  45,056

  62,791

  82,209

  65,915

  70,234

  Note:

  Figures cover both Ministerial and Departmental spend.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) of 4 February 1999,Official Report, columns 698–702, if she will set out the circumstances of the deaths in 1998 due to the security situation. [74009]

  Mr. Ingram
  Of the 17 deaths attributed to loyalists: three were the Quinn children, who died as a result of a petrol bomb attack upon their home; one was a police officer, who died as a result of injuries received in a blast bomb attack; one person was murdered by Loyalist prisoners whilst on remand for terrorist offences; and the remaining twelve victims all died as a result of shooting incidents.

  Of the 37 deaths attributed to Republicans, twenty-nine were as a result of the Omagh bombing and eight died as a result of shooting incidents.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended 27 February 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; [75270]
  284
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  (2) if she will list for the week ended 27 February the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland and indicate how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [75269]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of security incidents during the period 21 February-27 February are shown.

  Shooting incidents: Nil

  Bombing incidents: One.

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

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  2

  1

  Shootings

  0

  0

  Total

  2

  1

  Notes:

  1.Figures may be subject to minor amendment in the light of further information becoming available

  2.The bombings cannot as yet be attributed to a grouping

  Human Rights Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the outgoing Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights applied for membership of the new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and how many were successful. [75142]
  285
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Nine members of the outgoing Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights applied for a Commissioner post in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and two were successful.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence on the statutory requirement regarding representatives in section 53 (3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was put before her relating to the list of candidates submitted to her from which to make the selection of Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissioners. [75147]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Of the 154 applicants 23 were interviewed, and the recommendations of the panel were submitted to the Secretary of State. The recommendations took into account the applicants' performance against the key criteria identified for the appointments and the requirements for the Commissioners, as a group, to be representative of the community in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who were the members of the interview panels for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and how many names were submitted to herself. [75140]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The panel that interviewed candidates for the Chief Commissioner post was chaired by Mr. J. Pilling and that for the other Commissioners by Mr. W. Jeffrey. The other panel members in both cases were Mr. G. Loughran and Mrs. J. Eve. The panels submitted their recommendations on all of those interviewed, 8 in the case of Chief Commissioner and 23 for Commission members.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for membership of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission were solicited by her Department; how many of these applications were successful; and how many of the members were proposed or endorsed by outside bodies. [75141]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No candidates for Commissioner posts were solicited by the Department. Five candidates were endorsed by the Irish Government; of those, two were successful. All candidates completed the same application form and all were appointed on merit.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what basis she determined that the members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission as a group are representative of the community in Northern Ireland. [75146]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The recommendations of the interview panels were submitted to the Secretary of State. These took into account the applicants' performance against the key criteria identified for the appointment and the requirement for the Commission, as a group, to be representative of the community in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission recorded themselves as being or having been members of(a) the SDLP, (b) the Ulster Unionist Party and (c) the Democratic Unionist Party. [75143]
  286
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  All applicants for the posts of Commissioners were asked to record their political activity over the past 10 years. One member was declared to have been a member of the SDLP, none of the UUP and none of the DUP.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are legally qualified. [75144]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  66 per cent. of the members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission hold legal qualifications.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of(a) the applicants for and (b) those appointed to membership of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission were recorded as (a) Protestants, (b) Roman Catholics and (c) neither. [75145]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Of the 154 applicants 47 per cent. were recorded as Protestant, 47 per cent. Catholic and 6 per cent. as neither. The religious background of individual candidates is established for monitoring purposes only. It is not the Government's policy to release the affiliation of each member, but we are satisfied that the Commissioners, as a group, are representative of the community in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many application forms were issued for membership of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; how many were returned completed; and how many candidates were shortlisted and interviewed. [75139]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  283 forms were issued, 154 completed and returned and 23 candidates were shortlisted and interviewed.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make it her policy to ensure that members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission display in statements and external public activities the political detachment specified in the job description details provided to applicants for membership of the Commission. [75148]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  An extract from the Guidance in Public Appointments in Northern Ireland was included in the information pack for all candidates; it states that"members of public bodies should not serve as officers carrying out executive duties in any political party".

  Stricter limitations apply to full-time members. This guidance is based upon Government policy.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the human rights commissions were established in(a) the Republic of Ireland and (b) Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement on the implementation of the human rights section of the Belfast Agreement. [75046]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was established on 1 March 1999. This is the central feature of the additional protections for human rights in Northern Ireland envisaged in the Belfast
  287
  Agreement. I understand that the Irish Government are preparing legislation to establish a human rights commission in the Republic of Ireland.

  Belfast Agreement
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will work to ensure the implementation of the entire Belfast Agreement by all participating Governments and political parties. [75086]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Belfast Agreement must be implemented in full. That is the Government's objective and we will work with all the parties and with the Irish Government to ensure that this objective is achieved. We are living up to all our commitments under the Agreement and it is essential that every other party does likewise.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Republic of Ireland has taken, as a signatory to the Belfast Agreement, to demonstrate its respect for the different traditions in the island of Ireland since 10 April 1998; and if she will make a statement. [75042]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand the Irish Government have taken a number of steps to demonstrate its respect for the different traditions in the island of Ireland. The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs has established an Interdepartmental Committee with the task of bringing forward proposals for the development of the site of the Battle of the Boyne. This will be a major project and is expected to be part of the Republic's Millennium Programme. In addition, the Irish Government contributed £150,000 towards the building of a memorial in Messines in Belgium in honour of Irish soldiers from both traditions who died in World War I.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Republic of Ireland introduced the equal status legislation required under the Belfast Agreement; and if she will make a statement. [75043]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand that it is the intention of the Irish Government to publish an Equal Status Bill before the end of the Dail's Easter recess.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress the Republic of Ireland has made in implementing the enhanced employment equality legislation required under the Belfast Agreement; and if she will make a statement. [75044]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform announced on 8 March a new infrastructure for equality which will comprise an Equality Authority and an Office of Equality Investigations. In addition, I understand that he has appointed the members of the Equality Authority Designate. An Employment Equality Act was enacted last year and a target date of 1 September 1999 has been set for its complete implementation.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Republic of Ireland ratified the Council of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities; and if she will make a statement about the implementation of this section of the Belfast Agreement. [75045]
  288
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand the Irish Cabinet recently approved proposals for the ratification of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities. These proposes will be debated shortly in Dáil Eireann and formal ratification will take place immediately afterwards.

  Fisheries Conservancy Board
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the members of the Northern Ireland Fisheries Conservancy Board; on what date each was appointed; on what date each is due to retire from membership of the Board; if on the basis of attendance at board meetings, all existing members comply with the requirements of membership; and if she will make a statement. [75053]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The current members of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland and their appointment and cessation dates are set out in the table. The table includes a list of vacant posts which will be filled during April 1999.

  The attendance of one current member at meetings of the Board is in breach of the requirements of Schedule 2 of the Fisheries Act (NI) 1966. This matter is being pursued and an explanation has been sought from the member for his non-attendance.

  Name

  Period of appointment

  Fisheries Conservancy Board—Membership of the Board

  Chairman: Dr. J. Parsons

  1 May 1996–31 December 1999

  Deputy Chairman: Mrs. C. M. Kennedy

  1 May 1998–31 December 1999

  Commercial Fishing Company Representatives

  Mr. F. G. Conlon

  15 May 1996–14 May 2002

  Mr. F. Tennyson

  15 May 1996–14 May 2002

  Sir P. Macnaghten

  15 May 1996–14 May 2002

  Commercial Fishermen's Representatives

  Rev. O. P. Kennedy BA, BD

  15 May 1996–14 May 2002

  Mr. R Shaw

  15 May 1996–14 May 2002

  NIAAC Representatives

  Mr. R. J. Haughey

  15 May 1996–14 May 2002

  Mr. J. Tisdall

  15 May 1996–14 May 2002

  Ulster Farmers' Union

  Mr. R. Farrell

  15 May 1996–14 May 2002

  Mr. Brian H. Johnston

  22 June 1997–14 May 2002

  Independent Anglers

  Mr. A. Hanna

  15 May 1996–14 May 2002

  CBI Representative Sport and Recreation Representative

  Dr. Caro-Lynne Ferris

  20 April 1998–19 April 2001

  Tourism Representative

  Mrs. Annie Courtney

  21 April 1998–30 June 2000

  District Council Representative

  Mr. Sean McGirr

  12 December 1997–30 May 2001

  Department of Agriculture Representative

  Mr. J. D. Houston

  15 May 1996–14 May 1999

  Current vacancies

  1 post vacant from 20 February 1999

  Northern Ireland Angling Advisory Council Representatives

  2 posts vacant from 20 February 1999

  Ulster Farmers' Union Representatives

  1 post vacant from 20 February 1999

  Independent Anglers

  1 post vacant from 20 February 1999

  CBI Representative

  1 post vacant from 20 February 1999

  289

  Police Complaints
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current staffing of(a) the Independent Commission for Police Complaints and (b) the RUC's Complaints and Discipline Department; and what is the planned staffing for the Police Ombudsman's Office. [74568]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]The Independent Commission for Police Complaints currently has 171 members of staff and a full time Chairman and deputy Chairman and five part time members. The RUC's Complaints and Discipline Department has 1152 staff. The Government's initial estimate, produced for the purpose of advertising the post of Police Ombudsman, is a staff of about 60. The precise figure is being considered in working groups which include my officials and representatives of the RUC and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. In addition, we will be consulting the Police Ombudsman when appointed.

  1(this includes a job share post)
  2 (this includes an ACC who covers two departments and officers temporarily seconded to assist with particular investigations)

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the annual financing of(a) the Police Ombudsman's Office, (b) the Complaints and Discipline Department of the RUC and (c) the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for the next three years. [74567]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: The available information is as follows. The Independent Commission for Police Complaints is to be replaced by the Police Ombudsman's Office and, therefore, there is no forecast for the next three years. The current budget for the Independent Commission for Police Complaints is £883,000.

  Although a figure of £3 million has been produced for the Police Ombudsman's office, this was a preliminary estimate for the advertisement of the post of Police Ombudsman. The precise budget of the Police Ombudsman has still to be determined, as have the financial implications of the changes on the Complaints and Discipline Department. (Figures for it were given in answer to my hon. Friend on 25 February 1999, Official Report, column 360.) Both matters are being considered in working groups which include my officials and representatives from the RUC, the Independent Commission for Police Complaints and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland.

  The Government have made it clear that they are committed to making the necessary resources available for the office of Police Ombudsman.

TREASURY

  Securities Legislation
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he intends to make to the Public Offers of Securities Regulations 1995 and the Companies Act 1985 following the consultation on securities legislation announced on 20 August 1998; and if he will make a statement. [76235]
  290
  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury had today made Statutory Instruments amending the Public Offers of Securities Regulations 1995 and commencing certain repeals of provisions in the Companies Act 1985. It is intended that these changes will have effect from 10 May 1999.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the report on Information Requirements in Economic and Monetary Union, as agreed by Ecofin, with regard to its effects on the operation of statistical research in the United Kingdom; what effect the changes in Intrastat will have on the figures for imports and exports between the United Kingdom and the rest of the EU; and what the operational costs of the changes will be. [75057]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. David Maclean, dated 10 March 1999 In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question regarding the Report on Information Requirements in Economic and Monetary Union.
  The ONS welcomes the recommendations in the report, which are in line with the priorities and work programmes of the UK, other Member States and the Commission/Eurostat.
  The UK already produces quarterly national accounts, public finance statistics and most short-term statistics in line with the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC) recommendations. Work is in hand to meet requirements for labour market statistics.
  Officials at HM Customs and Excise have provided the following information on the changes in Intrastat. The changes proposed for Instrastat would reduce the level of detail currently required on arrivals and dispatches between Member States participating in the euro-area. This would, in principle, allow the present Instrastat system to be simplified and other methods explored to arrive at a suitable output. It is not possible at this stage to say what impact such simplifications might have on the statistics of UK trade with the rest of Europe or what the cost of such changes would be. However, the proposed simplifications are intended to meet the needs of users of information at a European level—many other users, including the UK government and UK business, are likely to continue to need detailed UK trade data. The needs of these users, and of the providers of this data, will be fully taken into account when changes to Intrastat are discussed.
  The ONS has in place a system of announcing in advance the release of key statistical outputs. This is in line with the EFC recommendations.

  Winter Deaths
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will breakdown the excess winter deaths in England and Wales for each of the last three years by socio-economic class, indicating(a) all ages, (b) those aged 60 to 70 years and (c) those aged 70 years and over. [75451]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 10 March 1999 As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the breakdown of excess winter deaths.

  291
  The information requested is shown in the attached table.
  Excess winter deaths are defined as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).

  Excess winter deaths 1, England and Wales, 1994/95–1996/97

  Winter 1994/95

  Winter 1995/96

  Winter 1996/97

  Social Class

  men

  women

  men

  women

  men

  women

  Ages 16–74

  I

  Professional

  190

  0

  80

  20

  100

  10

  II

  Managerial and technical occupations

  820

  140

  1,030

  370

  860

  460

  IIInm

  Skilled occupations—non-manual

  230

  260

  340

  590

  490

  710

  IIIm

  Skilled occupations—manual

  1,810

  180

  2,130

  190

  1,660

  280

  IV

  Partly skilled occupations

  1,110

  100

  1,160

  370

  1,270

  520

  V

  Unskilled occupations

  400

  180

  520

  340

  600

  340

  Armed forces

  10

  10

  60

  0

  -20

  0

  Inadequately described occupations

  30

  -20

  30

  10

  -20

  0

  Unoccupied

  210

  1,900

  110

  2,490

  300

  2,330

  Total

  4,810

  2,750

  5,470

  4,380

  5,230

  4,660

  Ages 60–69

  I

  Professional

  30

  -10

  10

  10

  40

  0

  II

  Managerial and technical occupations

  250

  80

  400

  120

  430

  180

  IIInm

  Skilled occupations—non-manual

  110

  70

  110

  160

  150

  270

  IIIm

  Skilled occupations—manual

  670

  60

  860

  90

  700

  120

  IV

  Partly skilled occupations

  390

  60

  400

  160

  570

  210

  V

  Unskilled occupations

  230

  60

  220

  160

  180

  160

  Armed forces

  0

  10

  30

  0

  –10

  0

  Inadequately described occupations

  20

  –20

  20

  10

  –10

  –10

  Unoccupied

  50

  570

  30

  850

  70

  940

  Total

  1,750

  870

  2,090

  1,550

  2,120

  1,880

  Ages 70–74

  I

  Professional

  70

  10

  50

  10

  50

  –10

  II

  Managerial and technical occupations

  270

  40

  350

  150

  260

  120

  IIInm

  Skilled occupations—non-manual

  50

  130

  170

  170

  220

  280

  IIIm

  Skilled occupations—manual

  580

  50

  790

  80

  570

  110

  IV

  Partly skilled occupations

  320

  50

  380

  140

  510

  160

  V

  Unskilled occupations

  160

  70

  150

  70

  280

  130

  Armed forces

  10

  0

  10

  0

  10

  0

  Inadequately described occupations

  10

  –10

  20

  10

  –10

  10

  Unoccupied

  50

  740

  60

  940

  60

  860

  Total

  1,510

  1,090

  1,970

  1,580

  1,940

  1,660

  1 As the number of excess winter deaths is a crude measure of the increase in mortality associated with winter conditions, the numbers of excess deaths have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  292
  Social Class of the deceased is not available for deaths to those aged over 75. However, around 75 per cent. of excess winter deaths occur in this age group. Children under 16 can be assigned to a Social Class at death on the basis of their parent(s) occupation. Deaths in this age group have been excluded. Figures are shown separately for men and women as the distribution of deaths by Social Class differs markedly; this is because occupation is poorly recorded for women at death registration.
  293

HEALTH

  District Nurses
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district nurses were assigned to each health authority for each month in 1997 and 1998. [73479]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected on a monthly basis. The table shows the numbers of district nurses in post by health authority area in England as at 30 September 1997. Information for 1998 is not yet available.

  NHS hospital and community health services: total district nurses, by health authority area, in England as at 30 September 1997

  Whole time equivalent

  Health authority

  Number

  Total District Nurses

  11,340

  Avon Health Authority

  190

  Barking and Havering Health Authority

  50

  Barnet District Health Authority

  70

  Barnsley Health Authority

  40

  Bedfordshire Health Authority

  110

  Berkshire Health Authority

  200

  Bexley and Greenwich Health Authority

  170

  Birmingham Health Authority

  360

  Bradford Health Authority

  100

  Brent and Harrow Health Authority

  60

  Bromley Health Authority

  50

  Buckinghamshire Health Authority

  140

  Bury and Rochdale Health Authority

  130

  Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority

  110

  Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority

  70

  Camden and Islington Health Authority

  40

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority

  60

  County Durham Health Authority

  70

  Coventry Health Authority

  50

  Croydon Health Authority

  50

  Doncaster Health Authority

  50

  Dorset Health Authority

  130

  Dudley Health Authority

  60

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham Health Authority

  150

  East and North Hertfordshire Health Authority

  70

  East Kent Health Authority

  50

  East Lancashire Health Authority

  160

  East London and The City Health Authority

  170

  East Norfolk Health Authority

  130

  East Riding Health Authority

  100

  East Surrey Health Authority

  70

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  210

  Enfield and Haringey Health Authority

  90

  Gateshead and South Tyneside Health Authority

  120

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  140

  Herefordshire Health Authority

  50

  Isle of Wight Health Authority

  40

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  160

  Kingston and Richmond Health Authority

  30

  294

  NHS hospital and community health services: total district nurses, by health authority area, in England as at 30 September 1997

  Whole time equivalent

  Health authority

  Number

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  230

  Leeds Health Authority

  100

  Leicestershire Health Authority

  130

  Lincolnshire Health Authority

  130

  Liverpool Health Authority

  130

  Manchester Health Authority

  130

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority

  200

  Morecambe Bay Health Authority

  120

  Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority

  120

  North and East Devon Health Authority

  140

  North and Mid Hampshire Health Authority

  110

  North Cheshire Health Authority

  140

  North Cumbria Health Authority

  80

  North Derbyshire Health Authority

  70

  North Essex Health Authority

  250

  North Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  60

  North Staffordshire Health Authority

  180

  North West Anglia Health Authority

  130

  North West Lancashire Health Authority

  110

  North Yorkshire Health Authority

  210

  Northamptonshire Health Authority

  140

  Northumberland Health Authority

  80

  Nottingham Health Authority

  240

  Oxfordshire Health Authority

  100

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority

  130

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority

  120

  Rotherham Health Authority

  50

  Salford and Trafford Health Authority

  170

  Sandwell Health Authority

  60

  Sefton Health Authority

  20

  Sheffield Health Authority

  80

  Shropshire Health Authority

  160

  Solihull Health Authority

  50

  Somerset Health Authority

  90

  South and West Devon Health Authority

  130

  South Cheshire Health Authority

  170

  South Derbyshire Health Authority

  120

  South Essex Health Authority

  160

  South Humber Health Authority

  70

  South Lancashire Health Authority

  110

  South Staffordshire Health Authority

  50

  Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  80

  St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority

  60

  Stockport Health Authority

  210

  Suffolk Health Authority

  170

  Sunderland Health Authority

  100

  Tees Health Authority

  150

  Wakefield Health Authority

  70

  Walsall DA

  90

  Warwickshire Health Authority

  90

  West Hertfordshire Health Authority

  60

  West Kent Health Authority

  200

  West Pennine Health Authority

  110

  West Surrey Health Authority

  150

  West Sussex Health Authority

  180

  Wigan and Bolton Health Authority

  50

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  140

  Wirral Health Authority

  70

  Wolverhampton Health Authority

  50

  Worcester and District Health Authority

  180

  Notes:

  Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Due to roundings, totals may not equal the sum of the component parts

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census
  295

  Intensive Care
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were assigned to intensive care units in the NHS in each month of 1997 and 1998. [73481]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Midwives
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified midwives were employed in the NHS in each of the last 20 years. [73478]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures requested are shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services Qualified midwives, by year, from 1977 to 1997, in England

  Whole time equivalents

  Year

  Qualified midwives

  1977

  15,183

  1978

  14,774

  1979

  15,382

  1980

  15,705

  1981

  16,272

  1982

  16,486

  1983

  17,320

  1984

  17,830

  1985

  18,430

  1986

  18,850

  1987

  19,320

  1988

  19,290

  1989

  19,420

  1990

  20,170

  1991

  19,610

  1992

  20,240

  1993

  19,510

  1994

  19,240

  1995

  18,292

  1996

  18,548

  1997

  18,310

  Notes:

  I. Figures are rounded to nearest ten.

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  3. Data for years prior to 1982 relate to December, while those for subsequent years are staff in post on September 30.

  4. The number of full-time hours was reduced from 40 to 37.5 during 1980 and the 37.5 hour week became mandatory on 31 March 1981. This means that figures for whole time equivalents before 1980 are not directly comparable with those for subsequent years.

  5. Due to a change in classification in 1995 for collecting data, from pay scale to occupation code, 1995, 1996 and 1997 figures are non-comparable with earlier years.

  6.From 1995, figures for qualified midwives include midwives teaching midwifery and managers in the maternity services area of work. Managers may be a nurse, midwife or health visitor who has overall responsibility for budgets, manpower or assets, or who is held accountable for a significant area of work, and who has little or no direct clinical involvement.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census

  Ambulances (Accidents)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been(a) injured and (b) killed in each year since 1990 as a result of an accident involving an ambulance answering a 999 call. [74629]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  296

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute, (b) geriatric, (c) mental illness, (d) learning disability and (e) maternity beds each health authority had in each year since 1994–95. [75039]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Cardiac Rehabilitation Courses
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the current waiting time for cardiac rehabilitation courses for each health trust; [75208]

  (2) if he will list the health trusts in England which provide cardiac rehabilitation programmes for people aged (a) 65 to 70, (b) 70 to 80 and (c) over 80 years. [75529]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not held centrally about either the waiting times or scope of individual cardiac rehabilitation programmes. There is evidence that there is considerable variation in the service provided around the country and this is one of the areas to be addressed by the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to end anomalies arising from preserved rights in the residential and nursing care sectors; and if he will make a statement. [75231]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are looking at this issue along with other recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care.

  Smoking-related Diseases
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who suffered from smoking-related diseases in each of the last five years. [75459]

  Ms Jowell
  The latest figures available in "The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995", by the Health Education Authority, estimate that at least 121,000 people died as a result of their smoking in United Kingdom in 1995. Comparable figures are not available for earlier years.

  No-smoking Areas
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to impose a legal duty on restaurants to provide non-smoking areas. [75458]

  Ms Jowell
  No. We gave careful thought to the legislative option, but concluded that voluntary commitments by the industry were more likely to be implemented effectively and with public support. The White Paper "Smoking Kills" includes a new charter on smoking in public places, agreed by the hospitality industry. The results will be monitored and we will consider the need for any further action in the light of progress.
  297

  Paracetamol Poisoning
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were admitted to accident and emergency departments suffering from paracetamol poisoning in each year since 1996–97. [75013]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: Available information is given in the table. Poisonings by paracetamol are not separately identified.

  Number of admissions (ordinary admissions and day cases combined) via an accident and emergency department with a primary diagnosis of poisoning by 4-Aminophenol derivatives (including paracetamol).

  National Health Service hospitals, England

  Poisoning by 4-Aminophenol derivates 1

  1996–97

  25,874

  1997–98

  28,499

  1ICD10 code T39.1 Poisoning by 4-Aminophenol derivatives.

  Note:

  Figures are provisional, no adjustments have been made for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Health Awareness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase health awareness among men. [75304]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department recognises that the specific health needs of men are an important part of the overall strategy on the nation's health, and factors affecting men's health were highlighted in the recently published report of the "Independent Inquiry into Health Inequalities" led by Sir Donald Acheson.

  The White Paper "Our Healthier Nation" setting out our health strategy, to be published in the Spring, will acknowledge the high levels of avoidable illness and premature death found among men, and the need for men to improve and prolong an active and healthy life. The Department will also continue to fund projects that aim to raise awareness of health issues which are specific to men.

  Long-term Care
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing the recommendations in the report by the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for a National Care Commission. [75492]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are currently looking at all the recommendations made by the Royal Commission and will be drawing up costings where necessary as part of that process.

  Forensic Psychiatrists
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently training to be forensic psychiatrists; and what estimate has been made of the numbers needed to provide appropriate treatment for those for whom it is considered relevant. [74805]
  298
  Mr. Denham
  The Departmental medical and dental work force census shows about a 100 hospital medical staff in forensic psychiatry training grades in England at 30 September 1997. The Specialty Workforce Advisory Group advises Ministers on the numbers needed in higher specialist training in forensic psychiatry so as to provide fully-trained doctors to fill consultant posts in the future. In estimating likely future requirements for higher specialist trainees, it seeks views from the National Health Service on local pressures and service developments and consults the medical profession.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the completed Private Finance Initiative projects worth over £1 million,(a) how long the delay was for those not completed on time, (b) the extent of any revisions to the contractual payments, and (c) how long any disputes about the quality of the work took to resolve. [75742]

  Mr. Denham
  No private finance initiative scheme with a capital value of greater than £10 million has yet been completed. Details of individual schemes with a capital cost of less than £10 million are not held centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by region the number, individual value and total value of Private Finance Initiative bids worth less than £1million in each of the last five years. [75778]

  Mr. Denham
  Details on individual schemes with a capital cost of less than £10 million are not held centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the projects milestones for each of the major acute sector hospital PFI schemes selected to continue towards financial close under the first prioritisation exercise, as agreed at the point of signature, indicating for each(a) in what respects any of these milestones have not been met, (b) the steps he is taking to remedy this, and (c) the assessment he has made of whether the completion dates for each of these projects will be met. [75776]

  Mr. Denham
  Of the 15 major private finance initiative schemes selected to proceed under the first prioritisation exercise, 10 have reached financial close and have signed contracts with a private sector partner. The remaining project milestone for these schemes is the completion date (when construction is completed and the facility is fully operational). These are:

  Scheme

  Completion due

  Bromley

  November 2002

  Calderdale

  May 2001

  Carlisle

  May 2000

  Dartford and Gravesham

  September 2000

  Greenwich

  May 2001

  Norfolk and Norwich

  January 2002

  North Durham

  November 2001

  South Buckinghamshire:

  —Wycombe site

  January 2000

  —Amersham site

  August 2000

  Wellhouse

  April 2002

  South Manchester

  February 2001

  299
  All the schemes in the table are on target to achieve their due completion date and we are not aware of any that have failed to meet significant internal project milestones.

  Clinical Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the last five years the independent contractors who have made successful bids for clinical waste incinerators for NHS hospitals. [75777]

  Mr. Denham
  No clinical waste incinerator scheme in the National Health Service involving an independent contractor has a capital value of more than £10 million. Details on individual schemes with a capital cost of less than £10 million are not held centrally.

  Children (Abuse and Neglect)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the number of children suffering from physical abuse and neglect. [75307]

  Mr. Hutton
  In collaboration with colleagues across Government, I have made protecting children from abuse and neglect a key priority. We have a substantial programme of work under way to help make sure that children are protected from harm and that they are given the best possible start in life. This programme includes:root and branch reform of the regulation system, introducing checks on the full range of children's care services, and strengthening safeguards;
  an extensive range of reforms, set out in the Government's response to the Children's Safeguards Review, to improve the protection of all children living away from home;
  Stronger systems for preventing unsuitable people from working with children; and
  a thorough revision of the Government guidance on child protection to improve the handling of cases where children are suffering, or at risk of suffering, abuse and neglect. The new guidance will also emphasise the importance of agencies working together to help families and children under stress, to help prevent abuse and neglect taking place.

  Child protection will also be improved through the three year "Quality Protects" programme to improve local authority children's services. As part of the Quality Protects programme local authorities must take action to bring their child protection services up to standard. They will be required to show how they:

  carry out thorough and prompt assessments of children's needs;

  have good case records;

  draw up and implement child protection plans which are then reviewed regularly;

  ensure that all children on the child protection register have an allocated social worker;

  know what outcomes they want for children in need of protection and assess whether these are being achieved; and

  have a human resource strategy which identifies the skills and knowledge needed by child protection staff.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of children under the age of five years who have died following abuse or neglect in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [75306]

  Mr. Hutton
  Reliable information on the number of children who die following abuse or neglect is not available. Not all such deaths will be recognised and in 300
  some cases the cause of death may be unclear or wrongly attributed. Currently, local Area Child Protection Committees are required to review cases which involve an incident leading to the death of a child where child abuse is confirmed or suspected, or a child protection issue arises which is likely to be of major public concern arises. Local authorities are required to inform the Department or the Welsh Office (as appropriate) immediately they become aware of any such case. We are improving the consistency and reliability of information provided through this route by revising the child protection guidance "Working Together Under The Children Act 1989—A guide to arrangements for inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children from abuse" and associated measures.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75876]

  Mr. Dobson
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 531. There have been no instances of members of Select Committees giving me, or my ministerial colleagues, drafts of Select Committee reports, or of parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, have there been any occasions on which members of Select Committees have given such material to civil servants or special advisers in my department. This excludes embargoed copies of reports issued under House of Commons Standing Orders.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the take-up rate has been for MMR vaccination for the last five years in(a) Manchester, (b) the North West and (c) England. [75674]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Percentage of children immunised with measles, mumps and rubella vaccine by their second birthday, 1993–94 to 1997–98

  Percentage

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Manchester Health Authority

  82

  83

  85

  86

  86

  North West Region

  90

  91

  91

  91

  91

  England

  91

  91

  92

  92

  91

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics Division SD2B COVER/Korner data

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he intends to conduct into cattle TB during 1999–2000. [76408]
  301
  Mr. Rooker
  The Krebs review concluded that there is no single solution to the problem of TB in cattle. It made a number of recommendations designed to provide a firm scientific basis for future policy. Many of the recommendations were proposals for further research, and it was these that the Government acted on first. We completely reviewed our TB research programme, and on 20 April last year published a document setting out new research requirements for the year beginning on 1 April 1999. Researchers wishing to participate were invited to submit bids by 3 July. 36 bids were received and were appraised by a panel of internal and external experts from Britain and overseas. A subsequent notice invited bids to analyse TB risk factors. Successful bidders were informed last autumn, and we have since been engaged in negotiations. We hope to sign research contracts shortly.

  The new research programme will comprise 19 separate projects and will cost around £3.4 million in 1999/2000, although most of the projects will be carried forward into future years. Many of the projects are integrated into the badger culling trial and epidemiological survey, which take forward other recommendations in the Krebs report and will yield extensive information for analysis.

  There are three main strands to the new programme. First, there is work to develop improved control strategies. Although we shall also spend £55,000 on examining the possibility of using bacteriophages to control Mycobacterium bovis in the environment, the most important work here is on vaccine development. This will be undertaken at the Institute of Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, with a number of sub-contractors including experts in New Zealand, and will cost £1.4 million. If successful this will also lead to the development of a better test to diagnose TB in live badgers.

  Although improved TB vaccines have eluded researchers for many years, recent advances in molecular biology offer new hopes for success. The genome sequencing project which we are co-funding with the Wellcome Trust is a particular example. This work will be taking place at the frontiers of scientific knowledge. It is important that the various projects contributing to the vaccine programme are taken forward together, and that full account is taken of parallel work in other countries and in human medicine. We have therefore appointed Dr. Jo Colston, the Head of Mycobacterial Research at the National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, as external consultant for this programme.

  Secondly, there is work to improve our understanding of herd breakdowns. We are reanalysing the information in our existing databases on TB risk factors. We shall develop new transmission models and examine a wide range of possible transmission and risk factors, including a variety of possible wildlife reservoirs of infection other than badgers. We shall be looking at better ways of detecting Mycobacterium bovis in clinical and environmental samples. We shall be developing molecular fingerprinting techniques to categorise Mycobacterium bovis strains more precisely. This work, which will cost £1.5 million in total, will be undertaken in a variety of research institutions in Great Britain, and will also draw in expertise from Northern Ireland, the Netherlands and New Zealand.
  302
  Thirdly, we need to examine the role of badgers in TB more closely. We shall be spending £475,000 on work estimating badger numbers, and understanding the role of badgers in disease transmission.

  Details of the projects, contractors and costs are being placed in the Library.

  Although this programme is extensive and will provide answers to many of the questions identified by the Krebs and Bourne Groups and by people who have written to us, it is not exhaustive. We shall be taking forward a project started in 1998 to use geographical information systems to provide better spatial analyses of TB risk factors, and are currently identifying gaps for new projects which we might be able to finance from next year. We are also consulting external appraisers about a project to be commissioned from the Central Science Laboratory to assess the ecological impact of badger culling.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to sequence the genome of the bacterium which causes TB in cattle; and if he will make a statement. [76407]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to announce that MAFF and the Wellcome Trust have recently agreed joint funding for a three-way collaboration between the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the Sanger Centre and the Institut Pasteur in Paris to sequence the complete genome of Mycobacterium bovis. MAFF's contribution will be around £800,000, payable largely in the current financial year.

  This is an exciting and important new development in our fight against the rising tide of TB in cattle. Determining the genetic code for the bacterium which causes cattle TB is undoubtedly the best means of catalysing vaccine research and development. The prospect that by March 2000 we will have a completely defined genome sequence of Mycobacterium bovis, the organism which causes TB in cattle, is very encouraging and represents a major advance.

  The time is undoubtedly right for this research to be taken forward. The genome sequence of the human TB strain has already provided valuable leads for vaccine research. Unravelling the secrets of the bovine TB genome is of the highest relevance to the development of an effective cattle vaccine and a diagnostic test which will distinguish between vaccinated and infected animals.

  Quarantine
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) which operators of entry points to the United Kingdom have indicated that they would be prepared to (i) carry and (ii) check animals if the quarantine laws are reformed; [75178]

  (2) how many operators of entry points to the United Kingdom currently have the necessary facilities to implement the changes to the quarantine laws recommended by Professor Kennedy; [75177]

  (3) with which operators of entry points to the UK he has exchanged correspondence or had meetings to discuss reforms to the quarantine laws. [75179]
  303
  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are considering the outcome of the consultation on the report of the Advisory Group on Quarantine, which recommended changes to the quarantine system.

  My officials have held preliminary discussions with operators of those ports and airports in England that Professor Kennedy recommended should be eligible points of entry. These discussions have been for the purpose of identifying appropriate procedures, and determining the scale and cost of facilities that might be required for the movement of qualifying animals through entry points. These discussions have not yet been completed. Discussions have also been held with the British Ports Association and the British Airports Association. We have also corresponded with the Major Ports Group and Eurotunnel Developments Ltd.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many responses were received during the consultation period on Professor Kennedy's report on quarantine; and of the responses how many were(a)supportive of reforming the quarantine laws and (b)opposed to changing the law. [75175]

  Mr. Rooker
  During the consultation period, a total of 3,742 responses were received. Some 96 per cent. of respondents expressed overall support for the reforms to quarantine recommended by Professor Kennedy's Group, with 2 per cent. expressing opposition to the changes.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many responses to Professor Kennedy's report on quarantine were received from ports, airports, rail operators and other travel operators; and of those how many were(a) supportive of reforming the quarantine laws and (b) opposed to changing the law. [75176]

  Mr. Rooker
  Thirteen responses were received from ports, airports, rail operators and other travel operators. Seven of these responses supported the proposed changes, with the others limiting their comments to specific aspects of the proposals or making practical comments about their implementation. None expressed outright opposition to changing the law.

  EU Subsidies
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is with regard to the capping of subsidies for cereals and root crops within the EU. [75014]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: We are opposed to the capping of subsidies at EU level, as proposed by the European Commission, which would discriminate against UK farmers because of our different farm structure.
  304

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what legal advice he has sought to ascertain whether he can introduce an import ban on food that does not meet current standards in terms of genetically modified organism regulations. [75197]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: No genetically modified food (GM) may be sold in the UK unless it has been rigorously assessed for safety and is clearly labelled in accordance with the EC Novel Foods and Ingredient Regulation (258/97) or, in the case of soya and maize, EC Regulation 1139/98.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he plans to take to prevent the importation of food that has not been correctly segregated and labelled under genetically modified organism regulations. [75196]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: All genetically modified (GM) foods sold in the European Union must be approved for safety and labelled in accordance with EC Novel Foods and Food Ingredients Regulation (258/97), or in the case of GM soya and maize, EC Regulation 1139/98. Responsibility for the enforcement of these regulations lies with local authorities.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the segregation of genetically modified food. [74692]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 302.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what independent research he has commissioned on the possibility of genetically modified food crops affecting other crops being grown; and if he will make a statement. [75072]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: The Ministry has since 1991 funded a programme of research to assess the risks to agriculture from the release of genetically modified (GM) crops. To date, over £4.1 million has been spent on the programme and the results so far provide no evidence for possible risks to agricultural crops from the release of GM crops.

  Quarantine Regulations
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations were contacted during the consultation process on changes to the quarantine regulations. [73470]

  Mr. Rooker
  The list of recipients of the consultation letter issued by my Department on 23 September 1998 has been place in the Library of the House. Separate consultations were held by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act.

Public Utilities: Millennium Compliance
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have discussed with the public utilities continuity of services in the first days of the new millennium.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the public utilities, their sponsoring government departments and the regulators belong to the National Infrastructure Forum. Forum members share information about millennium preparedness with the aim of meeting the Government's objective that there should be no material disruption to essential public services over the millennium. The regulators are commissioning independent assessments of the utilities' preparedness for the millennium date change. They include plans to ensure that utilities can maintain services to the public if critical elements of their business are damaged.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware of the large measure of anxiety and concern in the country about discontinuity of resources at that time? How should I reply to a small business which has sent me a copy of a letter from its electricity company saying that it gives no guarantee or warranty about continuity of electricity supply over that period, although that small business and its machines are very dependent on electricity? I am also concerned about pensioners if electricity is cut off for a week or so over that period. How should I reply to such concerns?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are aware of the public anxiety and are concerned that the public should be reassured where that is appropriate, which is in almost all cases. The question of a warranty is a legal issue and I understand why the utilities are unwilling to give a warranty. However, the noble Viscount may be reassured to know that 46 per cent. of electricity companies have already established that there is no substantial risk of material disruption and 52 per cent. are on course to meet the
218
deadline—in other words, they will sort out problems well before that date. In addition, the 2 per cent. which still have problems outstanding are mostly older generators which may not necessarily be in use at the time of the millennium.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, how many telecom operators licensed by Oftel have yet to declare themselves millennium-compliant?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all telecom operators either have declared themselves to be millennium-compliant in the sense that there are no substantial risks of material disruption, or have in hand programmes for meeting the deadline in good time.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, having listened to the Minister's replies, I have a slight concern, so will the noble Lord confirm—and perhaps make this answer slightly stronger than was his Answer to the noble Viscount—that the Government take responsibility for ensuring that there will be no problems?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, of course. The Government take responsibility for ensuring that the public services, the utilities and, as far as we can influence them, the private sector companies are millennium-compliant. As I said in my Answer, we are also taking serious steps to ensure that services to the public are maintained if critical elements of the utilities' business are damaged at the time of the millennium. We have in hand contingency plans which will be co-ordinated between the utilities through the National Infrastructure Forum to ensure that any damage is kept to the absolute minimum.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister advise the public to lay in essential stocks; for example, for Hogmanay in Scotland?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord should stick to his usual habits. I am sure that he lays in stocks for Hogmanay. He will, of course, recognise that the holiday period will be rather longer over the millennium. I am not advising that he should lay in stocks of, for example, tinned food.

Imported Works of Art: VAT Increase
2.41 p. m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty 's Government:
Whether the United Kingdom will be obliged to increase the rate of VAT on certain imported works of art from 2.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. in June 1999 and, if so, what effect this will have on the international competitiveness of the British art market when combined with the effects of a possible droit de suite directive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under EC law governing VAT on the importation of certain

219
works of art, agreed in 1994 by the previous government, the United Kingdom should raise its VAT rate from 2.5 per cent. to at least 5 per cent. The Government are keen to change that, but the legal position can be altered only with the agreement of the European Commission and all other member states. It would be very difficult to estimate the combined effects of import VAT and droit de suite on the British art market.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, I fear it means that he misled the House on 28th January when he said:
"What we shall not do is level up to 5 per cent. ". —[Official Report, 28/1/99; col. 1209.]
Since the Minister's Answer also proves that the Government's much-vaunted charm offensive in Brussels has failed, will they now invoke the Luxembourg compromise and use the veto to save this highly important national interest? It is worth double our pop industry to the United Kingdom economy.
Secondly, as our Eurobond market, our mergers and acquisitions industry and many other British interests are now on death row in Brussels, do the Government at last agree that the time has come for an objective cost-benefit analysis of our adherence to the Treaty of Rome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord quotes me correctly on 28th January. Unfortunately, that part of my speech got completely garbled. Immediately before that I said that we would be seeking to level down to other countries, which is clearly nonsense. I apologise for saying that what we shall not do is level up when I meant that we shall do our very best not to level up, as the noble Lord knows.
The noble Lord then asks whether we have abandoned our attempts. On the contrary; at the Internal Market Council on 25th February my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury managed to achieve further consideration of the draft directive by the Committee of Permanent Representatives. That means that we are talking again. Under those circumstances it would be premature to talk about using the Luxembourg compromise which—I remind the noble Lord—can be used only in conditions of vital national interest. Meanwhile, we are carrying out an independent UK study of the directive. I will not go so far as to agree to the wider inquiry which the noble Lord wishes the Government to undertake.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, we all accept that it was very unfortunate that on 28th January a categorical assurance was given to the House that there was no question of tax changes being imposed upon us against our will. The Minister said, and I accept, that that was said in good faith. But it illustrates the lack of seriousness in the Government in assessing the pressures, dangers and risks of the drive for tax harmonisation which exists in the European Community today. Does he not agree that the increase in VAT of
220
2.5 per cent. on imported art works to 5 per cent. —we cannot resist it; we have no veto—will do great damage to the London art market?
Further, does my noble friend agree that the additional droit de suite 2.5 per cent. levy will only add to the difficulties? Again, we have no veto on it; we can only stop it by establishing a minority in a qualified majority vote.
Finally, I want to put this to my noble friend.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, it is terribly important to get this right. I raised the matter specifically at the time and was given an absolute assurance. Can we not now begin to understand that so much depends on obtaining agreement with our colleagues that the unanimity rule is not enough?—otherwise we would never have agreed to impose the VAT, as the previous government did in 1994 without any opposition—indeed total acceptance—by the official Labour Opposition at the time. I hope my noble friend will give some assurances that he will treat further threats of the withholding tax and other matters with greater seriousness than has been shown so far.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand and sympathise with the passion which my noble friend shows for these issues. However, he must not infer from that that anybody else is treating it with anything less than the serious attention it deserves. He is right in saying that the 7th VAT directive, under which these changes come, was agreed by the previous government without objection from the Labour Opposition. But that is the end of any party political point that can be made of it. These changes are not in themselves evidence of any fresh moves towards tax harmonisation in the general terms expressed by my noble friend. We will continue to encourage the development of measures against harmful tax competition while continuing our objection, which we can sustain, against tax harmonisation.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, is this not an instance of the Community shooting itself collectively in the foot? While London for the time being is the principal art market centre within the Community, there is no reason why that should continue. These levels of VAT will condemn the Community as a whole to ring-fencing itself from being in a position to sell works of art from outside the Community.
Secondly, is it not the case that the principal beneficiaries of droit de suite are in fact the heirs of a number of extremely well-known painters and not struggling artists? Is it not also the case that it applies only to works of art sold at auction rather than by private treaty, which by any standards seems to be illogical?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord asks questions about both VAT and droit de suite. Some countries in the European Community at present have VAT rates of 5 per cent. or even more and therefore, presumably, would not suffer if there were a

221
levelling up, though as I said before, we shall continue to resist that. In relation to droit de suite, the evidence is rather confusing. It appears that in France, where droit de suite has been going since 1920, around 80 per cent. of the receipts go to 20 per cent. of artists or their families. I have been unable to find out what proportion goes to living artists. However, as far as we are concerned, the amount of money which might go to artists is very small; indeed, it could hardly be more than £10 million, of which £2 million might go to British artists. It could also have the effect of depressing prices even for first sales.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that a distinction must be drawn between tax harmonisation and droit de suite? Is it not the case that tax harmonisation is for the benefit, or otherwise, of governments, whereas droit de suite is for the benefit of the artists? Therefore, to draw the two together and put them into a single sack is quite wrong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. That is why I resisted the extension of the Question to include tax harmonisation in general. Of course, there are arguments on both sides. The best regulatory assessment that we have on droit de suite is that £360 million of sales would be affected, with a maximum earnings loss to the British art market of £68 million. Against that we have to balance £10 million which might go to artists. It is on the basis of that balance that Her Majesty's Government have opposed the extension of droit de suite.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I should like to be clear about the exact position in the art market. If the Government's efforts in Brussels fail, is it the case that we will have no alternative but to accept the 5 per cent. VAT on the sale of imported works of art and, indeed, that we will have no alternative but to accept a harmonised rate of royalty to be paid to artists and their successors for 70 years, whenever one of their works of art is sold in this country? Can the Minister say whether that is an accurate statement of the present position?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has actually asked two questions. The answer to the first one is, yes. If the present reconsideration of the draft directive which has been achieved goes ahead, it is likely that we would have to raise our VAT rate from 2.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. As far as concerns droit de suite, I can tell the House that there is a proposal on the table as regards the draft directive of 2 per cent. on the most expensive works of art; 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. on less expensive ones; and no droit de suite on even less expensive works of art. Indeed, there is a whole variety of options of droit de suite which might be adopted. It is far too early to say what could be achieved. However, the fundamental point behind what the noble Lord has said is that the legal position can be altered only with the agreement of the European Commission and all other member states.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the suggestion that an increase in
222
costs of 2.5 per cent. would cause financial ruin to companies is something of an exaggeration? We should bear in mind the fact that, over the past few years while this matter has been discussed, most companies have increased their competitiveness and productivity by 10, 15, 20 or even 30 per cent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is exactly why I said in response to an earlier question that the maximum loss to the British art market in earnings would be £68 million. That is based on the assumption that all of our relevant sales went across to New York. But that is highly unlikely; in other words, my noble friend is right.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Benches!
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, if the art market went to New York and the auction houses took their business there and operated in that city and all this droit de suite and the extra VAT came in, can the Minister tell us what kind of effect that would have on the export licensing of any remarkable pieces of art? For example, would people be able to take them to New York and receive an export licence in order to do so? It seems to me that it might cause considerable disruption if such a thing should happen; and it might.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, questions regarding export licences are entirely different from droit de suite. Indeed, there is no necessary connection between the two. It is not necessarily the case that we would need, or wish, to reconsider the issue of export licences.

IMF Restructuring Programmes: Education and Health
2.54 p. m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will urge on the International Monetary Fund the importance of protecting primary education and public health services from expenditure cuts when proposing restructuring schemes for countries facing financial and economic crises.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consistently emphasised the need for the IMF and World Bank to work together to ensure that spending on health and education is protected at times of crisis. Following proposals put forward by the Chancellor at the 1998 annual meetings, the World Bank is developing general principles of good practice in social policy in consultation with the IMF and other relevant organisations. These principles should be drawn upon

223
by the IMF and World Bank in the design of their programmes. The principles will be discussed at the development committee meeting next month.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most hopeful reply. I also note that, during his visit to Russia, this very week the Foreign Secretary praised Mr. Primakov for ensuring the payment of arrears in wages to public servants and also for trying to reach social stability in his country. Can the Minister say whether the lessons from the IMF rescue package for Russia in August of last year and the more recent lessons from the Brazil package have been fully learnt, and confirm that in particular primary education and public health services will be broadly protected in future restructuring programmes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. It is precisely the problems which arose from the Russian rescue package and from rescue packages in east Asia which led the Chancellor to take the initiative in October of last year to ensure that we have this general statement of principles of good practice in social policy. He will have to push this forward very fast indeed, compared to normal movement in international organisations, if he is to get drafts discussed in April of this year and, as we hope, finally agreed not later than October of this year. Crises happen immediately and their effects are felt immediately. We simply cannot afford to let matters drag.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to the role of the World Bank. Does he agree that it has been most encouraging to see the lead being given by the current president of the World Bank on the need for change of policy in this sphere? However, will he accept that, for those working in the front line, there is all too often an absence of evidence of what is agreed at the intellectual strategic level being followed through? Therefore, can the Government pursue that issue and ensure that good intent is turned into good practice?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say that Jim Woolfensohn, the president of the World Bank, is very much seized of these issues. I was very attracted by what he said; namely, that social and economic issues were inseparable, like breathing in and breathing out. Indeed, I thought that that was a very proper way to put it. My noble friend knows far more than I do about the way in which these policies are implemented on the ground. I fear that he may be right. I shall, therefore, draw his remarks to the attention of Ministers.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, can the Minister say what steps the Government currently take to ensure that official assistance from this country to developing countries is spent on primary goods, which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly identified as being the
224
key to economic and social development, and not simply wasted on economically valueless projects of which we have had many examples in the past?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is right about past experience. I am sure that there have been far too many examples of wasted aid. If I may say so, that was particularly the case under the policy of trade-and-aid introduced by the previous government, which certainly led to a very considerable distortion of our aid programme. With the abolition of that particular distortion, we are certainly being very active in seeing to it that the social effects of our aid policy are carried out. We have representatives in all parts of the world to ensure that that is the case.

Sparkling Cider: Duty
2.58 p. m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to avoid damage to the sparkling cider industry following the increase in tax from its 1996 level of 23p per litre.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Little things please little minds; like mine. In 1996, faced with the threat of infraction proceedings by the European Commission, the then government began the process of aligning the duty rates on sparkling cider and lower strength sparkling wine. This culminated in yesterday's Budget with the increase in sparkling cider duty which affects less that 0.5 per cent. of cider production. The process has had the support of the National Association of Cider Makers and has been phased in over a number of years.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He has made the very point I wish to make; namely, that this is a small problem. Perhaps that is why neither party when in government has chosen to address it seriously. Sparkling cider is an historic drink. It is a 17th century drink—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am coming to it. Obviously none of your Lordships drinks 17th century cider. As the Economist said, at one stroke this measure will wipe out a small, rural craft industry of the type the DTI and MAFF seek to protect with grants. Does the Minister feel that his action is in conflict with that of the DTI and MAFF? What can he do to remedy the situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have to make two points in response. In the Question the noble Baroness asks me about avoiding damage to the

225
sparkling cider industry. This is not a question of protection; it is action against protectionism. I wonder, for example, how noble Lords would feel if we did not pursue the Greek Government, who have a policy of lower rates of duty on ouzo as opposed to Scotch whisky. That is protectionism of exactly the kind we have been accused of as regards competition between sparkling cider and lower strength sparkling wines. The noble Baroness is right to say how small the industry is but she did not say quite how small. There are fewer than 30 producers of bottle fermented sparkling cider. Of those, 15 are exempt from the measure because their output per annum is too small; bottle fermented sparkling cider represents a small proportion of the total output of the remainder. I am sorry for the individuals concerned but this is hardly an industry of the kind that merits the massive attention which the DTI gives to industry throughout the country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister realise how much we appreciate the fact that he has answered all four Questions on the Order Paper? He thus joins what I gather is an extraordinarily exclusive club of which I never managed to become a member. I am sure that it will be particularly welcome to the Yeomen of the Guard that their Captain has joined the club of those who have answered four Questions out of four. It is the first time, I believe, that has occurred. We congratulate the noble Lord on giving his ministerial colleagues a day's holiday in that regard.
On the subject of the Question—and in connection with the first Question on the Order Paper—would it not help us all to celebrate the millennium if the duty on Scotch for the period of this New Year were reduced to 23p per litre?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when I said that little things please little minds, I am glad to note that there are two little minds in the House, the noble Lord's and mine. As is well known, the Chancellor announced that he is imposing no new increases on any form of alcohol, with the exception of the matter raised in the Question, before the millennium. I think the noble Lord asks rather a lot in seeking a reduction in the duty on Scotch whisky.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when the noble Lord justifies his position by saying that the Greeks are being forced to come into line on the duty rates between ouzo and whisky, can he give the House an assurance that the Greeks and other Mediterranean countries always obey EU directives?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we seek to take action against the Greek Government as Italian manufacturers have sought to take action against us with regard to sparkling cider. The issue has not yet been resolved. When it is resolved, we shall expect the Greek Government to obey European Community directives, as we do.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the first debate today my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on enterprise and competition.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Baroness Thomas of Walliswood to two-and-a-half hours. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Countryside Policy
3.4 p. m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer rose to call attention to the case for policies which will ensure a living, working countryside and in particular to the need for clarity in the new relationships between the regional development agencies, the Countryside Agency, government offices, the European Commission and local authorities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I introduce this debate this afternoon I especially welcome the fact that so many noble Lords have chosen to take part. The future of rural Britain needs a new vision, and sharing our thoughts and concerns today will certainly help to build that vision. I especially welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, is making his maiden speech this afternoon. He has long expertise in this field which I am sure will be welcomed.
For decades we have lived with the myth of a countryside which has now ceased to exist. We have lived with the myth of rural England as the cosy, rose covered cottages near the village green. But the reality has changed. People who were born in the cities now move to the village when they have enough money or when they retire. People who were born in the village have to move to the cities as they grow up because that is where the cheaper housing is and where the jobs are. People from urban and suburban Britain want to visit the countryside for a day to walk, to go to the country pub for lunch or to watch the heron rise from the river. People working in the countryside want access to training to help them keep as skilled as their city counterparts. But the sad fact is—it is this fact that we must address today—that the political vision, the policy and the resources have been denied to rural Britain by successive governments. The Government have trailed dismally behind the pace of change and that is why we are now faced with a crisis in the countryside.
Liberal Democrats have long advocated many practical policies for putting our vision of a thriving countryside into action. Indeed, our Liberal Democrat councils have, in spite of the lack of central government action over the past decade, worked with their rural towns on regeneration and with their village communities on practical measures. This Government have adopted some of them, for example rate relief for rural post offices and shops. One of the major points which we have consistently made is that rural issues need addressing in a comprehensive way.
This Government are proud of the phrase "joined up thinking". Where, then, is the rural policy unit or the rural ministry that could achieve this? Early on this Government were minded to think about that, but it seems to have fallen off the agenda. We need an overall vision. We must implement the kind of changes that will create a rural Britain that is not a museum where there is no real work; that is not a wilderness of wheat with no wildlife; that is not a preserve of the wealthy second home owners; but is a place where wildlife thrives; where wholesome food is produced; where children can grow up in communities that offer them varied opportunities; and where elderly people do not need to dread isolation and diminishing essential services as they grow older.
The Government are now preparing a White Paper on rural England and a discussion document has been published in the past fortnight. But what will be the reaction to this document? Rural communities and their representatives have been consulted literally dozens of times over the past few years. They have been consulted on their local plans, on how many houses should be built and where they should be built. They have been consulted by their community councils on how their communities are progressing and what kind of things need to happen to build them up. They have been consulted on their response to the crime and disorder proposals. They have been consulted by their local housing authorities on housing needs, and they ask themselves what has changed. What they do know is that their post offices and village shops continue to struggle and sadly in many cases continue to close. I am sure that most noble Lords are aware of the huge number of rural villages that have no shop or post office. People in rural communities also know that there are fewer hares in the fields and fewer larks in the sky and—as has been highlighted in your Lordships' House over the past few months—fewer sparrows and fewer lapwings. They have heard about good intentions from successive governments, so one cannot blame the people of rural Britain for being cynical.
I wish to turn for a moment to the people who are trying to deliver the rural services. I have to say, off the record, that they are cynical too. They are cynical because the forthcoming White Paper on the future of rural Britain will come after the Government have done so much to define that rural future. It will come after the creation of the RDAs and the guidance to them on what their strategy should contain. I remember the struggle in your Lordships' House to include a reference to representation of rural interests. The White Paper will
228
come after the decision to merge the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission into the Countryside Agency. It will come after the prospectus for that agency has been decided.
In their Select Committee on the Countryside Agency, Members of another place wondered whether this decision to, in their words, "cobble together" was more a matter of administrative convenience than a vital part of a new strategy for rural areas. Furthermore, the White Paper will come after the Government have decided their negotiating position on CAP reform. Hardly anything will have more impact on rural Britain than that. The White Paper on rural England should have led this process, not followed it.
After hearing that catalogue, your Lordships might be forgiven for asking what there is left to discuss. I am an optimist and I hope that there is quite a lot left to be discussed. The positive step in this direction is that the discussion paper on rural England is a joint publication between MAFF and the DETR. So there is a partial acceptance that rural issues are cross-departmental. But other departments whose policies are crucial are not included; for example, the DTI. Small businesses outside the agricultural sector are very important. Tourism, too, is of great importance in many of our rural regions but is so often left out of the equation.
It is possible to foresee an environment in which small rural businesses thrive and where farmers, especially those on the smaller family farms, get their due for implementing agri-environment schemes and receive a decent return for producing high quality food. A recent Exeter University study estimated that producers receive only 15p in every pound for their produce. If the Government supported a processing and marketing scheme for farmers, imagine what that would do to change some of the returns producers would receive. I think it is the small producers, despite the exchange I had at Question Time, who need special consideration. They are the ones who are building the whole picture of the agricultural sector in rural Britain. Although we may dismiss only 15 producers as a very small part of what happens, we know that it is local produce and the distinctiveness of that produce that are very important to people.
There are European funds for such schemes, but as yet the Government have chosen not to take part in them. I hope that we will benefit from the reform of CAP funding that can introduce agri-environment and rural development measures. But who will decide how to use these funds? Who will decide the priorities in each region? Crucially, who will measure the success of such schemes? In short, we have a jigsaw of agencies, boards and authorities. How do they fit together? The question that should have been addressed right at the start of this process is: which agency or authority is responsible for what?
Regional development agencies' guidance is that their fundamental purpose is to improve their regions' economic performance and enhance their regions' competitiveness. The guidance makes almost no mention of either the quality of life of the people living in the region or of maintaining and enhancing the

229
quality of the environment, sustainable development and protecting biodiversity. RDAs have to deliver their first regional economic strategies by June of this year. They urgently need advice on those environmental issues. From where will they get it? Will they get it from the new Countryside Agency? Its chairman has only just been appointed and its board has not yet met. Where do English Nature and the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency fit in? Who informs whom? They will all be dealing with remarkably similar issues. Will we end up with more barn owls as a result? Will wildlife sites get the recognition they need? Will the rate at which we are losing SSSIs be halted? What if the RDAs choose not to heed advice? The consultation paper does not really define that relationship.
This would be less of a thorny issue if the Government had defined that relationship between RDAs and the regional chamber. Noble Lords will remember that it was not defined on the face of the Regional Development Agencies Bill. The RSPB, among others, has picked up this point. It says that,
"The relationship between the RDA and the Regional Chamber is crucial to the success of the regional partnership".
Without a clear relationship that link with those who deliver so many rural services is lost. In fact, I am surprised by the way local authorities are so marginalised in the rural discussion document. Councils are key players in delivering rural services and in the regeneration work in their towns and villages. This is all the more surprising given that the Government have said that the point of their Modernising Local Government drive was that those elected, accountable bodies could play a vital role in shaping the future of their communities. Is this not to be the case in rural areas?
We should bear in mind the crucial role of local authorities in, say, housing. Again I return to the discussion document on the rural White Paper which gives housing just a cursory mention. It says:
"Access to decent, affordable housing plays an important part in sustaining rural communities and demand for housing in many areas continues to grow".
I think that that understates the situation wildly. For anyone who needs to live in rural Britain, who wants to live near their families and needs to work there, who is young, single or in insecure employment, finding a home would be as hard as finding a haystack in modern rural Britain.
I recently had a meeting with the chairman of the Young Farmers in Somerset. I asked her what was at the top of her members' agenda. I expected her to say BSE or the difficulty of entry into farming. But at the top of her list, too, was lack of affordable housing. So who is the housing authority? Who must draw up and implement the integrated transport plans? It is the local authority.
Into this melting pot I would just like to throw the Government Offices for the Regions. Among other tasks, they must encourage a constructive dialogue between, for example, the regional planning conference and the RDA. That is particularly crucial at the moment when we are all still struggling to predict and provide the number of homes that will be required and which
230
threaten so much of our greenfield England. That is continuing to cause enormous conflict between what we should protect and how we should protect it.
We now have many new bodies and a good deal of re-organisation. Will these structures be easy to understand and work with? Will they make it easier for a community to rebuild its village hall? Will the funding mechanisms for such projects be easier to deal with? It is very, very difficult for a local community to get together four, five or six partners; frequently we need a professional red-tape interpreter. I hope the reorganisations will make this simpler.
Recognition of the problems and solutions offers us opportunities. The European CAP reform proposals offer a chance to draw on funding for rural development which will strengthen the whole of the rural economy. It offers an opportunity because a regional structure with regional assemblies could draw the strands together. It offers an opportunity for the Government to create a Ministry which will draw the strands together nationally, or will at least do what so many in the countryside are after and "rural proof, a phrase which people like the CPRE are now using. It is a time of opportunity because there is a recognition that everyone has a stake in a rural future. The city dweller, those in the market town, the farmer, those living in villages and those who live in our isolated uplands all have a stake in that future and we need to get it right. We must not miss these opportunities because they fell through cracks in the structures. Let us be clear in our vision. Let us make the links and fill in the cracks. I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p. m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, this is an important debate for me for three reasons: first, because it is widely acknowledged that debates in this House and the reports of committees of this House have made a valuable contribution to public policy and discussion on agriculture and the countryside; secondly, because so far in this debate there has been a monopoly of speakers who are Somerset folk, and Somerset folk think that they know a thing or two about agriculture and the countryside; and thirdly, because it is the first time that I speak in this Chamber and I ask your Lordships' indulgence. There is a very good principle to which I subscribe. It is that newcomers should be seen and heard —but not for too long!
I support very much the approach proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, in seeking a living, working countryside. If farmers cannot make a living, or if they do not think that it is worth continuing to work, we shall not have a living, working countryside. So agriculture is central to this debate. However, the countryside is much more than farming, and there are many things we can do to improve co-ordination between the various agencies to which the noble Baroness referred.
In the countryside we are in any event going to depend in the future very much, perhaps even more so than now, on small businesses. The action taken in yesterday's Budget is very welcome. It should be pan:

231
of countryside policy as well as national policy to encourage small businesses in small towns and villages. There are many ways in which we can help small businesses; for example, by systematically questioning, when new obligations are imposed on businesses, whether the smallest businesses can be exempted on de minimis grounds. That should be an important general rule.
The type of small business in the countryside is bound to change, with fewer manufacturing and more service businesses, and more distance-working. I do not know how far the public services have gone in encouraging distance-working. I doubt whether a part of the department of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be established in Chilthorne Domer in the near future, but at least we should seek to remove any barriers to distance-working by which people or groups work at home with a connection to the main centres by computerised means.
In addition, the increased attention being given by the public to the protection of the environment and to leisure activities in the countryside is to be welcomed, provided that we do not overrun the capacity of the countryside to handle the changes. That is particularly important following the recent Statement on the right to roam. We should not under-estimate the attractiveness of the rural landscape, not only to walkers but to the public generally. A recent study in the south west indicated that an estimated 10 million holiday trips in the area are motivated by the rural landscape. Conservation organisations such as the National Trust and the wildlife trusts provide a large number of jobs and a great deal of economic activity, going well beyond their own employees. The estimated figure for the National Trust—I declare an interest as a member of the regional committee for Wessex—is that for every one job in the National Trust, 3.3 jobs are created elsewhere in the south west. Altogether, about 5, 000 full-time equivalent jobs depend on the activities of the National Trust. It is a significant figure.
All the agencies need to understand the changes that will, or have, come about in the common agricultural policy. There is a certain time lag in comprehending the changes. I am sympathetic to that, as they are fairly complicated. However, I believe that changes in the common agricultural policy will have a significant impact on the countryside. After all, we are making changes in terms of reducing prices, reducing the importance of intervention and in setting up more direct and agri-environmental grants, and grants for rural development. These are important changes. They will mean lower prices. Regrettably, there may be a higher budget cost. And there will probably be very low stocks in intervention in the near future. All those factors will affect the way in which farming develops. The safety net will be somewhat lower and farmers will be more reliant on market prices and direct grants.
Finally, we need to look beyond changes that have already taken place towards possible future changes. As we debate this matter, Ministers of the member states are meeting yet again in Brussels to discuss further changes in the common agricultural policy. As one who
232
has attended—I should say suffered—108 meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, including eight marathons, I know the horrors, and also that the results are not always strictly rational. However, I think we can assume that the movement will be towards a greater impact of the market on agriculture. The Commission has proposed a 20 per cent. cut in the price of cereals. That is an important move. Even if Ministers do not accept it, there will probably be some significant reduction in cereal prices. I sometimes reflect that, were we in ancient Egypt or Rome, people would be cheering in the streets if they heard that the price of wheat was to decline by 20 per cent. But in Britain, where good news is occasionally overlooked, it seems not to have received a mention. Indeed, for 2, 000 years it has been a principle of political success that we should give the people "bread and circuses. "We already have the Millennium Dome, and now it looks as though there will be a slight cut in the price of bread. So the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be able to sleep peacefully at night.
Overall, I believe that the forthcoming changes are important, as is co-ordination between the agencies. Change will be difficult, but it is absolutely necessary if we are to have a living, working countryside of which we can be proud.
3.27 p. m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, on his excellent maiden speech. He brings to this House a wealth of experience, not only of the Department of Agriculture in this country, but also of the machinations of Europe which he so well described. Many of the issues with which we shall be wrestling in the forthcoming months and years to safeguard the vibrancy of our countryside for the future are ones in which the noble Lord is thoroughly steeped. We look forward to the benefit of his knowledge and wisdom. If I may be bold enough to say so, attending 108 European Council meetings eminently equips him for this House!
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for the opportunity to debate this important issue of a living, working countryside. I declare an interest as chairman of English Nature, one of the plethora of bodies that she described as presently working for the countryside.
The rural agenda that we have heard sketched out is an extremely wide one. It includes all the economic, social and environmental issues described by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Indeed, we are all looking forward to the rural White Paper. I was with the Deputy Prime Minister when he launched the rural White Paper. I found myself experiencing one of life's delicious moments when he turned to me, pointed his finger and started lecturing me on the importance of tackling the decline in skylarks. It is not a topic on which I have often heard the Deputy Prime Minister wax lyrical. I am glad that the rural White Paper has brought him to a recognition that the decline in biodiversity in our countryside is an important issue.

233
I had another wicked thought while he was lecturing me on the value of skylarks. We have had several other rural White Papers, none of which has solved the problems of the countryside. I do not believe they have been short on ideas, they have been short on implementation. It might be easier if we erased the word "Conservative" from the last rural White Paper and wrote "Labour" at the top of it and proceeded to implementation immediately, rather than going through the process of asking everyone their views all over again.
What we need is integration of the three countryside issues to produce a sustainable countryside. We need to bring together the economic considerations and the economic crisis in the countryside, the real social deprivation and lack of amenities and the need to protect the environment.
I am pleased that we shall look at the rural White Paper also in the context of the urban White Paper because, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the town and the country are not hermetically sealed from each other. These days they are mutually dependent, they share issues like deprivation, poor transport and lack of employment.
I wish to tackle three issues. First, I shall look at what is different in the countryside. It is distinctive because it is green, it has biodiversity, it is our landscape. It has a value that is intrinsic in that its wildlife and biodiversity are important for the future of all of us and the sign of a healthy environment. But those distinctive features of the countryside are also economically important. Our wildlife and landscape create jobs—conservation management is now one of the fastest growing employment sectors in the countryside. For every direct conservation management job there are five other jobs created in support services and areas like green tourism.
I hope we will see more of extensive agriculture under the common agricultural policy reforms. It employs more people than traditional—as it has now become—intensive agriculture. A high quality countryside is economically good because it promotes inward investment. Many firms go to parts of the country that have high quality rural surroundings because they want to operate there and know that they can recruit staff to live there.
Last but not least, our landscape and biodiversity are important for social reasons. People enjoy visiting them and we will look with interest at the development of the access provisions recently announced.
In tackling the social and economic interests in the countryside, we need to ensure that we are building them firmly on the basis of the natural assets that are so valuable in the countryside. Economic development must enhance the environment and reflect regional character rather than destroying it.
The noble Baroness also pointed out the plethora of regional processes that we are now seeing impacting on the countryside. I wish to focus particularly on the regional development agencies. They have the potential to become a positive force for change and renewal in the countryside and not just engines for economic
234
change. They need to tackle their development task in a sustainable way that takes account of social and environmental issues as well. They are rather thin in membership terms of people who have real rural background and knowledge. But that is not necessarily a total fault. There are other ways in which knowledge of rural processes, the environment and the countryside can be brought into the rural development agency process. As they begin to recruit new staff, we want to see specialist teams who have rural interests as part of their background and a range of skills being brought in through advice from other agencies.
Most of all, we need the rural development agencies to operate within the framework of the planning system which has been developed over the past 30 or 40 years, to do the job of bringing together competing needs in the countryside and resolving those competing needs.
My time has overrun. The third point I wished to raise has already been well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson: the common agricultural policy reform. I end by saying that the countryside is distinctive because of its natural assets. In tackling social and economic issues it is vital that the solutions are built on enhancing those natural assets.
3.33 p. m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I also wish to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, on his maiden speech. He clearly has great expertise in the area, but he particularly commands our admiration as a veteran of 108 Agricultural Council meetings. His speech was admirable; his attendance record at those meetings even more deserving of praise.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for initiating the debate. She reminded us of a number of far-reaching changes here in the United Kingdom, in the regions, and in Europe. It is extremely important that we work out how we can achieve what our own rural White Paper seeks to achieve: an integrated and effective approach for rural areas.
National policy must ultimately be the key. It is clearly helpful to have a European input. It is sad in a way that the great aspirations at the time of the Cork conference two years ago have clearly not been fulfilled. There is much watering down of the rural development element; nevertheless it is still there. I hope that that can be harnessed to our own aspirations—national, regional and local—for the rural areas.
One factor is absolutely clear. We cannot conceivably determine the rural initiatives that are needed in order to recharge the rural economy at a European level. It is self-evident that we have completely different aspirations and problems in our rural areas from region to region, let alone compared with other parts of the continent of Europe. Objective 2, which is an innovation within the Agenda 2000 package, is something we will no doubt welcome provided it can be seen to be subservient to the measures that it is incumbent on us to identify.
The regional development agencies will have a central role because so much can and should be determined at the regional level. I share the concern of

235
the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that there may not be the expertise on rural areas within the regional development agencies. It is important that we ensure that the expertise is available.
We have a raft of initiatives from the past five to 10 years on which to draw. We know that the population in the rural areas of this country—unlike so much of the Continent, particularly France—is increasing. We know that this, in turn, causes great pressure on housing. There is a shortage of low-cost social housing. We must put in place the appropriate housing in order to meet the aspirations of younger wage-earning adults of whom there is a shortage in the rural areas. The rural areas have a greater preponderance of the elderly, often suffering from lack of transport.
A point touched on by all speakers is that agricultural employment is in long-term decline. There is nothing new in that; it has been happening ever since the war. That is not to say that the agricultural industry is inevitably in terminal decline. Nor is it automatically true—and this is where I part company with the noble Baroness, Lady Young—that extensive agriculture employs more people.
If we require agriculture to be competitive in world terms—and we do require it—we must ensure that we develop agricultural systems which have the least impact on the environment and provide the most opportunities for the rural economy. There is no reason why extensive farming or intensive farming should be better or worse. If we consider some of the best managed farms and estates which have won national awards for environmental measures, some can only be described as intensive, highly competitive agriculture. If that agriculture does not survive, we will not have a rural economy. Agriculture may be declining in terms of rural employment, but it is still a large part of the rural economy.
We become muddled when we use emotive words about intensive agriculture and the impact on the environment. I make the point time and time again that while organic farming may be an important niche, which we are failing to fill, we must ultimately determine how we have agricultural systems which fit most happily into the environment and particularly into the landscapes which we all cherish. The phrase, "a living, working countryside", to which the terms of the Motion refer, implies that there must ultimately be commercially competitive agriculture.
There is one specific proposal to which I should refer on the agricultural side. I was saddened that the previous administration removed the UK processing and marketing scheme. If we recognise that we must have a competitive agriculture, we quickly determine that we must meet the regional aspirations to which the noble Baroness, who initiated the debate, referred. We must also try to add value as close as possible to the farm. That means creating jobs in the countryside and trying to bring marketing and processing as near the farm as possible. We missed an opportunity to do that by removing the scheme which was funded by the CAP.
236
My time is up. I shall set a precedent by being the first person not to exceed the six-minute time limit. I hope that noble Lords will not ignore the great contribution that can be made by competitive agriculture.
3.40 p. m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for introducing this important debate. I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, on his excellent maiden speech. This debate gives us the opportunity to consider again the vital needs of a living, working countryside at a moment of change when we see the evolution and emergence of several new agencies with, we hope, complementary but possibly conflicting responsibilities. The picture is very complicated. It is a kind of three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle with many uncertainties, some risks but also a number of important possibilities for revitalising rural life.
I believe that the key lies with the new Countryside Agency which is a national body with the specific remit of promoting a living, working countryside. It has been created out of the old RDC and the Countryside Commission, but continues to be housed in the former base of the Countryside Commission. Many of its staff were formerly with the Countryside Commission. This has led to some fears being expressed that the Countryside Agency may be too much concerned with environmental issues and too little interested in rural development, infrastructure, transport and all those other vital factors that make for a vigorous and sustainable rural community.
In reality it would be difficult to be too much concerned with environmental issues, which are clearly crucial. I long to see more larks and lapwings. A fortnight ago I was in Normandy under leaden skies and saw huge flocks of lapwings. I wondered what the French knew about lapwing habitats that we appeared to have forgotten. But the new Countryside Agency needs to act quickly to win the confidence and support of all in rural communities: farmers, small business people, landowners, voluntary organisations and environmentalists. The research and advisory function of the Countryside Agency is of critical importance. It will need to give clear and convincing advice to the RDAs, which are dominated mainly by urban and business interests, and also to the Government Offices and local authorities. It will need to maintain a close and fruitful relationship with Brussels.
The RDAs are emerging as very powerful players with easy access to government which is to be welcomed, but they need to take over the old rural regeneration functions of the RDCs and to be put in charge of European Union structural funds as well as the single regeneration budget. I hope that the Minister will be able to give noble Lords some indication that that will happen. There is real concern about the urban domination of RDAs. Their members need to remember that 23 per cent. of the population live in the country and 30 per cent. of national GDP is accounted for in rural areas.

237
The Government Offices may appear to be losing out in terms of power and influence to the RDAs. I understand that in many places Government Offices staff have been offered the chance to transfer to the new RDAs. But further devolution to the regions is very much on the cards. That process may well bring other functions to the Government Offices, such as Home Office or culture, media and sport responsibilities. One very important change that it would be good to see and that would be especially beneficial to rural areas is the incorporation into the Government Offices of the regional offices of MAFF. Indeed, MAFF needs to be much more concerned in future with rural development in the broadest sense, especially by helping farmers to add value to their produce locally. Moreover, MAFF needs to advise the RDAs about businesses that can appropriately be located in rural areas to help the process of regeneration. I ask the Minister to give your Lordships' House an indication of whether the Government intend to encourage the convergence of MAFF and the Government Offices.
The regional chambers are as yet fairly shadowy bodies. It is not clear how influential they may become. They are important because they give a voice to local authorities and voluntary agencies. In due course they may develop into regional elected assemblies. That would transform them into very powerful bodies. In the West Midlands there is a strong head of steam in favour of that development. But for the moment I see the chambers as ensuring a close and harmonious partnership between the RDA and the local authorities. It is the local authorities who still handle the vast bulk of public funding, even though they may believe, as one local politician put it to me rather cynically the other day, that RDAs are a necessary evil so that they can continue to have access to Richard Caborn's wallet.
Rural people and voluntary organisations including CPRE and the Churches are not well represented on most chambers. We are concerned about being taken seriously. We are also concerned about the end of European 5b funding which was specifically targeted for rural regeneration. Common agricultural policy reform has run into predictable difficulties and access to European funds for rural development appears to be increasingly difficult and problematical. The Minister's assurances that this problem is recognised and will be tackled vigorously would be very welcome.
Finally, I touch upon another change that we may have to envisage. We may have to look again at local government. We have just been through a great upheaval in the form of the introduction of unitary authorities in many places. In the diocese of Hereford, which is almost equally divided between Herefordshire and South Shropshire, I can compare a new unitary authority—Herefordshire—with a weakened two-tier Shropshire. Having lost The Wrekin with a large population and significant resources, Shropshire, although an extremely well run county, is struggling. The argument for simplifying local government, for example by creating new unitary authorities in North and South Shropshire, begins to look quite convincing.
238
If regional government does come it is clear that unitary authorities will have to come too in place of the more elaborate two-tier county structure. The prospect of more upheaval is not attractive, but I believe this debate has made us think more radically and long term. However the present relationships develop and whatever comes in the future, a living, working countryside will remain of vital importance. Tourism will become more important, but to take rural England as a whole it can never make more than a marginal contribution to the kind of well balanced, sustainable rural communities that we urgently need to maintain.
3.46 p. m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. I know that we have a strong agricultural voice on his Bench. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for initiating the debate. The Government make frequent Statements on the countryside and produce White Papers and consultative documents, but positive action is much less substantial. This week it has been totally negative, in that we have had a big increase in the tax on fuel, which is our life-blood in the countryside. On most farms it is essential to have fairly high-powered vehicles to pull trailers and to get round the countryside. The same goes for transport. We have also had a Statement on access to the countryside, to which I shall turn later, and the continuing muddle of the CAP in Europe. All together, this is bad news for the countryside.
I speak with some credentials as one who steered the Wildlife and Countryside Bill through another place and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is aware, served on the Nature Conservancy Council for nine years before she became chairman of English Nature. By and large, I have strongly supported what we have done in the countryside, with two exceptions: wind farms and telecommunication towers. Both the previous government and the present one have made it far too easy to erect these most unattractive, almost obscene, towers all over the rural countryside. Nothing can be done to enhance the environment, improve habitats, support wildlife, achieve a high standard of husbandry and retain employment unless fanning and forestry are profitable. We must have a fair return on capital and labour if we are to make any improvements in the rural economy. At the moment that is manifestly not so.
We had a period of increasing income up to 1996–97. Since then almost everything has gone wrong. There has been a severe drop in farmgate prices. In Scotland, the income from agriculture was £600 million in 1995 and £100 million in 1998. Every sector is affected, especially the hills. No wonder there is gloom. I think that it was made worse by the wholly one-sided government Statement earlier this week. I do not think that the Government have appreciated the substantial progress in the past few years towards voluntary agreements and arrangements. The CLA, the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the NFUs of each country have worked hard towards that. Under the excellent chairmanship of Magnus Magnusson—sadly he is retiring this year—Scottish Natural Heritage introduced

239
the Access Forum in Scotland which brought immediate agreement on all sides as to voluntary access to the hills of Scotland. He underlined the important point that,
"Access must be exercised responsibly and must be subject to land use requirements".
I hope that the Government will include that requirement in the Bill when it arrives in this House.
However, harmony was ruined by the confrontational approach by the Government this week. I think that they will rue the day. It is sad to see the argument polarised. We must have a long debate on the subject when we can raise the tone of discussion and seek consensus.
The Government seem enthusiastic to reform the CAP. I recommend caution, and did so in public on many occasions as a Minister. Any major reform which reduces income, coupled with the current low prices, will be the death knell of farming. That industry is the mainstay of the rural economy. At present the world is full of cliches from Ministers to academics on advice to farmers. It is so easy to give and difficult to achieve. Buzz words are everywhere—training; conversion of buildings; tourist development; farm shops; country cottages; co-operatives; rural transport; bed and breakfast, and so on. They tell you everything except where the money is to come from. Even if there were a 50 per cent. grant from the development agencies, from the enterprise companies in Scotland or from Europe, the matching 50 per cent. on many grants is just not there.
How can farmers make substantial investment without a good cash flow? There are also the lengthy arguments they have to undertake with planning committees, which, my goodness, can be difficult, and the grant-giving authorities. The Government's first duty must be to get farming off its knees; then the rural problems will begin to disappear. But if there is no increase in income, no capital, no employment and no development, the countryside will deteriorate. Last autumn I was in northern New York state on a military visit. The countryside there had been largely abandoned, with derelict fields, fences and buildings. It demonstrates what can happen if farming is allowed to go to rack and ruin; and that includes all the environmental aspects too.
The CAP presents many aspects which are unattractive to us, in particular the modulation scheme. I hope that the Government will be careful how they proceed. They must realise that if we are to improve the environment they must make farming profitable.
3.53 p. m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, noble Lords will be glad to hear that there is no need for me to make my speech. Everything has been said, and said well, in particular by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who placed the correct emphasis on the importance of agriculture. That was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, in a somewhat more gloomy manner.
An enormous proportion of the countryside is still peopled by farmers. In Great Britain in 1977, 748,000 people, including spouses—it is important to
240
include them—were directly employed in agriculture. In 1996—it is the last comparable figure I have—the figure was 603, 000. Those are large numbers. In Scotland the total figure is 80, 000, with 20, 000 farmers and 60, 000 workers in the countryside. The number is multiplied by a large figure which I have been able to ascertain precisely: that is, those who are directly employed in servicing agriculture.
I visited a farm machinery firm representing one of the best known manufacturers. In the past year-and-a-half of bad figures relating to farming, while it has not sacked anyone—it is a good firm and wishes to keep its good people—it has not replaced five people out of 20 in the workshop. That is a significant figure which demonstrates the dependence on prosperity in agriculture.
A somewhat lesser illustration comes from a pest control officer—we used to call them rabbit trappers. He said to me, "The farmers are daft. In bad times they don't employ me to kill the rabbits. They leave the rabbits to multiply and eat the grain they need so badly". So he, too, was suffering. It is an illustration of the importance throughout the countryside of reasonably prosperous agriculture. It is true that we need to develop and facilitate other forms of employment in the countryside. On the east coast of Scotland one of the great snags, for example, to developing old farm buildings for other purposes is the difficulty of obtaining planning permission. For example, a young man may have a good idea in engineering. It is ludicrous that the planners, for some extraordinary reason, refuse permission or take so long to give it that the project falls through. We need to pursue all these practical matters.
In introducing the debate, my noble friend Lady Miller had an English background in mind because she is rightly concerned with the cohesion of the various bodies. I wish to point out, with others, the absolute necessity of a prosperous agricultural industry if we want a good, viable countryside. It is vital to spend money—we have many enterprise groups in Scotland—on encouraging co-operation and marketing. The ludicrous figure of the farmer receiving 15 per cent. of the end price needs to be improved. I have said enough and will sit down well within my allocated time.
3.57 p. m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I associate myself with others who have thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for allowing us to discuss the subject today. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I do not mention agriculture. Four of the first seven speeches were by experts in agriculture. It is sufficient for me to endorse heartily all that they said.
One of my reasons for taking part in the debate is that I see a distinct danger of this House becoming divorced from Scottish matters after the creation of the new Scottish Parliament. The functions of that Parliament are far-reaching; and we shall have no locus in the legislation it may pass which could affect seriously the Scottish countryside. My hope is that your Lordships will not feel inhibited in any way from comment or advice on such issues, and that the new parliament will

241
have the confidence and the maturity, even in its infancy, to welcome constructive criticism and comment from wherever it comes.
It seems likely that either Labour or the Scottish National Party will emerge as the largest single party after the May elections, and since both are committed to some sort of land reform, a Bill to enact their proposals will be among the first to be presented to the new parliament.
I trust that very careful thought will be given to the preliminary researches already carried out by the Scottish Office. In September 1998 a land reform group, chaired by the Scottish Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel and including a number of distinguished Members, produced an interesting document entitled Land Reform-Identifying the Solutions.
I have no criticism of the way in which the case is presented or with the detailed analysis given to each of their "Visions for the Future"—the somewhat romantic title which they gave to their ideas. But I do hope that they, or the Scottish Office officials who will service the new Ministers, will take very careful note of the many disadvantages as well as the advantages, outlined in their own document. In the future nobody can suggest that the new parliamentarians have not been warned. The disadvantages of every aspect of land reform is there in black and white for all to read.
I would not deny that over the years we have had some bad landlords in Scotland, but they have been far outnumbered by the far-sighted, dedicated and thoroughly good landlords who have struggled to make their estates viable.
I trust that some research will be done into the present viability of estates particularly in the Highlands of Scotland. If it is, it will be discovered that few would be viable without the injection of capital from business or financial interests from other sources and sometimes even from other countries.
Should those estates be broken up, their limited viability would be further eroded. I do not want to see the baby thrown out with the bath water. I want to see a way of life preserved and rural areas continue to act as the lungs of the countryside, free of pollution and available for both leisure and sport, with each having regard to, and respect for, the aspirations of the other. For example, there is no merit in encouraging hordes of ramblers to climb hills where eagles or falcons are known to nest. Their very presence will scare off the birds they wish to observe. Yet there are opportunities for hill walking which are readily available throughout Scotland, as can be witnessed by the number of enthusiasts who conquer munros in Scotland every weekend.
Fishing, shooting, and stalking all provide sport for a sector of the tourist industry which we neglect at our peril, for within that grouping are customers who are prepared to pay substantial rents which help to finance the land over which they shoot or the rivers which they fish. I doubt that land reform will play a significant part in improving the situation. The problems of the countryside in Scotland differ from those in England and
242
Wales only in scale. Those and other problems will not be resolved overnight, but the terms of this debate can help to provide the way forward.
4.3 p. m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the timing of this debate is most appropriate. I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for tabling her Motion. I also add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Williamson for his very enlightening speech.
I must declare an interest. My husband and I have just over 100 acres in Worcestershire. We have a small flock of pedigree black Welsh Mountain sheep; a small herd of pedigree Blonde Aquitaine beef cattle and about 20 milking goats, from whose milk I make cheese. Our local family butcher, who has a low throughput abattoir attached to his shop, kills our surplus lambs and kids and prepares them for private sales. He, his brother and other members of his family have awards for their specialist meats and sausages. There is, as the Minister is no doubt aware, a niche market for these meats. Neither our lambs nor our kids are acceptable to the supermarket buyers who dominate local auction markets and co-operatives. No large-scale abattoir would look at the small numbers we would want killed. Even if it would, we would have to travel many miles to our nearest one. Our local hunt kennels takes our fallen stock. The local knackerman went out of business during the BSE crisis.
It seems to be the policy of this Government that farmers should lose their local abattoirs and hunt kennels; the first in the name of rationalisation and the second in the name of morality. I wonder whether they, their supporters and advisers are aware that by doing so they are in grave danger of killing off the few remaining local markets and, with them, upland and specialist meat producers. Do they not realise that there is a ready market for meat with flavour that has been reared, slaughtered and prepared to the highest welfare and hygiene standards? Is it not the intensively reared, industrially slaughtered, pale and tasteless relation that masquerades as meat that is in surplus in the EU?
The Minister's honourable friend, the Minister of State for Agriculture, appeared only last weekend on BBC2 South-West in a debate on the plight of small abattoirs. He said in effect that, while he had sympathy for the small abattoir owners, the "big boys in the meat industry" would not allow him to order charging on a headage rather than an hourly basis. It is all too clear why these "big boys", with a throughput of a beast every 45 seconds, will not hear of a headage charge.
We are also told that there is over-capacity in the slaughter industry. Dare I suggest that it is not a question of over-capacity? It is one of profitability. I understand that the Meat and Livestock Commission calculations are based on the throughput capacity in the slaughter hall. Will the Minister persuade his colleagues in MAFF to go back to the MLC and ask it to produce true capacity figures, including chiller capacity, together with those for profitability? Could it be that the "big boys", to whom the agriculture Minister says he must

243
bow, have over-extended themselves in that their premises are too large and their profit margins are too narrow? It would be much more sensible to plan the closure of one or two of the factory abattoirs rather than force the closure of 150 or so small throughput abattoirs and cutting plants.
As an aside, there is a 300 per cent, over-capacity in car production plant in Europe. Why not close Longbridge? As the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, will very aptly illustrate, the social and employment effects of the closure would be similar in both situations. Instead, it seems that Longbridge might well get £200 million of taxpayers' money. The charges to be levied on the slaughterhouses and cutting plants are for meat hygiene inspections. Is this not a public health matter? Should not these costs also be paid out of general taxation as they are in some of the other European states such as France?
We are told that, because of a lack of suitably qualified veterinary staff, only the small throughput abattoirs with low hygiene scores will face the higher inspection charges in the initial stages. I wonder whether noble Lords are aware that although there are legally established requirements for hygiene, for staff, premises and equipment in slaughterhouses and cutting plants, the scores applied to each plant are based upon the subjective judgment of the inspector, as I gather some owners have found to their cost. I am also reliably informed that members of the State Veterinary Service have recently been going round deliberately downgrading hygiene assessment scores. There is no appeal mechanism. A senior vet stated at a recent tribunal that it was no part of his duty to act fairly. What is the world coming to?
Perhaps it would be much simpler if we are told that there is no longer a place for small producers, livestock in the hills and speciality British farm foods. The rural community would then know where it stands in the great plan. Its members could then be issued with mowers and contracts to keep open the paths for the roaming urban population.
4.10 p. m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, in an excellent maiden speech, rightly drew attention to the jobs created by leisure activity in the countryside. The Motion calls for clarity. It is timely with the new organisations, the Countryside Agency and the regional development agencies, coming into effect on 1st April. The Motion also addresses the role of Government Offices, and I shall endeavour to show briefly how two ministries are failing to recognise the major growth area of their responsibilities in the countryside.
In previous rural debates, we have lamented the restructuring of the Rural Development Commission. It has achieved so much since its foundation in 1909. Whole villages in my old constituency in the heartlands of Lincolnshire have been resuscitated by it. It goes into the Countryside Agency in company with the Countryside Commission but disembowelled of its
244
grant-making powers which pass to a regional development agency competing with the demands of the urban regeneration agency. The functions passing from the Rural Development Commission to the regional development agencies are the redundant building grants and rural development programmes.
Powers passing to the Countryside Agency under Section 35 of the Regional Development Agencies 1998 include ones that can be applied across a wide-ranging experimental sphere covering social, economic and recreational areas. I want to put down an early marker here concerning the urgent need for licences to be issued for extensive experiments in avian predation management by quota and translocation. It is needed as a result of the Langholm study and the correct procedures for dealing with a major rural problem of the employment and harvesting of the most valuable crop of the heather moorland; the red grouse. The department has the power to issue such licences in relation to the hen harrier and peregrine falcon. Research by the Game Conservancy as a follow-on from the Langholm project shows that this may be an opportunity to save these birds as part of the rural working landscape.
Like the right reverend Prelate, I am concerned that the Minister of Agriculture was missing from all press briefings about the Countryside Agency and the regional development agencies. The Deputy Prime Minister was to the fore, supported by Ministers from the departments responsible for the environment, trade and industry and education and employment.
If you take a graph of agricultural employment and production and compare it with a graph of employment of production from the British Horse Industry Confederation, you will see that in rural Britain the horse will overtake agriculture in a very short time. No Minister is responsible for this major development. The interest of the Home Office in racing is purely as a regulator of betting. It has no responsibility for breeding or export.
It is the moment to pay tribute to the bold action of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who, from the Ministry of Agriculture, has played such a key role in encouraging and facilitating the creation of the Horse Industry Confederation. It is most welcome. The confederation has an estimated annual value of £2.5 billion and more than 160, 000 jobs. The confederation wants to discuss with the Government more encouragement of British equine exports, trade missions and taxation, especially the favourable conditions granted to Irish and European breeders, and at least six other major issues, including rights of way and a proper data base. I do not want to see the horse classed as an agricultural animal—it is a very complex issue—but I do want the Minister of Agriculture to become the responsible Minister for one of the major areas of development in the countryside. It is certainly an area that needs clarification.
Finally, can we say loudly and clearly that rural England needs the motor car? The Government's hostility to the motorist does not support their pre-election promises on traffic. The Motion deals with working in the countryside. In the rural south-west of

245
England, in Somerset and other places, 3.5 per cent, of the population work in the combined manufacturing and servicing industries for the motor car. In Lincolnshire and Humberside, the figure is the same (3.5 per cent.) and in rural Wales it is 3.8 per cent. We must champion personal mobility and the freedom to travel when and how one likes. We must not pander to the anti-car lobby. We should confront it and encourage technology to make improvements on the impact of the many more cars which will undoubtedly be with us. The planning authorities will have to tackle the problem of car parking in villages in relation to any new housing. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions must not neglect its rural role. The Budget will hasten the continuing decline in small, unbranded petrol stations. Last year saw a 31 per cent. decline in the number of petrol stations in rural areas. There are now only 601 in such areas of the United Kingdom.
So much of what has been said in today's debate emphasises the importance of the rural White Paper. We must all make representations and ensure that it has some positive and helpful conclusions.
4.15 p. m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Miller has crafted her Motion with great care. She speaks of policies which will ensure a living, working countryside. In 1962, I fought a by-election on the very problem of rural depopulation from Montgomeryshire. I therefore know that there is enormous ignorance among the public and those in high places about the problem of having a living, working countryside.
In today's debate and outside this House, speakers have spoken with pride, saying that if the common agricultural policy disappears and is not replaced, and if agriculture is unable to compete in a free trade world, the countryside will look after itself. It will not. A great deal of the English countryside is man-made and we would quickly see the kind of countryside that is to be found in New York State, New Jersey and such like, with its abandoned fences and so forth.
Life in the living, working countryside involves a rural economy which sustains civilised life. When I became a Member of Parliament in 1962, 1, 000 young people left my area of the country each year. The unemployment figures were low because people did not stay in the area. They moved elsewhere to find employment because they had been brought up to be industrious. Unless adequate steps are taken now, we are in danger of allowing the whole of our countryside to slump into a rural depression.
I do not believe that the problem will be solved by bureaucracy. We are in great danger of creating too many bodies charged with the function of helping the countryside. The countryside needs more carefully thought-out, directed help. Perhaps I may give two examples. I remember the help which was given by the local councils and others to Bernard and Laura Ashley when they started a business in my constituency a few months after I became an MP. They employed two people when I first knew them and their business grew to become a large concern. It still provides more jobs
246
than almost any other company in mid-Wales. It probably did more than any other corporation. In addition, a small scientific firm called Control Techniques set up in my area. Three people started working together and were attracted by the idea of working in the countryside. The business developed into a large company, which has now been taken over by a large American company, but it is still in the area and provides work.
When one thinks of a living, working countryside, its backbone is agriculture. I do not care what anybody's theories are. I should fight to the death to preserve a healthy agriculture in this country because without it, the countryside will not be preserved. I have: not been one of those who has hammered away at the common agricultural policy as though if we got rid of it tomorrow, everything would be all right; far from it. One would perhaps need a better-directed policy, but we should need a policy nevertheless.
We need a healthy agriculture and the ancillary industries and services which depend on it are then important. There are other matters. When I think of a typical farmer living in my area, I think of a husband and wife on the farm. Sometimes the wife goes out to do clerical work and the daughters are working in one or two of the factories nearby. That means that the average income of the household is enough to sustain life in a very beautiful part of the countryside where people want to live. In the area where I live, I am amazed by the number of people who go away to work, but who return when they retire. They tell me that they wished that they had never had to leave the area at all.
We are living in a time of great change and there will be enormous developments. There will be some problems and I advise people in England to take care because we have faced those problems in Wales. There is a danger of transferring the ethos of an over-centralised UK into an over-centralised region. Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Cardiff have their own metropolis complex and one must take care that the countryside is safeguarded when there is regional development because the interest of the region is not necessarily the same as the interest of the countryside within the region.
4.23 p. m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this very wide subject of the living countryside and how it should survive and work well. I believe that it does still live and I declare an interest because I have worked in it all my life. Many people still do.
In particular, I echo what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said. It is absolutely vital that farming should be efficient as it goes into the future. There should be no idea of holding it back into a kind of Stanley Anderson A. G. Street period. If we are to work our way in the world, which I hope we shall eventually do, and put up with the sort of wheat and barley and pig prices that we have had, then we must be efficient.
I start by dealing with our relationship with Brussels. Brussels is not my favourite place. Of course, there is a love-hate relationship between farmers and Brussels

247
because all the money comes from Brussels. And yet it is nonsensical in a way because it always seems to be applied to supporting people rather than to making them more efficient so that one day, they can compete in the world market, or at least come near to it. I do not say that that will happen tomorrow, but it should happen at some time. Therefore, I am not at all happy about Brussels. I believe that there is a large democracy gap and I am not sure that the people there really understand about farming. They are much keener on playing politics. I am not at all happy about the situation between them and the Parliament at Strasbourg which had the opportunity to sack all the Commissioners and passed it by, which I felt was rather a pity.
The next matter on which I wish to touch is local and central government. It is really local government on which I wish to concentrate although central government must be included. I wish to refer to planning. Planners have been an absolute dead hand. The process has always been too slow. The ideas behind planning are always fairly unimaginative and because of the large number of people who must be consulted about everything, somebody is bound to disagree and the whole performance is extremely expensive. That is bad for small workshops in the villages and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned Laura Ashley. As my neighbour I have Von Evzdorv who has one of the best silk-printing businesses in the world. It was established originally in a derelict stable and is now in a derelict cow barn. But it has been hard work the whole time.
It is too early to tell what the new agencies will be like or what they will do. I liked the Rural Development Commission because it covered the whole of England. It was much better placed on a national scale to pick out priorities instead of dividing up the country into smaller areas where the very badly-off areas may be left out. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, ran it very well as did my noble kinsman, Lord Shuttleworth, after him.
That takes me on to the right to roam and so on. I was deeply sorry that no agreement was reached on a basis any more friendly than that legislation is promised for the future. Of course I understand why people want to go onto the land, but we must acknowledge that people and wildlife do not mix. Large numbers of people and wildlife do not mix and it would be a sorrow to the ramblers that if they get their way and go all over the place in large numbers, they will kill the very thing that they love and want.
I do not know about the French being better, as the right reverend Prelate said. France is a much more rural country with a great deal more countryside. In Italy I believe that a starling makes a very good sandwich. At least we do not do that here.
Perhaps I may revert back to central government and the subject of forestry which nobody has talked about. The Forestry Commission has set forestry in aspic. If you cut down an oak tree, you plant an oak tree; if you cut down a beech tree, you plant a beech tree. Lots of oak trees are growing in the wrong soil as are beech trees. It may be better to plant a Douglas fir, make a bit of money and plant the oak trees elsewhere. That does
248
not seem to have occurred to the powers that be. The sooner they become a little more flexible, the happier the countryside will be.
4.19 p. m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, having moved back to the countryside 18 months ago, I hope that I possess the necessary credentials to take part in today's debate. I have a few remarks to make. Some are positive and supportive of the countryside and country people, but one or two are negative and critical.
I start with the positive. I had forgotten the pure pleasure of living in the countryside and the many benefits stemming therefrom. I do not take a sentimental view of all that. Even today country life can be very harsh, and while rural poverty does not stare one in the face as its urban counterpart does, it undoubtedly exists. The abandonment of full employment as a policy objective is no more acceptable in one part of our economy than in another. Nonetheless, I see in the rural area in which I live a sense of community and neighbourliness which is lacking in the big city. Let me add that that is characteristic of the local towns as well as of the villages and hamlets. I also see it in the excellent local newspapers (in my case the Sudbury edition of the Suffolk Free Press). The treatment of local issues, whether it be the conflicting uses of the River Stour, the future of the local hospital, the reports of the Women's Institute, the parish councils and gardening clubs, is an endless source of fascination to me. The letters pages of such papers have a simplicity and an honesty which contrast attractively with the self-importance of their counterparts in the national dailies.
I have no doubt, therefore, of the importance of preserving what we have, not ruining it, and, more to the point, enhancing it. It is eminently reasonable to scrutinise policy at the level of central government and the European Union in terms of how it impinges on rural life and the rural economy. I should add, like other noble Lords, that the rural economy amounts to a good deal more than farming. There is, indeed, very little that other noble Lords have said that I could possibly disagree with.
My doubts arise in the area of what I can best describe as the present tendency of some country people to feel sorry for themselves and to look for blame in others; notably the people who live in the big city. Not least of those who are blamed are members of the government, of whatever political persuasion.
I have no doubt that there are always valid grounds for complaint. Obviously, country people will ask how any item of legislation—not least yesterday's Budget—will affect them, but in that they are the same as all of us. What I find unreasonable is the current tendency, evinced most strongly by the so-called Countryside March, to try to make the case that the inhabitants of our rural communities are somehow specially selected for adverse treatment and that they are victims. How farmers, who because of the common agriculture policy are a clear example of the dependency culture, can say that is quite beyond me. There are plenty of industries

249
adversely affected by world competition, let alone recent monetary policy, which would like access to some of that support.
However, my point is more extensive than that. Let me give two examples with which I am directly familiar. I live in a small hamlet on a country road lying between two main roads. My road is only just wide enough for two average sized cars to pass safely. However, it is used as a so-called rat run between the main roads, and the speed limit is widely ignored. It is not people from big cities who are behaving in this way and destroying the peace and quiet for the sake of saving a couple of minutes; it is country folk. It is not my noble friend's department which is failing to deal with this problem; it is Suffolk County Council and other local councils. It is not the Metropolitan Police who do nothing to enforce the speed limit, but the local constabulary. My reading of the local press tells me that my experience is not unique. I shall not dwell on the related issue of the destructive use of all-terrain vehicles on small roads and lanes. My point is that countrymen and countrywomen have the power to act, both personally and through their own institutions, to improve the quality of life. Too often they are themselves the source of the problem.
My second example concerns local shops. I have recently been involved in research on the future of neighbourhood shopping. While this is relevant to urban areas, it is especially important to rural areas, and in particular to those lacking motor vehicles. In our part of Suffolk there are still local shops, including some small stores run by the larger chains. There are also some excellent supermarkets. Clearly the latter take a substantial part of rural trade and, while providing a service themselves, also threaten their smaller rivals. When the Office of Fair Trading completes its work on supermarkets, it will be interesting to see whether it will report that the rural chains are engaging in unfair competitive practices.
Our research shows that consumers would be worried if the neighbourhood shop disappeared but they feel no obligation to change their own behaviour to help it survive. Most households do not favour strong government aid to local traders. In this connection it seems that our legislation and tax system are less helpful to the small shopkeeper than those of our European neighbours. So much for Napoleon! That is not all. Both the big banks and the Post Office appear to be in the process of closing down many small local branches.
In my judgment, the least we can do is to ensure that rules and regulations are not biased against the neighbourhood shop, which, of course, is generally a small enterprise—which I hope will benefit from the Government's announcements yesterday and today. I should also like to say to my friends in rural areas, do not shop in the supermarket and then blame someone else when the village store closes.
I do not wish to end on a negative note, because both the countryside and the big city are part of our nation's history and heritage. I am convinced that their interests are complementary and that the way forward requires each to show some sympathy for and to place some trust in the other.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for this timely and, I hope, possibly influential debate. I declare a personal interest. I live and farm in a deeply rural area. Fortunately, [do not have to make my living there. It is an area where there are more sheep than people. It is the most rural county of England. Also, for 10 years I was chairman of the Rural Development Commission. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for his kind remarks.
The policy of the Rural Development Commission was to help develop indigenous enterprise by building on local skills and, having found and developed that enterprise, help to house it in redundant farm buildings and workshops. That policy over the years helped to create tens of thousands of jobs in rural England that would not otherwise have existed. I can only hope that the initiative will be continued, financed and recognised for the value it has, by any new agency.
We tried to do some practical things on the ground. After all it is not governments who create jobs; they can only provide the setting for others to create jobs. We recognised the whole time that our primary task was to inform government about the rural condition, not least the problems raised today, the problems of distance and sparsity that are so often overlooked, not deliberately but through lack of experience, by the urban dweller. At the same time we recognised that fundamental employment creation in truly rural areas is, and always has been, based on agriculture. I am therefore very glad indeed that the point was made earlier, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, in an excellent maiden speech, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Selborne.
The impact of what is happening in agriculture today is perhaps not sufficiently recognised. It is experiencing its worst crisis in 60 years. There has been appalling weather which, incidentally, in my view, is responsible, to a greater extent than any changes in agricultural practice, for the decline in skylarks and other ground-nesting birds. Cold springs have helped to wipe them out. I wish that that was more readily recognised by the RSPB. But it is not only appalling weather which is making farming—obviously very weather dependent—extremely difficult. There has been an absolutely massive fall in prices over the last year of some 30 per cent. right across the board in virtually every commodity except potatoes.
Even with subsidy, most farms in Britain today are now running at a loss. This has a profound effect on the rural economy. Basically, food is too cheap to give a living return to those growing it. This is not just a United Kingdom problem; it is worldwide. We always argued that the CAP was far more important to the rural economy than the RDC. That remains the case. Indeed, it will remain so because any new agency cannot possibly have anywhere near the same input in rural areas as the CAP.
Although agriculture ostensibly employs only between 1.5 and 2 per cent. of the population, it actually employs many more if one adds in service-dependent

251
and related industries. It is still overall the biggest industry in the United Kingdom, bigger than the agricultural sectors of Australia and New Zealand combined. Agricultural prosperity really does lie at the heart of rural prosperity, particularly in deeply rural areas where the main social and economic problems are to be found.
It may be useful to analyse the problems behind the worldwide crisis. Such an analysis is often overlooked. Nations starve if they run out of food, so governments encourage the production of food. That creates a surplus. That, in turn, leads to low prices. There are then calls for subsidies. Those continue until the next generation of politicians becomes bored with the whole thing and decides that all subsidies should be scrapped. To maintain a living, farmers then increase production. Prices get even lower; massive bankruptcies result; governments panic; and the whole cycle begins again with new subsidies.
That is precisely what is happening in the world today, with America's wall-to-wall "grow-anything" policy. The price of wheat in Chicago is at an all-time historic low in real terms. There are massive numbers of farm bankruptcies in both the United States and Canada. One could say that the market is correcting. However, there is no way in which the United Kingdom could possibly substitute—in a hurry, anyway—the 25 million tonnes of grain that it grows. And there is no way in which the EC could substitute the 150 million tonnes of grain that it grows. We simply must nurture our own. Farming and agriculture must remain central.
That begs the question: what can any government do about this? There is not enough time to spell out the answer, but government at all levels should strive to help to bring supply and demand into balance and restore equilibrium to the market so that prices recover to their proper level.
Finally, I hope that if any new agency is a multiple agency, the department that is charged with looking after rural affairs will be a discrete arm of it, with dedicated staff. If that is not the case, rural problems will be overlooked and will be treated as secondary to urban problems instead of rural life being seen as part of the whole spectrum of our society.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer for having initiated the debate. As we reach the halfway mark, perhaps I may say what a good debate this has been so far. I should like to thank particularly the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her remarks about slaughterhouses. I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, that I do not think that land reform is necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps we should remember that most of this century's industrial giants, including all the countries of South-East Asia, had major programmes of land reform before they managed to take off and become prosperous countries. There is much to be said for what
252
might be described as "wholesale land reform". I am not suggesting that that should be a policy for my party, although when the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, was a member I remember that he advocated the nationalisation of land at our party conference in Llandudno.
A living, working countryside is absolutely essential. Many of us remember such a thing in our own lifetimes. Admittedly, its highest point was in wartime, but we should not need a war to protect our countryside. Nevertheless, it does no harm to look back and see what we had then. We had a countryside which was primarily dedicated to producing food. The food that it produced was bought and consumed by the people of Britain. We fed our own nation.
Now, free trade has ensured that only a few food products can earn a farmer enough to keep his family alive. As for the main staples, you cannot give them away. The problems of beef have become legendary and have been discussed in this House over and over again, and it is difficult even to give away lamb and pork.
There used to be something called "animal husbandry"—do your Lordships remember that?—when the ratio of workers to animals was such that every cow was known by name and appearance to everyone on the farm; when the object of the government was to get people onto farms; when we had land girls, Italian prisoners of war, and schoolchildren working in the holidays and even in term time, planting potatoes; and when we used muck to fertilise the land, thus achieving an admirable level of integrated housekeeping without poisoning the countryside. Although there were some excesses of production and bureaucracy—the old WarAgs were not always sensitive or efficient—we left behind us a good-looking countryside and held the balance between producing food and caring for the land. I do not remember any great threat then to biodiversity.
Now, the countryside is becoming increasingly denuded of country workers and the state of agriculture and rural life is such that family farmers are going bankrupt by the score and committing suicide by the handful. That is no exaggeration. At the same time—and this is a source of great trouble—we must face the fact that the next generation does not want to farm. Very few farmers have children who want to continue farming after their parents.
The countryside is also becoming a desert; not because nothing is growing—the countryside is very green—but because it is a landscape without figures. There are not even any animal figures, as animals are concentrated more and more in large areas of factory accommodation, where more and more animals are kept in less and less space. The populations of wild birds and butterflies are virtually disappearing. What is the result of that depopulation? In spite of the influx from the urban middle classes, we are seeing a decline in public transport because the middle classes have cars and the railways were destroyed long ago. There is also a deficit of shops; the middle classes shop in supermarkets.
Is everything then terrible? Well, most things are, but there are countryside agencies of various kinds which are doing their best. We have started to protect our

253
national parks. I speak as a vice-president of the National Parks Association, which is now celebrating its 50th anniversary. The church and parish system still has a great influence. Organic farming is thriving—I am sure that we shall hear more about that—and farmers' markets are beginning.
But what basically needs to be done? We must not throw up our hands and admit defeat. We must not hand over our countryside to the insurance companies and the factories, or even to such attractive and energetic people as Oliver Walston. We must realise that some trends have gone too far and that trends do not continue in a straight line for ever; they more often describe a sigmoid curve, which, as your Lordships know, flattens out following a large rise. It is not inevitable that what happens on the 14-acre farm is dictated by money made in Washington behind closed doors.
Our fight back must start with the big international organisations. It must start when our Ministers are talking to those in the WTO and GATT. We must be able to have the freedom to put our house in order. We must keep and cherish our countryside. In this Parliament, we must remember that directions are changed little by little. We must not give up hope. A 1 per cent. divergence today in our actions may be only a tiny step, but as the future radiates out, the difference in destination becomes vast. It is time that we stopped going in one direction and that we chose another—one that produces a living, working countryside, such as we see probably once every 50 years, but which we never manage to keep. This time, let us find it, let us make it work and let us keep it.
4.49 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for introducing this timely debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, on his excellent maiden speech.
My noble friend Lord Kimball slightly wrong-footed me by making reference to the game conservancy work at Langholm and its effects on red grouse. As chairman of the Game Conservancy I declare an interest. But I do not particularly wish to be tempted down that path of debate this afternoon, important though it is; no doubt it is something to which we will return at a later stage.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate is not in his place; he mentioned lapwings, peewits or green plovers, whichever terminology one likes to use, and his perception of their decline in this country. There are certainly less than there were, but it is clear that it is on the well-managed grouse moors of England and Scotland that the green plover is to be found because the management there is right for them.
The introduction of regional development agencies and the new Countryside Agency herald a new beginning for rural England. I sincerely hope that it proves to be successful. I regret the emasculation of the old Rural Development Commission and have my doubts as to whether the RDAs will be able to bring to the countryside the same expertise as the Rural Development Commission did in the past—a point to which my noble friend Lord Vinson referred.
254
I am also slightly baffled by the cobbling together of what was left of the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission. They do not seem to me to be natural bedfellows. I am surprised that the Government did not emulate what has been done in Scotland and Wales; that is, merge the Countryside Commission with English Nature. I am wondering whether that implies that the Government have doubts about the success of SNH and CCW. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to give us his views on that question.
I congratulate Ewen Cameron on his appointment as chairman of the new agency, but with the Government's announcement on Monday to legislate on the right to roam and given the Countryside Agency's remit on that subject, I suspect that it could well turn out to be an agency destined for countryside damage limitation only. That would be a great pity.
It is essential that those living and working in rural areas and their representative groups have access to and confidence in the government agencies. It is important that each one has a clear and distinctive role. Some of us would say that there are perhaps already too many such bodies in the countryside resulting in duplication of responsibilities, inevitable overmanning and a certain degree of confusion.
I wish to take an optimistic view of the new Countryside Agency. As its name suggests, it must speak out and act for the wellbeing of rural England as a whole. But confidence among country people is very low. So there is a crying need for the new agency to champion the interests and aspirations of all those living in, working and managing the countryside. It must do so despite external pressures and the ever-increasing ascendency of an urban culture.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned one of the most important issues in the countryside at the moment; that is, the question of planning. Farming is changing. Inevitably, regrettably, farm sizes will increase. It seems to me that there remains a pressing need for the Government to promote a less rigid and more flexible planning system. There are too many examples of intransigent planning officers impeding sensible progress despite the more enlightened central government planning policy guidance. Therefore I urge the Government to tackle this issue. I hope: that the RDAs and the Countryside Agency will be able to monitor such schemes and provide government with information on the success or otherwise of such policies.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, mentioned the question of abattoirs. I must declare an interest in my involvement with the Duchy of Cornwall. In the south-west of England this is becoming an extremely serious problem. Small abattoirs are being closed down and the effect of that on animal welfare is obvious, and also on schemes the Government are backing to try to induce home produce being sold from farm shops and through farmers' markets. It is important therefore that abattoirs are preserved. There is a perception both by local butchers and vets that it is a deliberate policy by the inspectorate to seek closures to reduce costs and

255
inspectors' workloads. I hope the Minister can refute that. It is a serious allegation and I sincerely hope that it is not true.
Finally, I know that the Minister will be well aware that a number of rural Back-Benchers in another place produced a report in which they asked for the standard spending assessment formula to be reconsidered. That report recommends that a set of rural indicators be developed and adapted in order to consider why metropolitan areas receive an average 20 per cent. more of SSA per head than rural areas. It is a serious matter. I am sure it is one at which the Government are looking, but I would be grateful if the Minister could assure the House that they take it seriously.
The Chancellor claims to have given us a "give-away" Budget. Let us hope that under these new initiatives and the forthcoming White Paper, the countryside gets a generous deal as well.
4.55 p. m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer introduced a timely and important debate. It has been extremely wide-ranging and some of us have been going down memory lane this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Beaumont reminded me that my very first paid job was picking up potatoes in a field for 1s 9d per hour.
However, I am grateful today to be given the opportunity to highlight the importance of housing policies in a living, working countryside. People living and working in the countryside need homes and jobs. They will go on needing housing when they are retired. It is therefore extremely important that the regional development agencies recognise, along with local authorities and other government departments, the importance of housing provision as part of the social and economic structure of our regions.
The availability of housing, both public and private, is central to achieving sustainable communities. In practical terms, where inward investment is being attracted and jobs created, account must be taken to audit the availability and quality of housing and, equally, the socio-economic profile of the residents who will inhabit that housing. If economic regeneration occurs in an area where there is not a significant supply of housing, problems arise; for instance, problems of transport, which can be two-fold. An enormous increase of pressure on transport infrastructure can bring real misery to people living in some of our small towns in trying to get to work. Some employees will not have the opportunity to get to work other than by using personal transport. If they are young or elderly they may not possess that.
If we are not careful it may also lead to the over supply of and excessive demand for housing in certain localities. That too can bring associated problems. Sometimes it will lead to excessive house prices. That is a problem in some rural areas for young people who are trying to stay in the area. Also, as was mentioned earlier today, people who cannot have access to services
256
may be excluded from obtaining employment which is important if we are to have a living, thriving community.
I know that some of us—this was raised in the debate on the Bill setting up regional development agencies—had concerns that the agencies may be led and staffed by people who were more committed to economic regeneration and who did not have sufficient appreciation of the social policy agenda which is integrally linked to it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because he gave us assurances at an earlier stage in those discussions that the regional development agencies would be able to take part in facilitating the provision of housing—though not be direct providers—and that they would have similar powers to those of English Partnership. I hope that the Minister can perhaps give us some indication today about what further steps he thinks the Government can take to ensure that that is a reality.
I am particularly pleased that one government department—indeed, I might almost call it a "quango"—has taken up the challenge here. I have in mind the Housing Corporation. However, I am rather disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, is not present in the Chamber, because I wish to complement her on being the chairman of that organisation. The Housing Corporation recently produced a news release about its new funding proposals, which actually put the RDAs right at the heart of such matters. Such proposals include,
"using Regional Housing Statements to help guide decisions on Corporation investment".
The release continues—and this is most important:
"These statements will describe the local housing, economic, demographic and planning context and will take a three to five year view".
That is good news. Indeed, if other agencies can work in that way, that would prove to be a very good way forward.
The provision of affordable housing and a cross section of types of housing in rural areas is an increasing problem. We have all seen villages that have become commuter villages. Indeed, sometimes that is the reason why the shops and the other facilities close. We have also witnessed the problems experienced by young people trying to find somewhere to live in rural areas. That also affects their ability to obtain jobs.
Only this week Shelter produced a report outlining the great difficulty experienced by young couples when they try to get into the housing market. Many of them will be on low incomes, and may well have just started out in life. Moreover, the changing pattern of jobs is a further difficulty. Very often, the people who are made homeless in rural areas are those who cannot keep up with their mortgage payments and subsequently their homes are repossessed. As one speaker said earlier, there is also the problem of second homes in our rural communities but I do not have time today to go into that situation.
The development of RDAs and regional chambers, which I personally hope will lead to regional government, does, as my noble friend Lady Miller said,

257
give us an opportunity to bring forward fresh thinking and new levels of co-operation and co-ordination between the various bodies. It will not be easy. The present planning framework is not an easy process. You cannot put into your plans what type of housing you want, whether it be private or social. Indeed, it is usually the market that decides such matters. I hope that those issues will be tackled by the various RDAs and local councils in the coming months and years. That co-operation and new thinking must be at the root of our approach to ensuring that we have a countryside which remains a place where people can live and work.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I have a recurring nightmare: a nightmare of all these agencies, guided by the Health Education Council; abetted by the Sports Council; supported by ASH and other quangos and charities all advising the British to abandon their sofas, their computer games and their TVs in favour of a Good Brisk Walk. I have a nightmare of thousands of cars pouring out of town and city to tear up grass verges, to block farm gateways and to choke village streets. I have a nightmare of thousands of dogs chasing wildlife:
"Over hill, over dale, Thorough bush, thorough brier, Over park, over pale".
disturbing feeding grounds and destroying nesting sites.
Noble Lords may think that I am being unduly alarmist. So I should like to draw the attention of the House to some of the comments that have been given in evidence over recent months to various inquiries. First, in its evidence to the Environment Sub-Committee in the other place, the Ramblers' Association stated:
"We have real concerns that the environment will lose out to rural development unless there is proper integration and balance between the economic, environmental and social strands of sustainable development".
Tony Burton of the CPRE told the committee:
"We produced a methodology which defined tranquillity. It showed that since the 1960s England had lost an area of rural tranquillity almost the size of Wales".
That was followed by a submission by Miss Greaves of the National Hedgelaying Society, who said:
"Our landscape has been created by agriculture. Even the so-called 'open spaces' which many people consider not to be farmland are, in fact, managed, usually by grazing with sheep, native cattle, ponies or deer, the grazing maintained by cutting bracken, heather, etc. regularly".
She then went on to say:
"Without this hard work…the much valued access would cease to exist, as routes became impassable".
In specific comments on the draft prospectus for a countryside agency, the RSPB said:
"Biodiversity is an integral part of the health and viability of our countryside. Biodiversity and wildlife are often the very reason that a large number of people have an attachment to the countryside. This fact is not acknowledged anywhere in the document".
The society also pointed out that the Countryside Commission has a remit that extends to biodiversity under the terms of the Countryside Act 1968.
258
The Moorland Association provided a comprehensive response to the consultation paper on access, in the course of which it made a number of points. For example:
"There is evidence from surveys done in the Peak District and South Pennines that birds like golden plover, curlew and lapwing are particularly sensitive to too much disturbance at breeding time. Continual disturbance leads to cold eggs or chicks dying of exposure and also makes the nest more prone to predation".
It continued that theme by saying:
"…an individual walker, present in the wrong; time in the wrong place on a moorland area, may entirely unwittingly disturb both mammals and birds, particularly at the time of territory establishment (February/March), nesting (March/June) and fledgling (May/June)—
that is, a six-month period—
'The effect of the disturbance is very much compounded if he has a dog, whether on a lead or not, but in almost all cases each walker will be unaware of the damage he is doing".
The association makes a plea that:
"Any provision for access to heather moorland must make effective and enforceable provision for restricting or removing the right of access at times of high fire risk",
and concludes by saying,
"managing access to heather moorland by closure for particular periods is simply not a practicable management solution".
The problems of "open access" have to be recognised and used to inform the debate on access generally. The most important of these is the preservation of wildlife, which has a prior claim on the open countryside. At a time when the countryside is under pressure to have the "right to roam" legislated upon it, the countryside would have warmly welcomed any new help given in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget yesterday; an acknowledgement of the continuing and deepening plight of the countryside's economy. That opportunity was missed.
However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did lavish money on politically sensitive areas, For example, £300 million extra on capital spending on the electorate of Scotland and Wales to help cut crime and modernise schools. That is a part of the UK which already enjoys higher spending in these areas. The Chancellor said that the,
"Budget places environment at the heart of government".
This policy is tough on those rural people who use their cars to go everywhere. If one spends £10 on petrol, £8.50 of it will now go to the Government in taxes. In 1997, 75 per cent. of rural parishes in England had no daily bus service. Moreover, of 9, 000 surveyed rural parishes in 1997, the vast majority had no food or general shops, no post office, no police station, no public nursery, no elderly daycare centre, no bank or building society and no job centre or benefit agency. As most noble Lords have already said, private transport is of great importance. I find myself, unusually, in the position of that arch villain, Topol, "I think I had better think it out again". I hope that this Government will be able to reverse the present demise of our countryside.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, this is a timely debate, following, as it does, hard on the heels of the Government's consultation paper.

259
I certainly warmly welcome the consultation process but I am a little disappointed in the document itself. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into that, but it seems to be rather full of what I would loosely call "motherhood" statements and I am not sure where it gets us. There is a good deal to be said for the rather old-fashioned Green Paper approach which explores practical possibilities and analyses problems.
For my part, I start with my concept of the countryside as a precious landscape of extraordinary diversity and quality which is perhaps unique in such a small island, but which, as a result, is subject to tremendous pressures and threats. What I seek are policies which help to protect the countryside and enhance our environment and, of course, enable the communities who live there—and who shape the countryside—to enjoy a good quality of life.
As 80 per cent. of our rural landscape depends in one way or another on our farmers, agricultural policies should be our starting point. That has been fairly evident from the speeches of most speakers today. But first I must flag up what I loosely call the housing issue; that is, the perceived need for 4.4 million houses in England by 2016; that is to say, four Bristols every 25 years if, as expected, the demand is likely to continue at that level. This issue was hotly discussed a year ago and the Government made a number of changes. However, I suspect that unwittingly some of those changes will turn out to be more cosmetic than real. This is an ongoing debate but I simply make the point that even if government policy manages to achieve its objective of 60 per cent. of the need being met from brownfield sites, the erosion of our countryside, especially in the south-east and the south-west of the country, will be pretty awful, and in fact unacceptable. The solution must lie in making our cities more attractive places in which to live. That, to me, is where the real interdependence in this matter lies. The Government have, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, and his committee working on this matter. I eagerly await his report. He has a challenging task.
I return to agriculture because it is so central to a living, working countryside. I am puzzled that it earns only a few mentions in the consultation document. As almost every noble Lord who has spoken has mentioned agriculture—I refer in particular to the outstanding speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne—I shall confine myself to making one point to draw attention to some of the work of the National Trust, in which I no longer have to declare an interest. Country Life states, in regard to the work of the National Trust,
"The National Trust is offering a range of packages for its 700 tenant farmers on a farm-by-farm basis. These include delaying or phasing rent payments, supplying cash support to upgrade farmhouses for bed-and-breakfast, developing marketing schemes and using meat from the tenant farmers in Trust restaurants. The Trust is also employing farmers to carry out environmental work on their own property and other land, and funding organic farming enterprises".
I am so glad that the Trust is doing what it can to help.
So much for agriculture. I now turn to the rural economy itself. We must recognise that farming is no longer the huge employer that it used to be. The
260
structure of the rural economy is, at any rate in England, not that different from the national picture in terms of employment. Moreover—I find this amazing—given the steady loss of jobs in agriculture, the rural economy has had a relatively more buoyant economic performance than the urban economy, with twice the rate of increase in jobs—8 per cent. as against 4 per cent. nationally—from 1991 to 1996.
As I see it, the rural problem is not so much one of low paid jobs but is much more of a social problem of poverty and social exclusion. It is a problem of considerable patchiness at village level, of pockets of unemployment and lack of job opportunities. There are patchiness problems of affordable housing, as has been mentioned. In general there tends to be—perhaps partly inevitably—a much poorer provision of essential services, especially public transport provision, as we all know. Schools have not been mentioned in this connection but shops have. These facts are well known and were well rehearsed by the Rural Development Commission, whose demise a number of speakers have regretted, as I do. It is in this area that the RDAs will be of crucial importance.
On this I have time only to make a few bullet points. First, above all, I am worried that the RDAs and the chambers will be urban dominated. There is an exceedingly tight timetable for drawing up regional economic strategies, a timetable which is out of kilter with the regional planning conference frameworks. There is the danger that sustainable development policies will be poor relations, despite the useful draft guidance, due to the timetables and the pressures for immediate results. The lack of environmental expertise in the RDAs has been mentioned by some. It has been mentioned that MAFF still after all these years has not merged its offices with the GORs. The Countryside Agency, with its new shape and its new chairman—incidentally I warmly welcome the choice of Ewan Cameron as chairman—is not yet up and running and is not therefore in a position to fight the countryside corner with the RDAs. I have run over my time and I shall sit down.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope I may ask noble Lords to keep to their allotted time; otherwise, the Minister may not have time to reply to any of the points that have been made.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I have explained in a number of previous debates on similar subjects, I have several rural interests which I should declare, and which I hope and believe I have accurately included in the register.
In his impressive maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. He said that they both came from Somerset. What they can do well in Somerset, we in Cumbria can do better. I am delighted to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
There is no point in beating about the bush. It is pretty depressing in the rural north-west these days. After all, farm incomes are down at 1930s levels in real terms.

261
CAP reforms do not seem to be going well, and it looks as if the wrong systems of support may be gaining the upper hand. Modulation, which is a serious threat to legitimate UK farming—and, in my view, a stumbling block to economically sustainable reform—seems to be gaining in popularity. The high pound is depressing commodity prices, and that affects not only agriculture but also timber prices. The outlook for the continuation of much of the existing 5b areas is—I am told by those involved—looking distinctly bad. The important tourist industry has, overall, had a bad year.
If rural Britain was, quite simply, a market—a bazaar where anything went—it would be quite understandable to say that that is the way of the world and you must take the rough with the smooth. But, of course, that is not a fair description. Rural land use—which is heavily regulated—and agriculture in particular are not in an open market; rather they are heavily regulated by government, which have given certain pledges in respect of them.
In particular I wish to draw the attention of the House to the provisions of the European Community treaty. I would like to draw attention to two provisions in particular. Article 39(1)(B) states that one of the purposes of the common agricultural policy is,
"to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture".
I suspect that that sounds like a sick joke to most people involved in farming these days. Article 130(a) is concerned with regional policy. It states,
"In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between levels of development of the various regions and backwardness of the least favoured regions including rural areas".
After all, Article 130 is the policy background to what, as I have already mentioned, I am reliably told looks like being a significant reduction in objective 5b eligibility in the north-west in the middle of the worst agricultural recession for some 50 years.
What will the Government do about their obligations contained in the European Community treaty? In particular—I have already raised this matter with the Minister—will the Government replace whatever may be lost from objective 5b by compensating national aid? I should be very grateful if the Minister will deal with that point during his summing up. If he cannot do that—I understand he may not be able to—will he write to me and put a copy of the letter in the Library?
Had we on these Benches been in government, I know that we would not have added to the complication of the multifarious agencies and tiers of administration that the establishment of the RDAs and the new Countryside Agency entails. But we are not in government and the Government have electoral legitimacy to do what they are doing. I do not complain about that.
As your Lordships may know, I am privileged to be number one on the list of prospective Conservative candidates in the north-west for the European elections. I wish to make it clear that while my party was opposed to the establishment of the RDAs, which it considers to be an error, it is the firm intention of whichever Conservative candidates may be elected for that region
262
to work constructively—I hope that this may be of some interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington—with the RDA in the north-west in the region's best interest.
The RDA there, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Macclesfield, has a big task. No one in the north-west wants him and his fellow members to make a hash of it. As to rural areas, just because they are less populous than the urban areas—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—it is important that they are not overlooked. I know that a number of the RDA members are rurally based and focused, and I am sure that they, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will use their judgment and sense of fair play to ensure that it does not happen.
Finally, I wish to make a plea for simplicity. By any standards the relationship between the various agencies and tiers of government and administration is Byzantine and opaque. Cynics might well suppose that the whole thing had been designed to make the services they provide as non-user friendly as possible. My plea is to have a "one-stop shop" from which all the various services can be delivered in a single place and in a coherent, comprehensible, simple and non-bureaucratic manner. If that can be done they will do a great deal more good than otherwise might be the case. After all, when all is said and done, that is their sole real raison ďêtre.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, first, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, on a masterly maiden speech. I wish also to thank my noble friend Lady Miller for initiating this important, interesting and complex debate.
I wish to speak fleetingly on two issues with specific reference to Scotland. In three months' time these issues will be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, but they share, nonetheless, important common problems with the whole of the UK. The debate in one part of the country will both reflect and inform, I hope, the debate in another. The issues are agriculture and land reform, although I have to admit to a fraction of the expertise of many of the speakers in the debate. These subjects are highly topical; they are distinctive but related in their agendas; and both are at a critical point in their histories.
Policies which will ensure a living and working countryside could not be more important in the Scottish context—not least because to a greater or lesser extent 80 per cent. of the land mass of Scotland is in agriculture of some kind or another. While some of it may have little productive value, some has the highest quality of production to be found anywhere in Europe. Furthermore, I believe that Scotland has countiyside of a beauty unsurpassed in the rest of the world and an environment which we must treasure and nurture as one of the nation's greatest assets.
All this is at grave risk. Never has there been such a crisis as there is in agriculture today. Never before has it been so difficult for those whose lives are devoted to or associated with agriculture to make a living. Yet it remains the economic mainspring of our rural communities. If that dies, then those communities also die.

263
The statistics are terrifying. The average net income per farm in Scotland dropped to £416 last year from around £5, 000 the previous year. Many suffered negative incomes. How can any industry survive if such circumstances persist? The answer clearly is that it cannot. The strength of the pound coupled with impossibly high interest rates compared with our competitors in Europe mean that its viability is seriously compromised. The result is that borrowing by those in the industry now stands at £1.2 billion. People are not borrowing to expand but to live—and we are talking about one in ten of the Scottish population.
Where I was raised, in the Perthshire hills, on what my father only half jokingly referred to as a "non-revenue producing asset", where once three people were employed full-time we are down to one; where holiday cottage letting of what was once a shepherd's home is necessary; where a reduction in sheep and an increase in forestry has taken place; and where sporting lets are now an important part of the picture. Survival is now the issue.
Never before have subsidies been so necessary, but they must be restructured so that they are not seen to be linked to production alone but can ensure farmers' livelihoods. Payments for agri-environment measures which are project-based, not production-based, are examples of a way forward favoured by many in the industry. They link payments for good farming practice to good environment and conservation practice. Policies which can combine these economic, social and environmental elements into an agreed strategy in rural communities and pull together all the varied but interconnecting interests are surely the way forward.
Linked crucially to the debate on the crisis in agriculture and the implications for living in rural communities is the question of land reform, now the centre of debate in Scotland since the publication in January of the Government's Land Reform Policy Group's recommendations for action. Its essential purpose was how to,
"best utilise the land resource so as to enhance the lifechances of people living and working in rural areas".
That sounds splendid, but in reality it is a diversion from the central crisis. It covers, among other things, the wider rural community, the legislation relating to land ownership, private, community and public, and the accountability and involvement of all these groups, one with another. But the importance of land owners as key players alongside farmers—they are often synonymous—in the sustaining of the rural economy is crucial.
The development of greater accountability and more communication between landowners, tenants, farmers, local and wider communities is widely, and rightly, welcomed. But investment and job creation must be encouraged as a priority and bureaucracy and uncertainty kept to a minimum. So far, slogans like, for example, the "community right to buy" have simply generated anxiety in the farming and landowning sectors, not least since it is not at all clear what is actually meant by "community" in such a context or how it is all turned into a reality.
264
Thus there is an important balance to be struck between the necessary regulation of, say, bad landlords, and those regulations or controls which act as a disincentive to good investment in the countryside. Of key importance is the improvement of landlord-tenant relations across the whole of Scotland, something over which the NFU and the SLF have been in consultation. The availability of let land is vital in the evolution of the rural economy. It is issues such as these which should be focused on as a priority.
If we are to assume, as I do, that our rural communities are an integral and essential part of our society, then all measures possible must be devised to sustain our threatened agriculture industry in its hour of greatest need and all possible encouragement should be given to those who can invest and sustain the rural community in all its forms. Without that commitment and support we put at risk the very essence of the society in which we live.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for providing the opportunity to discuss this important subject. The objective of a living, working countryside is one that we all share. That has been clear from all the speeches that we have heard. Britain's rural economy is presently facing one of its most serious crises. On top of a damaging drop in farm incomes, Britain's meat industry is on the brink of disaster, thanks to the rigid, inflexible implementation of EU meat hygiene directives, to which both my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred. I wish to enlarge on the subject as it has a big impact on the rural economy.
From 1st April, hundreds of meat firms will find themselves liable to pay hugely increased charges for inspection—charges which small businesses simply cannot afford. They will have to sell out or close down. The results will be felt by thousands of farmers, butchers, hotels, restaurants, and of course individual consumers—in fact, by the whole local economy.
Noble Lords may think that that is a generalisation too far, but that is not so. Perhaps I may give just two examples of the kind of business that will face ruin unless the Government seriously rethink the matter.
Pipers Farm is a specialist meat business in Exeter, employing seven people. It enjoys an enviable reputation throughout the country for providing top quality beef, lamb, chicken and sausages. Its suppliers do not use intensive farming methods. The stock are all extensively reared, without the use of growth promoters, routine antibiotics or artificial additives. The produce is sold by special delivery throughout the country to hundreds of satisfied customers and the farm has won numerous awards for its superb quality. Most notably, the farm is supplier to the Gidleigh Park Hotel on Dartmoor, whose chef, Michael Caines, recently won his second Michelin star. It is one of the very few restaurants in Britain to achieve that award.
In short, Pipers Farm is a roaring success, the sort of business that we all admire. It has got there not by cutting corners, skimping or cheating, but by investing

265
in quality: quality in its raw materials, quality in the processing, and quality in service—and of course, quality people.
But the farm faces ruin, not through any fault of its own but under the beetlecrushers of the hygiene police in the shape of the Meat Hygiene Service. On 1st April its new charging structure will come into effect. Nationally, according to a Written Answer given to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, the new charges will be £21.5 million to enforce EC regulation of the disposal of specified risk material. A further £21 million will be required to comply with an EC ruling that British meat firms should have 100 per cent. cover by official veterinary surgeons.
That is not all. The Food Minister, Mr. Rooker, in reply to a parliamentary Question, confirmed that the cost to the meat industry of the Meat Hygiene Service will be £33.1 million to March this year. The industry will thus face total costs in a full year of £75.6 million. That is an eye-watering 128 per cent. increase.
But, of course, it gets worse. Those increases will of necessity hit the smaller firms hardest. Pipers Farm is supplied by a small local slaughterhouse in Ottery St. Mary, run by a local farmer, Mr. John Coles. At present, Mr. Coles pays a subsidised charge of £61 a week for two MHS inspectors—one of whom, incidentally, is a Spanish gentleman with a limited command of English. But from April he must pay the full costs for the whole week, even though he slaughters and dresses on only one day each week. His costs will rise from £61 to £702 per week, or £36, 500 for the whole year. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that these charges will make his business completely unviable.
This is institutionalised lunacy. Mr. Coles, a local slaughterer who meets a local need, will close. Pipers Farm, which is a nationally successful business, will have to close. Pipers Farm employees will lose their jobs. The 25 local farmers who supply Pipers Farm will have lost their best customer. Transporters and suppliers will lose yet more business—a loss that could tip them over the edge as well. In short, it is a total disaster, a huge hole blown in the delicate web of that area's economy.
My second example is in Norfolk, where a top-class poultry processing business which employs 72 people is faced with further veterinary inspection charges which will jump from £400 a week to £1, 600 a week—an increase of £62, 000 a year. The owner of that business will have to shut up shop. Bang go not only the 72 jobs there, but at least another 150 which depend on that business in one way or another.
What makes this even worse is that these costs which will ruin so many British businesses and do incalculable damage to the rural economy are, in the rest of the EU, met by the state, by the taxpayer. Ministers in this country seem to be seriously under-informed on this matter. The Food Minister denied in a radio interview last November that the French Government paid these costs. But that is the case.
266
What is so deeply depressing is that these small businesses, encouraged only yesterday by the Chancellor in his Budget, which are now under threat are the engine room of the rural economy. They should be nourished and supported, not cut off at the knees because they do not fit some bureaucratic procrustean bed.
In the light of that, I hope that the Minister will treat as a matter of urgency a review of the Government's position. If, as is the case, the costs of our European Union competitors are being paid by the state, then surely it is only fair that the inspection costs of the meat industry in this country should also be paid by the state. I thought that that was what the single market was all about. I understand that there are derogation procedures which have not yet been explored to enable extra support to be given to small abattoirs and meat processors. My noble friend Lord Vinson hoped that this debate would be influential. I share that hope. This is an important matter.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Miller for initiating this debate and for her constructive opening remarks. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for his maiden speech and wish him well. I am sure that we shall hear a great deal from the noble Lord in the years to come.
I am very concerned about the severity of the crisis in the countryside and its effect on the local economy. Farm incomes in the United Kingdom have fallen by nearly 100 per cent. in the past two years in the worst recession for decades.
Once again, I urge the Government to set up a Royal Commission to look into the state and role of the countryside and agriculture. When I made that plea a few months ago on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, the Minister refused point-blank to consider it. But how the scene has changed in a matter of months. Now the Government are willing to set up a Royal Commission to look into the problems of this House. If a Royal Commission is good enough for your Lordships' House, I am sure it is good enough for the countryside and agriculture. I wonder what the Minister will say today.
I turn first to the tenanted farm sector which plays a major role not only as a source of lifetime family farms but also as a means of entry to the industry for young farmers. The provision of smallholdings by county councils makes a vital contribution to the tenanted sector. They provide a structure of starter units and larger units to which the tenant can progress. County councils should be discouraged from further disposal of such smallholdings. They should, whenever possible, increase their resource of land available for letting. I urge the Welsh and Scottish parliaments, when established, to consider providing extra financial resources to local authorities to buy more land within the next three years.

267
EC structural measures should be made available to farmers in the United Kingdom. Similarly, young farmer entrants on smallholdings should be offered low-interest loans and other incentives such as direct income aids for a limited period to assist in their establishment.
The abolition of agricultural subsidies would cause major problems in the countryside for producers and consumers alike. The health industry is almost entirely funded by the Government, as, too, are education and training, the police and the Armed Forces. Those industries are important to our society and their services should be encouraged. Underfunding would create untold damage to the rural economy in Wales.
Let us look at the policy of the New Zealand Government over the past 10 years. There are no government payments of any kind coming back through the farm gate in New Zealand and for some farmers the past 12 years have been a real pain. Over the 10-year period from 1986 to 1996, the overall number of farmers has declined by 17 per cent. Sheep farms have declined by 44 per cent. I wonder whether it is the Government's intention to pursue similar policies for the United Kingdom.
Farm size has to increase to cope with lack of profitability in New Zealand. Sheep farms have increased in size from an average of 1, 057 acres to 1, 485 acres; dairy farms from an average of 215 acres to 304 acres. The number of sheep in New Zealand has come down from a peak of 70.3 million in 1983 to 46.2 million in June 1998. The number of people involved in sheep and beef farming decreased by 32 per cent. between 1986 and 1996. But statistics like those do not show the full effect of such changes on farming couples and their families. I hope that that type of policy will never be pursued by any British Government.
We on these Benches press for the creation of an independent appeals panel for Wales and other countries within the United Kingdom to adjudicate in disputes between government and farmers involving the processing of grant support applications and their payments. Many farmers suffer financially every year because of these rigid and unwanted rules and regulations imposed on the industry. What we need is a little common sense to prevail on both sides. On behalf of my party, the Liberal Democrats, I urge the Government to introduce an independent appeals panel forthwith to make sure that justice prevails within the agricultural industry.
We must ensure that the Government safeguard the future of family farms and maintain the rural infrastructure before it is too late. I also believe that we need a supermarket watchdog because United Kingdom producers have little influence in the market place. When farmers bargain with the big supermarket buyers they often have to take the price they are offered, however low.
Farmers may understandably be reluctant to criticise the retailers who are their biggest customers. The public may be more sympathetic to the plight of producers in the developing world. However, pointing out that many
268
UK farmers face problems too need not trivialise the issues facing producers in developing countries. If supermarkets can support farmers in the developing world by signing up to the ethical trading initiative, then surely they can adopt a more ethical stance with UK farmers.
5.42 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for introducing the debate. I wish to refer particularly to the needs of the countryside and the dependence of its environment on agricultural and local employment.
Agriculture as an employer has been in decline in direct proportion to the rate of intensification of farming methods. On the other hand, extensive methods such as organic farming and the management of ESAs, countryside stewardship and other scheduled areas all provide opportunities for increased labour input. My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to organic farming as a "niche" market, but at 100, 000 acres out of 24 million it is not only a niche market but a niche niche market. If my noble friend Lord Selborne would allow us to extend to 10 per cent. of the market, we would then be in a position to make an effective contribution to local employment in agriculture.
It is the small employer who needs support, particularly at present. His business is being greatly affected by supermarkets. RDAs may be able to assist with the increasingly popular farm gate shops—another of my noble friend's niche markets. The small farmer has particular difficulty in getting his cattle to market. Ever-decreasing in number, the abattoirs become larger and larger, and it is becoming more difficult and expensive for the small farmers to get to the abattoirs. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, has already referred to the matter, and the possibility of mobile abattoirs has been mentioned.
Under Agenda 2000, funds will be available from the savings resulting from CAP reform, but the proposed 25 per cent. is not nearly large enough a slice to compensate for the damage done. The agricultural environment is delicately balanced and the inroads of CAP-inspired insensitive intensification have caused enormous damage. There has, incidentally, been a considerable move among so-called conventional farmers towards extensification in the light of public approval of organic methods, which I call conventional; the other methods are modern.
But overall there has been much damaging activity, such as the ploughing of the shallow turf of downlands which for generations, up to 50 years ago, were the exclusive preserve of sheep, and also the ploughing up of watermeadows, with the resultant annual flooding of crops. That is all in response to the opportunities offered by the common agricultural policy. If that is competitive farming, is it sustainable?
Undoubtedly the best thing for the rural environment would be the reform, if not the scrapping, of that evil monstrosity, the common agricultural policy. We have yet to see an accommodation between the, now sparring,

269
partners in the original design—that is, between Germany and France. Until that valuable day, we are unlikely to see much reform.
Employment will be the responsibility of the new RDAs, supervised by their senior partner, the Countryside Agency. A major problem they face is the exodus from the urban areas into the countryside, with the increased demand for housing and its concomitant pressure to encroach on the green belt. While urban areas are becoming wastelands, the all-powerful supermarkets are driving the countryman and the urban dweller alike into the motor car. The village shop is fast disappearing and 70 per cent. of our villages now have no village shop.
What is the result? You have to drive to the supermarket along country lanes which, at that rate of growth, will not be able to carry the traffic generated. A 50 per cent. increase in rural traffic is forecast over the next 25 years.
Another factor in the urban exodus is the demand for the so-called right to roam. These roamers seem to be enthused by some irrational desire to have their way at any cost. At a recent meeting convened by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, consisting of representatives of all sides of the controversy, it was evident that we could peacefully pursue a course of voluntary action, with the exception of a surly reply from the roamer members of the team answering our questions. There is an unattractive bitterness in their approach which does not augur well for future decisions. There was no acceptance of the cost to society of providing the roamer with his dubious rights. Who is to pay for the inevitable lavatories and car parks which, of themselves, are obtrusive in the sensitive environment that these roamers wish to trample?
There is a well-known phrase: "Keep off the grass". I suggest a new one: "Keep off the heather". The wildlife and biodiversity exist because of the wilderness, itself an ecology that should not be wantonly disturbed.
5.48 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, along with other noble Lords, I have several interests to declare. I am a member of the Country Landowners' Association, a chartered surveyor and a part owner and manager of a hill farm, I am glad to tell my noble friend Lord Williamson, in the Somerset part of the Exmoor National Park. Very proud of it I am too.
I describe myself as a rural entrepreneur, and I am not a fan of the dependency culture of grants and subsidies. The VAT bill I pay substantially exceeds those grants and subsidies that I receive. I am particularly interested in rural land use outside the towns and villages, especially the difficult to manage, less favoured areas.
The nature of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness denotes part of the problem: too many interests and a painful lack of focus. I do not regard CAP reform as the Holy Grail of rural economics and I am sure that many noble Lords share that view. I believe that we should be developing our own rural strategy, in particular a socio-economic one. Part of the problem is
270
administrative baggage from the past: land use planning and control, the regime of consents and designations and regulations. I do not say that they should not be there but that they should be properly focused. If one follows the argument adopted by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, we do not even have a playing field, let alone a level one.
My estate thrives on income from sport and tourism. I am very proud to say that I regard the public as a resource. In that context I should also like matters such as public access, which I have tried to foster, to be regarded as a resource and not a burden on countryside management. I accept that my situation is probably untypical. As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed out, this is a niche operation. Some good land will always be profitable. At the other end of the scale not only is land unprofitable, but there is no realistic alternative because it is too remote and there is no possibility of diversification. These areas will require continuing and large support measures unless we are to witness substantial landscape and land use change. Particularly at risk are the uplands. However unprofitable it may be, the only method of management in some areas is agriculture, but we cannot simply throw money at the situation because the dependency culture is itself not sustainable. Nor can we parachute urban uses into the countryside willy-nilly unless there is a real need because such uses may be substitutes for other rural employment and so they will destabilise the rural economy in their own right. We need a basket of measures and a "can do" mentality.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made reference to the need to add value. I accept that. There must be farm diversification but, please, it must be related to land use and there must be a proper planning, rating and fiscal regime in place to deal with it. At the moment there is a scattergun approach. I should also like to see producers acting as processors. If the example cited by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is adopted no one will ever make a start down that road. I believe that that is a terribly bad message to give.
Service industry in rural areas is fine if it adds value, but it needs to be locked into the rural economy for rural purposes and for the reasons for which the land is to be managed; it should not be something that is totally different from it. The Government's initiatives on organic production are particularly welcome. One wonders whether they will stack up. Presently I shall tell the Minister about this. I am looking into this myself to see whether or not it can be done on my estate.
There is also a need for a change in the buying culture to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made reference. Whether we buy elsewhere or from abroad, we export the fundamental worth of our countryside, which is not right. As for tourism, we need to consider the quality of accommodation to see whether it is possible to extend the season in the face of fairly unpromising weather. We need a culture of doing that. I have a special interest in country sports which I hope will continue to be the backbone of my estate. I hope that others will be able to enjoy their countryside pursuits. Further, I should like to see greater emphasis placed on bio-fuel and biomass—the use of low-quality timber products—to

271
add value to land use management. I should like to see access as a resource, not a threat. Perhaps we can encourage business sponsorship of environmental works in the countryside. One hopes that it will be possible to use existing manpower, not to supplant it and thereby bypass that part of the local economy.
The methods to be adopted must be varied and there must be a multi-warhead approach. Land use planning must respect economic and social aspects as well. We will probably require dwellings for non-agricultural estate workers—that is a problem which particularly afflicts me—as well as for an increasing rural population. The agencies require a common strategy that is focused on objectives with some pooling and streamlining of resources. Finally, I hope that local authorities which in many cases have tried to put rural strategies together will be encouraged to do so. Perhaps the Government and the various agencies will pick up that ball and run with it as well.
5.54 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the maiden speaker, Lord Williamson of Horton, on an excellent contribution. He will forgive me if I do not wax lyrical about it. Given the constraints of time I should like to crack on. This has been an absolutely fascinating debate. It is a testament to my noble friend that she has managed to achieve a good attendance in the House as well as a number of contributions to the debate. I note the number of noble Lords who, although they have not spoken, have sat in their places throughout the debate listening to all the contributions. Those contributions have been varied and of great skill. Perhaps attendance is a little thin on the Government Back Benches; nonetheless the quality has been good.
It is impossible to reply to every point that has been made and therefore I shall canter through and cherry-pick. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for doing so. I congratulate my noble friend on tabling the debate and on her consummate skill in drawing together the Motion before the House. It casts a general net across the countryside, which has certainly caught quite a few interesting fish. However, my noble friend has focused on two key issues. One is the coupling of the words "living" and "working" countryside. It is almost like saying "living and breathing". That very important element has clearly emerged from the many contributions we have heard. The other dart, thrown very accurately by my noble friend, relates to the number of agencies, the wide diversity of functions they perform and the newness of many of them. Some of these bodies have not yet come into being. She is also to be congratulated on having raised that issue.
I turn to the second of those topics. A number of speakers have referred to the RDAs. I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who referred to the potential of the RDAs not only in economic terms but in other areas. Broadly speaking, we on these Benches warmly welcome the RDAs. However, I have some concerns; I wish to refer to three.
272
One may be forgiven for forgetting sometimes that the "R" in "RDA" does not stand for "rural" but "regional". That is where my first concern begins. I refer to the sheer size of these bodies. For example, my office is established just outside Tring in Hertfordshire. I understand that the RDA stretches from East Anglia in the north to Sussex and Kent in the south. It is like a huge doughnut with the hole in the middle representing London. My worry is that the people in the northern and southern parts of that area will not have a particularly homogenous view of what they want to happen. That is particularly true of tourism where the approach at the two ends is quite different.
My second concern is the urban context of the RDAs. There is a danger, particularly in the more affluent southeast—or (if I may say so), compared with Scotland, the affluent southwest—that the number of cities in RDAs will give those bodies a rather urban feel. We need to ensure that rural issues have their place in RDAs.
My third concern about RDAs is that their remit lies largely in regeneration in economic terms. Speaker after speaker on all sides of the House has pointed out that the preservation of the countryside is not simply about profit and loss and balance sheets but much greater issues than that. Perhaps we should consider giving the RDAs a wider remit.
I turn to the first of my noble friend's darts: the combination of the words "living" and "working" countryside. This highlights the fact that very often there are two aspect to the countryside. There is the countryside that is very often close to a large city—usually in the south—which is fairly affluent and perhaps lived in by people who do not work in the countryside. In the truly rural countryside, the more distant areas, people live and work there. As many speakers have said those areas are genuinely in crisis. We must not use the term too lightly. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, mentioned, there are real problems of rural poverty. There are real problems of sub-standard houses, as my noble friend Lady Maddock mentioned. There is considerable social deprivation. Those problems are largely hidden from the gaze of the city dweller by the leafy surrounds in which they exist.
Perhaps I may make one small party jibe at my neighbours. I find it somewhat rich that after 18 years in power noble Lords on the Conservative Benches attack the Government for what they have not done for the countryside. I think, frankly, that it was Thatcherism that ripped the guts out of the Highlands. I have no doubt that the policies pursued by the previous government were not helpful to the countryside. However, over the past two years it is equally true that the crisis has widened and deepened. It is now a requirement for the Government to take action. Whatever may have been true two to three years ago, we now have a much graver crisis.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the fact that people in the countryside have no greater right to a living than those in the city. He was right to bring that to our attention. I largely agree with him. However, he went too far when he accused farmers of living in a

273
dependency culture. One of my noble friends pointed out that the income of a hill farmer is £416 a year. I do not think that one can accuse them of living in a dependency culture. Agriculture is at the heart of the countryside and is extremely important.
I wish to touch on one other issue: tourism. It would be difficult for me to speak on any issue without trying to bring tourism into it. A number of noble Lords have been slightly dismissive of tourism, saying that it is on the periphery of what can be done in the countryside. I draw noble Lords' attention to a recently published document entitled Tomorrow's Tourism. It sets out the Government's tourism strategy. While I congratulate the Government on the document, I have some severe complaints about some of it. However, on page 53 a case study of the Crocker Farm in Devon sets out what can be done to sustain existing jobs and provide new jobs in agriculture. I do not have time to tell your Lordships about it, but it is, I suggest, a document worth reading.
To ask hill farmers, as some of us believe the Scottish Office would like to do, at one leap to swap the ploughshare for the serving spoon, and sheep for tourists, is redolent of Marie Antoinette's, "Let them eat cake". It is insulting to hill farmers and hoteliers. In many of the worst hit rural areas tourism will not have an impact. It will have an impact in those areas which are already slightly more affluent.
My noble friend mentioned that on these Benches it is our policy to have a rural affairs ministry. I have been struck during the debate by how integral farming is considered to be within the rural community and the extent to which it is interdependent with so many other rural activities. I believe that the time has come when rather than having a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food we should have a ministry of rural affairs which can look after agriculture and fisheries in the context of the countryside. Food can be looked after elsewhere.
There is a crisis in the countryside. I look forward to hearing the Minister. I hope he will have some crumbs of comfort for us.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, on bringing this debate before us today. The question we are debating is in two parts. It calls attention to the case for policies which will ensure a living working countryside; and it seeks to clarify the relationships between the many agencies involved.
I have said it before, and I say it again: unless our farmers are able to make a profit, the countryside that we enjoy today will be destroyed. Confidence is low, as my noble friend Lord Peel said. The fact that this is our fourth farming debate within the past three months indicates how this House appreciates the dire situation faced in the countryside.
But farmers are not the only ones working in the countryside. Market towns, village shops, craft businesses, our farmhouse bed and breakfasts, village pubs and churches are all part of the interwoven pattern
274
of our countryside today. Whether we earn our living there, whether we live there but work in the town, or whether we visit it for enjoyment, we should acknowledge that the countryside exists as it does at present thanks to those who have worked the land and cared for it over many generations.
In the debate following his Statement on Monday, Mr. Meacher stated,
"we have always made it clear that the protection of wildlife and environmental crops is our priority". —[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/99; col. 24.]
In saying that, he put his finger on one of the most important aspects of the definition of countryside. Unfortunately he confined protection to meaning,
"temporary and limited closures, probably in a wide area of countryside, during the lambing season and the breeding season, particularly between April and June". —[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/99; col. 33.]
In the debate that followed the announcement in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, replied to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, in reference to the closing off of access for periods of time:
"We would not envisage that being a very lengthy period … the landowner would be able to close the area for up to 28 days. That would probably cover most of the situations the noble Lord has in mind". —[Official Report, 8/3/99: col. 51.]
Those two responses contrast unfavourably with the submission by the Moorland Association —it was touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Peel —in its response to the access consultation. It stated that disturbance can be caused particularly during territory establishment, nesting and fledging, all of which lasts from February to June. Clearly the needs of the countryside are seen differently by differing agencies and resulting policies will be heavily influenced by the relative power wielded by each of those particular agencies.
The constitution of the bodies is of vital importance to the sustenance of our countryside. It should represent and reflect the constituent parts; namely, the villages; through their parish councils, the WIs, local churches, old people's organisations, and so on. It should also include the farming community, the local landowner, local businessmen, local authorities, national authorities and —dare I say it? —Europe. Many of its directives, and some of its bureaucracy, have a huge impact upon the living and working environment of the countryside. The RDAs should reflect different shades of political opinion. They should reflect the young and the old, those who work away from home and those who stay in their villages. Concerns have been expressed to me with reference to the regional development agencies. Indeed, some noble Lords have referred to that today. Their rural and political appointees do not always fully represent their constituents. Perhaps the Minister will inform us of the rules of selection which have been operated. For example, Lincolnshire is very different from Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, but the representation on the Lincolnshire authority is not as good as it might be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, most astutely highlighted the challenge of legislation on open access by stressing the importance of agreement between the various agencies. My noble friend Lord Kimball spoke of the powers that pass respectively to the regional

275
development agencies and the Countryside Agency from the Rural Development Commission: two heads; two minds; and two hearts where there was previously one. The Government are now demanding an effective relationship between those agencies, plus the European Commission, the Government, local authorities and the new local fora which have been envisaged by Mr. Meacher. What a plethora of agencies is involved!
The maintenance of the countryside as a living, working environment; as a source of rest and recreation; as a sustainable entity and as a valuable resource for prosperity means providing adequate funds; setting up viable planning parameters, to which many noble Lords have referred today; monitoring progress; evaluating developments; incorporating expert advice; recognising changing needs and encouraging small businesses. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, highlighted what a niche market can do. There are many other examples in existence. What most people want is less legislation not more. They also want a level playing field to enable our business people to thrive.
To enable these agencies to fulfill their objectives the Government must provide sufficient resources to support these activities. Perhaps the Minister will give us assurances that the necessary funding will be made available not just in the initial stop-gap, but on an on-going basis. Pilot projects are necessary and a reasonable way of testing expert opinion, but those that are shown to be successful should be supported for some little time after that to ensure their long-term success.
For instance, I refer to Monday's Statement on open access. It is not sufficient,
"to ensure that resources are available to local authorities to cover…the building of stiles, the gates and signs and possibly some rangering services"
if those same stiles, gates and signs fall down or are pulled down or damaged through fire, flood or tempest and there is no more money to replace them. Arguments about who is to finance it cause serious dissension between government departments and local authorities and far less the discussions about matching European moneys on some of the agri-environmental schemes. How are the Government planning to handle the continuing development of such projects?
The countryside is home to countless animals. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to that earlier. In fact, I shall have to read Hansard carefully tomorrow. I thought she said at one point in her speech that the present government were going to adopt Conservative policies and just put "Labour" on them. I shall have to look at that very carefully. The countryside is also home to 23 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom and a source of about 30 per cent. of our gross domestic product. For instance, in places such as North Yorkshire, over 50 per cent. of the population lives in isolated rural communities. For these people the decline in local services, the lack of public transport, the increase in petrol tax announced only yesterday, which will hugely affect rural areas; the closure of community hospitals; and the delay in planning decisions spell the beginning of the end for some of these communities.
276
I quote from the Countryside Alliance about the low level of car ownership in urban areas reflecting poverty while people in,
"rural [areas] rely on cars and own cars, no matter how battered or old as the lack of public transport leaves [them] no alternative".
Many noble Lords have referred to housing, planning and commercial competitiveness. The contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, this afternoon was very worthwhile. In that respect I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, on his excellent maiden speech.
The new government agencies must look to their duties in a spirit of co-operation and refuse to allow the polled opinions of many people to destroy one of our most treasured possessions; namely, our English countryside.
6.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for initiating this debate and everyone who has taken part. The subject has been dealt with so fully that I am not sure that I can cover all the points raised in the time allocated to me. I shall attempt to do so. I pay a particular compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, who made a formidable maiden speech. If a speech made by a survivor of 108 Agricultural Councils can be called a maiden speech, then the term needs looking at again.
Although for half a century I have been an inner-city kid, I recently moved to the countryside and to Dorset rather than Somerset although I can see Somerset from my back garden. Therefore, I have some sympathy with the first two speakers in the debate. After a few general remarks I shall concentrate primarily on the area of the institutions to which the Motion draws attention. I shall try to answer some other points, but many will have to be dealt with in writing.
As the debate has shown, the rural agenda is very diverse and quite different in some parts of the country from others. Much that is positive is being done already in rural areas. There is a good quality of life for most people who live in such areas and a quality of environment which is of benefit to us all. Nevertheless, the pace of economic development in many of our rural areas has not been substantial. Despite official unemployment being relatively low, there is much hidden and exported unemployment. There are also serious social and poverty problems. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, there are also serious problems as regards access to services and a lack of transport.
This Government have recognised the problems. We have taken action on a number of fronts specifically to help rural areas. We shall spend an extra £150 million over the next three years to support rural public transport. We have increased to £174 million the money spent by my department on countryside programmes. We have included specific rural areas in health and education action zones where there are problems. We have introduced rate relief for single village shops and

277
post offices. We have supported the agricultural community in terms of a special aid package for livestock farmers. A further £35 million will be spent for a new cattle tracing system. As regards planning in general, we have developed a new approach to encourage greater use of brownfield sites for housebuilding while protecting greenfield areas.
These and many other targeted measures illustrate the Government's commitment to a living and working countryside and give the lie to the allegations sometimes made, to which my noble friend Lord Peston referred, that this Government and perhaps to some extent their predecessors have ignored the interests of the countryside. We are a government for the whole country. We recognise the specific and difficult problems some parts of our rural countryside are facing.
Yesterday's Budget will disproportionately benefit the countryside. There is help for the low paid in the taxation system plus the national minimum wage, help for those employed in the countryside and those who are failing to get jobs. The level of poverty and incomes is disproportionately low in those areas. Having taken those specific measures we now intend to develop them into a comprehensive rural policy. The noble Baroness was a little impatient that we should get through the consultation process on the White Paper. We believe that we need a further round of consultation. The discussion document was issued a few days ago. It invites questions and comments. I have no doubt that a number of your Lordships will wish to contribute. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the closing date is 30th April. In addition, we are having seminars in each of the English regions in order to listen to the views of local and rural organisations. We intend it to be a very inclusive process. We shall produce a White Paper on rural policy later in the year.
We have already set up a number of agencies. There is some logic in what the noble Baroness said about the order of events, but there is a much better logic in the sense that it takes a long time to establish organisations. They will deliver the policy which we shall announce in the White Paper. I understand, and have some sympathy for, the central point of the noble Baroness's Motion. There are a number of agencies involved, all of which are making a contribution to the delivery of policy in the countryside, although I do not necessarily concur with the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, that it requires a Royal Commission to sort out all the different institutions.
As regards the farmer, entrepreneur or the inward investor into our countryside, I believe that there is need for something closer to what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to as a one-stop shop. We may not be quite capable of delivering that, but we need to convey the role of each of these organisations and to guide people seeking help and advice to the appropriate one in an understandable way. The Government are committed to do so.
There has been a demand from the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere to create a rural ministry of some kind. Examined in detail, that has no great logic. A note passed to me indicates that this is a matter for
278
the Prime Minister, just to stop me making policy on the hoof! But the reality is that the present government departments are acting increasingly together. The noble Baroness noted that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are working closely together on delivering the White Paper and on many other programmes. MAFF has had an input in the regional development agencies and so forth. The Government Offices increasingly operate in covering all government departments, incorporating their relation with MAFF—not physically in the same office, but there is a great deal of joint working.
Furthermore, there is much closer working between local authorities and the agencies of central government, bringing together local authorities and regions as a whole in the new planning structure and process. Parliament's job is to ensure that all these; agencies work closely together to ensure that their functions are performed efficiently and effectively. There is a change in institutions, some of which will require organic development, but once we have a comprehensive policy it will become clearer which of the agencies delivers which aspect of policy. They have clear objectives in terms of economic and countryside development, rural transport and so forth. It is not appreciated how much there is joined-up government in the rural areas. The existence of a comprehensive rural policy will make more evident how the agencies are pursuing the same objectives.
A number of specific questions were raised about the institutions. It is important, for example, that the RDAs and the regional planning bodies work closely together to develop their strategies, not least strategy towards the rural part of their remit. There has been some public concern, repeated today by a number of noble Lords, that the transfer of the RDC's regeneration function to the RDAs may militate against rural areas. The Government believe that the rural areas will benefit from being included in the rural strategy for the: whole region and not marginalised into what is seen as a solely rural dimension. To ensure that rural issues have due rate, the RDAs are being given specific remit to serve rural areas. It is the case that at least one member of each RDA board, except for London, has rural experience. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, indicated, RDAs will also benefit from the expertise and knowledge of staff transferring from the RDC as they have substantial experience of rural regeneration issues.
Our commitment to rural representation will continue to be reflected in the RDAs' funding of rural areas. Rural funds will be separated to ensure that the needs of rural areas are addressed and will be allocated specifically to those areas. We are also giving guidance about how RDAs should use their rural budgets, including how they determine the rural needs within their regions.
A number of questions were raised about the role of RDAs in relation to European funds. Some complex issues arise. They were mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, among others. The RDAs' role in general strategy is clear. They can co-operate in the delivery of structural and other regional funds. However, as the

279
RDAs are also involved in decisions on individual programmes, we must avoid any lack of propriety in that respect. Therefore, we have yet finally to define the RDAs' relationship with the delivery of structural funds to rural and other areas.
A number of noble Lords asked about the role of the Countryside Agency. We are determined that the agency will play a major role in addressing rural needs and complement the work of the RDAs. The RDC's research and advisory role will transfer to the Countryside Agency next month. At the same time, the RDC's old regeneration activities will transfer to the RDAs. The combined experience in the new Countryside Agency will provide a national source of research and advice about countryside and rural issues. The agency will be able to develop a more integrated approach to conserving and enhancing the countryside and helping to meet the needs of rural people. The agency will continue to advise government on social and economic issues in rural areas and it will continue to play an important role in assisting the development of rural services and identifying new approaches. It is also important that the Government Office in each region, the RDAs, the Countryside Agency and local government work closely together.
I have spoken mainly about England, although I appreciate that several noble Lords raised points relating to Scotland and Wales. Most of those issues will become the responsibility of the devolved Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. The question of how the Scottish and Welsh executives approach rural matters will be for them. That will include the issue of land reform, which has been prioritised in Scotland. It has a different history of land tenure and slightly different geography and climate. Agriculture and other land use issues are different in Scotland and it is appropriate that land reform together with agricultural and rural development policy are as far as possible devolved to the Scottish executive and Parliament. The same is largely true for Wales where, as noble Lords have indicated, there has already been progress in that direction.
Many issues were raised about agriculture. I gently chide the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who said that this was a farming debate. It is not a farming debate; it is a debate about rural development as a whole. Agriculture is of vital importance to land use, the environment and the rural economy of rural areas, but it is not just agriculture that defines the interests of the rural economy. I believe that, in reality, the noble Baroness recognises that.
Agriculture is vital as a direct and indirect job provider, an economic motor and as the manager of the countryside, the environment and many aspects of rural life. We respect that. We also recognise that there is a serious problem in much of the agricultural sector at present. As a city dweller, I used not to feel sorry for farmers, but at present I feel very concerned about many aspects of the agricultural sector. The Government are helping in turning them around but, in the long run,
280
reform of the agricultural policy needs to be of benefit to agricultural managers as well as to consumers and the interests of the environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, referred positively to reform of the CAP. Others, including the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, cast scepticism on the process. Nevertheless, in the medium term it must be to reform of the CAP that we look for a better system of improving both the efficiency of our agricultural system and the degree of protection that it gives to the more vulnerable elements, particular hill farmers in this country. The original CAP among the original six was a very successful regional and social policy. It then turned into something more of the monster referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. We need to return it to its original purpose which was to upgrade and modernise agriculture; to provide social support for those areas which are most vulnerable; and to protect consumers and the environment. If we can achieve that it will not only benefit the agricultural sector; it will also benefit the whole of the rural economy and environment.
A number of points were raised in relation to rural housing, rural transport and access to the countryside which we dealt with at some length the other day. There may be some continuing disagreement which will be resolved, it is to be hoped, when the legislation comes before this House—or possibly not!
Important issues have been raised relating to rural housing and transport to which I shall respond in writing. Such has been the enthusiasm of noble Lords in contributing to the debate that I must leave some time to enable the noble Baroness to sum up. The debate has shown the wide range of concern in this House about the rural economy and a great deal of experience has been brought to bear on the issue. The White Paper will provide a focus for what we can do for the countryside not only in the short term but also in the medium term so that whether we visit it, or live or work there, we can have a countryside which delivers both economic benefit and a great deal of enjoyment and quality of life for us all.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he undertake to write to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and other noble Lords, who raised the extremely important point about the scandal of the slaughterhouses? That is a major problem at present and we need a quick answer from the Government.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall consult my colleagues and provide an answer on that matter.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in an effort to be helpful, perhaps I may suggest that we receive an answer by Monday when I shall be asking a Starred Question.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister warmly for his positive and

281
helpful reply. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I have learnt a great deal. It was a good debate because we did not spend too much time hand-wringing. Many positive suggestions were made for a way forward which is extremely refreshing. I thank too all noble Lords who listened to the debate. I shall not detain your Lordships any longer as I know that the Minister is to reply also to the next debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Business
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on enterprise and competition, I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Enterprise and Competition
6.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Documents referred to in the Statement as being available in the Vote Office are available in the Printed Paper Office. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on enterprise and competition. The Chancellor yesterday delivered a Budget for Britain to succeed in the new knowledge-driven economy and to promote prosperity and fairness. Today, I wish to announce a number of complementary measures which will boost enterprise and competition.
"First, I am publishing a detailed implementation plan for our White Paper on the knowledge-driven economy. For each commitment, we have set a series of targets, a timetable, and the contact details of the officials in my department responsible for delivering these commitments. This unprecedented step demonstrates our belief in open government, our desire to work closely in partnership with business, and our determination to deliver on our commitments.
"I am also publishing today a strategic framework for the DTI, setting out the objectives for my department, and the work we will undertake in pursuit of those objectives. Copies of both documents have been put in the Library and the Vote Office.
"The policies in the White Paper we published before Christmas apply to all sectors—traditional and high-tech, manufacturing and services. Work is well under way on many of the proposals contained in that White Paper. I have established a review of bankruptcy and insolvency law—examining whether
282
we can encourage responsible risk-taking while coming down hard on those who set out to defraud creditors. It will report to me next month.
"Separately, I am reviewing arrangements for business rescues to see if the law should be changed to give businesses in difficulties more chance and more time to turn things round. I shall announce our conclusions in the summer.
"This afternoon I want to announce four new funds to support business. First, we will be providing £20 million to support our target of high quality support for 10, 000 start-ups by 2001. The programme will be launched this summer.
"Secondly, a new enterprise fund will stimulate the availability of finance for the SME sector. I have increased the fund to £160 million. It will lever in £350 million from the private sector ensuring that over half a billion pounds is available to support: loan guarantees for small firms; support for regional venture capital funds aimed at the provision of small scale equity; and a national scheme to support high-tech businesses.
"Thirdly, following the Chancellor's announcement yesterday of a further £20 million for high-tech venture capital investment, we will create a new fund operating across the UK. This will focus on young high-tech firms needing small amounts of equity.
"And finally and fourthly, I can announce today that I have decided to expand the successful 'Smart' scheme. From April of this year, a wider range of individuals and businesses, in particular those in the manufacturing sector, will be able to get help to research or acquire technologies needed to turn good ideas into commercial reality. We shall increase annual spending by over a third and provide almost £100 million over the next three years.
"Science and the commercial exploitation of scientific research have a key role to play in improving Britain's competitive position. That is why we will develop a strategy to improve knowledge transfer, stimulate the flow of scientists and engineers into industry and encourage knowledge-based industries. We will publish our proposals in this key area by the end of the year.
"Following yesterday's Budget we are today publishing four documents on tax changes to stimulate innovation and enterprise especially in smaller companies.
"The introduction of a tax credit for research and development will be a major step on the road to raising the UK's performance, giving real help to those thousands of smaller firms working to introduce new products and processes. It will underwrite almost one-third of R&D costs for small business, giving this sector a boost of some £150 million a year.
"Enterprise management incentives will allow smaller companies to give tax-advantaged equity remuneration.

283
"We will also be publishing today our proposals on corporate venturing and tax reform for intellectual property. Together these papers demonstrate our commitment to a framework in which small business can thrive.
"But small and medium-sized firms need practical help too. I intend to establish a new body—the Small Business Service—specifically designed to meet the needs of smaller businesses. I can announce to the House this afternoon that it will have funds of over £100 million new money to support its important work.
"This body, which will report to me, will be headed by a high profile chief executive and will have two key responsibilities: to act as a strong voice for small business at the heart of government; and also to improve the quality and coherence of delivery of government support programmes for small business and ensure that they address their needs.
"Some of the areas in which I expect the service to be involved include the following: a new payroll service for all new SMEs; supporting the Revenue in providing business support to discuss problems with small businesses; give advice with Customs and Excise for exporters and importers; working with the Revenue on Internet filing of tax returns. Consideration will need to be given regarding the relationship between the service and the newly-established regional development agencies.
"Finally, a modern, effective competition regime is necessary to reward innovation and enterprise, and to bring real benefits to consumers. The Director-General of Fair Trading is already investigating a number of areas, such as cars, supermarkets, and private medical insurance, and he has also referred over-the-counter medicines to the Restrictive Practices Court for examination.
"But I believe more needs to be done. I have therefore decided that I will be exercising the powers I have under Section 12 of the Fair Trading Act to give the director-general directions indicating considerations which he should take into account in determining his priorities, and my power under Section 13 of the Competition Act 1980 to ask the director-general to investigate particular prices.
"In relation to prices, there is widespread concern that prices paid in the UK for goods are higher than in other countries. I have begun today a study on international price comparisons, which will help competition authorities to identify markets which require their attention. It will be made public, so that consumers and others can comment. I will then decide which prices I will ask the director-general to investigate.
"We are also taking action to provide a modern framework for utility regulation. Electricity standing charges are a matter of pressing concern—they account for around 13 per cent. of a typical household bill and can rise to 20 per cent. for low volume users. Figures which I am publishing today show a wide variance in standing charges by region and method of
284
payment. I have today written to the Energy Regulator asking him to look at the issue of standing charges to ensure that pensioners and the poor, in particular, are not disadvantaged.
"I also believe that the time is right to modernise the merger regime. Businesses need stability and confidence that decisions in this important area are not taken for short-term political considerations. I believe the system could be improved if merger decisions were normally taken by independent competition authorities against a competition-based test. A small minority of cases will raise important wider public interest issues, such as those in relation to the defence industries, and Ministers should continue to have a role in this decision-taking process. I intend to publish a consultation document to initiate a full debate.
"To secure real competition we need knowledgeable and well informed consumers. To that end we shall be publishing a consumer strategy White Paper before the summer. But there is one area of particular concern. A mortgage is the largest and most complex financial commitment most people will ever enter into. I have today announced proposals to improve the information available to customers in relation to the marketing of mortgages and other credit. Our proposals will give them access to clear, comparable information about the interest rates on offer.
"I believe the measures announced today show our determination to support enterprise and to succeed in the knowledge-driven economy of the future. They complement the radical proposals set out yesterday by the Chancellor and I commend this Statement to the House. "
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on enterprise and competition which, as he said, announces measures complementary to those announced yesterday by the Chancellor.
Of course, as a general principle we support competition and enterprise, and we welcome the initiatives for small and medium businesses. However, I have a few questions for the noble Lord with which I hope he will be able to help us. While we would support changes that would assist business rescues, is the Minister aware that many companies find themselves placed in difficulties by debtors who become bankrupt but who then turn up at the bankruptcy sale or go to the liquidator to buy equipment and start up again under another name?
While we also welcome the new availability of finance for SMEs—although it does seem as though that finance has been announced several times—would not the Minister agree that what SMEs really need is fewer increases in hidden taxes, a diminution of regulation and lower business transport costs? Also, hiking up the national insurance contributions of the self-employed will surely not be particularly helpful. I know the

285
Minister said that he would be exercising his powers under Section 12 of the Fair Trading Act to give the director-general directions, but can he tell the House what directions the Minister is going to give to the director-general?
Can the Minister also tell the House whether there is any significance in the fact that the Statement today refers to prices for goods in the United Kingdom being higher than in other countries, whereas yesterday's Budget Statement said:
"It is wholly unacceptable that consumer goods can still cost up to twice as much in Britain as in America".
Could it have been toned down—because the Chancellor's statement was rather silly, given that VAT in this country is 17.5 per cent. while the state taxes in America vary from anything between 0 per cent. and 7 per cent.? Is the Minister aware that there are also wide variations in prices in this country: for example, the price of petrol in rural areas?
The Minister mentioned modernising the merger regime by setting up an independent competition authority, although that seems to be a way of simply ridding himself of responsibilities for these matters—the "not me, guv" syndrome, similar to the way in which the Government hived off the setting of interest rates to the Bank of England. Would not the setting up of such an authority strip the Secretary of State of the power to rule in high profile takeovers such as the BSkyB bid for Manchester United? Given the Government's excellent spin-doctoring and wooing of the press, is that not one reason why there has been no statement, either now or previously, on the Government's policy on these matters?
Will the Minister please confirm that the Secretary of State will retain his personal powers in the case of newspaper mergers under the Fair Trading Act? Also, why is there nothing in today's Statement about the very important matter mentioned by the Chancellor yesterday, that obstructing investigations into the matter of cartels and restrictive behaviour will become a criminal offence?
Finally, the Chancellor announced yesterday that the Deputy Prime Minister was to review competition at airports. There is no mention of that today. Can the noble Lord say whether that means an investigation into the British Airports Authority's monopoly of London and other airports—because obviously the shareholders will want to know—or whether it will be an investigation into landing slots, in which many carriers consider that British Airways has a monopoly?
6.47 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, not only because it raises a number of important matters but also because, certainly in the view of these Benches, it represents a clear account of the new role of the DTI as a proactive enabler and empowerer of the business community. It is very nice to see that the department has clearly abandoned the rather depressing laissez-faire approach of the previous administration.
286
If I were to make an overall comment, it would be that the Statement is long on what the Government are going to do and rather short on what has been done. We have already had two Secretaries of State in the department and are now on the third. It is almost as if we were running a race and had had two false starts, and were starting again for the third time—the Minister smiles.
The Statement is very detailed and I do not want to bore your Lordships by going through every item, but perhaps I could take two of the major issues. The Minister touched upon two major points. The first was "Rip-off Britain!", to coin the phrase used by various newspapers. The Statement refers to the fact that the British consumer is being overcharged in comparison with our foreign competitors. We are, after all, more than halfway through the period between the last election and the next election, and I would welcome the Minister's confirmation that words will be replaced by actions and recommendations in this area. The Government are long on benchmarking and timing, but when will an answer be given to the allegations about "Rip-off Britain"?
The second area which is touched on in the Statement is the regulation of the utilities. How they are regulated is clearly a major issue which the Labour Party in their manifesto were very concerned about. At this point we would like to know when the Government are going to decide finally exactly how the utilities are going to be regulated. Will they be regulated primarily by competition and, if so, what sort of competition will be introduced into the regulations—or is it going to be left to the great regulator in the sky to determine how these issues are going to be resolved?
Perhaps I may make two final points, on which the Statement touches but does not deal in detail. The first relates to mortgages. It is interesting that the Statement refers to a mortgage as being the largest and most complex financial commitment that most people will ever make. It is interesting also that the DTI is now beginning to take an interest in mortgages. I should like the Minister to indicate whether the DTI will go further and whether there is an agenda to try to control this and to move more people into fixed-rate mortgages. There would be an obvious advantage to the Government in doing that with regard to their approach to the decision on the euro. Moving more towards a European model, with more people having a fixed-rate mortgage, would remove the concentration on short-term interest rates. Will the Minister confirm that beyond the agenda of transparency is a further agenda of trying to encourage people to take out fixed-rate mortgages?
I refer secondly to small and medium-sized enterprises. When concentrating on that sector, we often disregard those small and medium-sized listed companies which are not quoted, but which form part of the alternative investment market. Those companies are often ignored in terms of DTI business activity, but they provide a large motor for employment in this country and account for much economic activity. I know that the Treasury and the DTI have both been concerned about the fact that that sector of the stock market has not done as well as the large company sector, with which the

287
Minister is familiar. There are all kinds of technical reasons for that, but the fact is that there is a capital strike at the moment in relation to many institutions providing funding for such companies. In the same way as SMEs have a problem raising money, so do the companies to which I am referring. Can the Minister say whether the DTI intends to come to their assistance also?
6.51 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for their general welcome of the direction of the Statement. I think that we are in general agreement. I sense from their responses that we all recognise that we now need a better deal for enterprise and small business in this country. That is a fundamental part of improving productivity, of better applying new technology, and of stimulating employment. I think that we all agree that, in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, attention, the right encouragement and the right policies will bring dividends.
Given that we all agree broadly on the principle that, through a more competitive marketplace, we can encourage enterprise, innovation and particularly the development of small businesses, perhaps I may comment, as did both speakers, on certain elements of that in policy terms.
I very much agree with the noble Baroness that the key issues for the smaller business community are lower taxes, less regulation and lower running costs. We have certainly done what we can in terms of lower taxes, with a lower rate of 20 per cent. and a lowest rate of 10 per cent. being introduced for small businesses. That will benefit all businesses up to a £50, 000 profit level. As the noble Baroness will know, that will help very many small businesses. In terms of regulation, we are certainly not aiming to achieve the high levels of regulation achieved by the previous government. We are trying to avoid that, but we must have a balance between a sensible structure and fairness within the community.
We are also trying to ensure better research and development funding possibilities for small businesses by giving rebates and tax credits against their R&D spend. We hope that that will mean that such businesses are better able to use R&D early in their lives. A tax credit is a most effective way of achieving that because many such businesses do not make great profits on which to carry forward such expenditure. A tax credit would therefore be a big advantage to them. We very much want to encourage the small end of the market by recognising that we need a low tax base, the least regulatory structure that we can achieve while maintaining fairness in competitive terms for small businesses, and a better application of R&D and new technology early in the life of a business.
In that context and while thinking about small businesses and how best to help them, perhaps I may comment now on the noble Lord's helpful intervention about the role of the DTI. The role of the DTI is not
288
to leave small businesses in a laissez-faire marketplace because one in three such businesses—if not one in two—fail within the first three years. Clearly, that is not attractive in terms of creating a growing sector. Therefore, we do not agree with the laissez-faire approach, but, on the other hand, we do not want a nanny DTI which sees its job as handing out subsidies to whoever asks for one when starting up a business. That is why we have a discriminating series of policies to target government funds, in the best way possible, in partnership with business. That means a lot of consultation. That is why we have set up a new service for small businesses which seeks to deliver funds in the most targeted way. I believe that those in the business community will find most helpful the new organisation and the new strategy for small businesses, which is clearly laid out in the new documents which have been placed in the Library. That strategy and those documents focus on the department's approach to this problem and on the way in which we want to deliver services.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord referred to prices, as did the Statement. That was because there is much concern about the potential relationship of prices internationally. As the noble Baroness pointed out, this matter does not involve only the USA. Although we know that selective goods are priced much more cheaply in the USA, we are thinking also about the European context. There is much hearsay and interesting publicity on this, but there is not enough good, current information about comparative international pricing. We shall be conducting more work on this matter, building on the work carried out by the European Commission, in order to establish a good database. If we are asking the Director-General of Fair Trading to look more carefully at what can be done about pricing, it is important that we work from a sensible database. Achieving that is our first intention.
I was also asked about the utilities. It is clear that the regulators must look more carefully at the competitive pricing structure in certain sectors. I am sure that that will receive the support of the House.
I was also asked about mortgages and the attempt to provide more transparency not only in the mortgage market, but also in other lending markets, for the benefit of consumers. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made a good point in referring to fixed-rate, as opposed to variable-rate, mortgages. I would say that the marketplace is making the decision easier for the customer. More fixed-rate mortgages are now being taken out because we have a low interest rate regime and a Budget which gives people hope that that regime will be sustainable. That is one of the most important things that the Budget has attempted to lock in; that is, sound and sustainable low inflation and low interest rates. We will always let the customer and the market-place decide what choice consumers make about their mortgages. The outcome the noble Lord is seeking—a higher, fixed rate proportion—is likely to be the outcome of the sound budgetary policies that we are continuing to pursue.

289
In summary, this is a Statement for innovation, enterprise, better competition, particularly for small businesses which we need to see become more successful if we want sustainable growth and higher employment in this economy.
7 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I welcome the Statement that has been repeated by my noble friend. However, yesterday, my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget speech an employee shares-for-all scheme as part of the quest for generating greater enterprise in our economy. Nothing was said about that in this Statement. Will my noble friend indicate what steps the Government propose to take to give further details to the House and to the country about the scheme? Is it to be subject to further consultation? If so, who is to be consulted? What is to be the scope of that consultation? And within what period is it to take place?
Finally, will my noble friend agree that this ambitious but necessary scheme requires to be assisted by giving incentives to employers to provide shares for their employees? Failing which, it is difficult to see how it will be implemented successfully.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, in response to the factual questions from my noble friend, the position is as follows: the Statement today did not mention share ownership because clearly that is a Treasury matter and this was a DTI Statement. However, my noble friend can be absolutely sure that the DTI, following his own good works in office last year, totally supports the Treasury plan to expand employee share ownership. It is a fundamental part of improving productivity across the firm as a whole and in getting the entire workforce committed to improved performance. We are therefore extremely supportive of it.
As to the scope of the scheme, the Revenue has laid documentation in the Library today and the scheme is now a public proposal. It will be developed by a group of tax practitioners and experts who will be looking at the proposals. It is our intention to have draft clauses published as part of the pre-Budget report package and the new scheme is intended to be in the Finance Bill 2000.
My noble friend's final question was whether there would be stimulation for employers as well as for employees. The intention is that in the matching scheme there will be advantages for employers as well as employees in terms of encouragement to participate in the scheme. At the same time I should like to mention, because it gives another facet to share ownership, the enterprise management incentives scheme which is being introduced in the Budget. That will seek to stimulate new people and experienced executives coming into ownership in small businesses via a more attractive ownership option for shares and a tax regime which gives them more option to grow capital quickly at less cost to them, vis à vis the Revenue, in their taking a new post.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, what the Minister has said is all very well, but when it is all added
290
up it makes nothing like sufficient contribution to putting right the damaging and harmful effects on small and medium-sized enterprises caused by the working time directive introduced as a direct consequence of the Government's signing up to the European Social Chapter.
The working time directive imposes onerous record-keeping on small businesses and restricts the number of hours employees of all businesses can work. Frankly, in that context, what the Minister has just said is a complete nonsense. The damaging effect of the enterprise-destroying monstrosity that is the working time directive, is exacerbated and made much worse by the total shambles in the Minister's department which cannot produce a straightforward explanatory pamphlet on the working time directive even at the third attempt.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I did not actually get the question.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, that does not say much for the noble Lord's intellect; I made myself abundantly clear.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I did not get the question, but I certainly noticed the lack of hyperbole!
I felt I had just given a reasonably sensible answer on the issues of share ownership to my noble friend, who seemed interested in the way the workforce, the owners and managers in our society build a better partnership. What the noble Earl fails to recognise in the working time directive is that it is a basis for fairness which is usually worked out in agreement between the owners, the managers, the shareholders and the workforce. In my past experience in my own company those were matters that were handled by agreement between the workforce and the management. There is nothing surprisingly new about it, therefore, for many companies.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement and I welcome it. If it is permitted to be wildly enthusiastic in this House about any part of a Statement, then I must express my own wild enthusiasm for the decision to investigate internationally competitive pricing. As one who has spent the past four years studying prices both in the United States and Europe, and comparing them with the UK in four areas—pharmaceuticals, cars, supermarkets and electrical goods—I have become aware that we may not be paying twice what they are paying in the United States, but we are certainly paying 30 to 40 per cent. more net of VAT. The people of this country would see a vast improvement in their standard of living if there was as little as a 7 per cent. reduction in the cost of living. Therefore I welcome what the Government plan to do.
My question is this: if, as is planned, these various industries or retailing areas are sent, for example, to the OFT for investigation and if, as I believe, in most cases—not necessarily all—it is found that nothing illegal is being done; nobody has breached any rules and everybody has behaved according to the regulations that

291
exist, will the Government then consider entering into negotiations with various suppliers and manufacturers to discuss ways and means by which they could get them to bring down their prices to the levels consumers are charged in other countries? Most of those companies are international companies. If the Government will consider such an approach after the OFT and so forth have done their work, we could make a lot more progress.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's support for the attention given to international price comparisons and I know from answering in this House that he has a great knowledge of the subject. He has been tireless in trying to bring the more difficult areas to our attention.
On the question of how we can ensure that competition is realistic in situations where there is no problem in legal terms, there are probably two relatively simple ways of ensuring improvement. First, there is very much in our minds the issue of an educated and active consumer. That seems to me to be the best test of competitive capacity in the pricing sector. As I pointed out, we want to bring forward a consumer White Paper, and no doubt we will be thinking in terms of exactly the sort of issue that the noble Lord raised when considering such challenges.
The second means is to use the pressure of the supply chain in business itself. When you have information of this nature, it seems to me from my past experience that the best people to ensure that prices are moving in the right direction are the peer group of companies and those in a supply chain which are involved with the particular product. I see it less as a bureaucratic process of government forcing people to move prices in particular ways—that is to say, a sort of governor's raised eyebrows or a headmaster's little rap over the hands. In the long run, it is best to educate your consumers and have an extremely vocal and vibrant consumer sector, while activating your supply chains in the business peer group.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and have two quick questions for my noble friend the Minister. The first relates to utilities. My noble friend said that he was going to ask the regulators to look at prices more closely. However, does that cover the regulators of all utilities? Further, would that include rail regulators? I suppose that the latter is a question that I would ask, but it would be most interesting to hear my noble friend's reply.
Secondly, and more generally, the Government recently announced similar measures in several areas—for example, in the competitiveness White Paper, in the Budget and in today's Statement—such as supporting SMEs, science and technology and research. Is there a danger that, in particular, SMEs may be getting indigestion? Will my noble friend assure the House that he will try to keep the bureaucracy attached to all these measures as minimal as possible in accordance with
292
good government, so as to ensure that there is no conflict between the different documents that have been produced and the announcements that have been made?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, my noble friend's first question concerned which utility regulators are likely to be looking closely at prices. When delivering the Statement in the other place today, my right honourable friend specifically raised the question of electricity charges. I am not aware of the same question having been raised in terms of the rail regulator. However, as a result of my noble friend's question, I shall certainly make it my business to inquire into the position.
As regards the apparent duplication of the Government's attention to issues concerning small businesses, funding and science, I can confirm that we are well aware that we may be complicating life for the individual small business. In a sense, that is the purpose of setting up the small business service within the DTI, which will focus on clarifying the delivery of these services to small businesses.
My noble friend also raised another important issue which deserves a response. When we are talking about increasing competitiveness, increasing capabilities across the business community and increasing collaboration between government and businesses, we know that we have to indulge in a great deal of co-operation between government departments. This is not a single department issue. The Department for Education and Employment is deeply involved in the issue of capabilities and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is greatly involved with the services to small businesses out in the regions. It is very important that all government departments should be aware of the application of micro-economic policy. That is what we are really talking about; in other words, the balance between macro-and micro-economic policy which, if I may say so, has failed so often in the past in our economy. We need to bring together many departments and ensure that the priorities are understood across government, while still providing a focus of delivery for particular services.
If we take together the Pre-Budget Report, the Competitiveness White Paper, the Public Services Agreements—public sector agreements which are most important in getting departments to focus on their priorities and their capacity to deliver policy—we see joined-up government. I do not like using that phrase, but it is an apposite one because these are very complex issues which need pulling together.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I trust that the Minister will forgive me if I treat him a little more delicately than the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, who, I regret to see, has now left the Chamber. Nevertheless, I suggest to him that it is pure Alice in Wonderland for the Government to pretend that they are promoting enterprise and small businesses while they remain so enthusiastic about the European single market and our adherence to the Treaty of Rome.
If the Minister thinks that I am being unfair to him, perhaps he can tell the House how the contents of this Statement will do anything to fend off all the

293
over-regulation from Brussels which led our Federation of Small Businesses to vote to leave the EU some three years ago and which continues to cause such deep unrest among our medium and small businesses, as the Minister may have noticed in the weekend press reports? Further, does the Statement give any assurance that the red tape coming from Brussels and elsewhere will be reduced? When answering that question, the Minister will of course bear in mind the system of qualified majority voting under the treaty.
Moreover, and in the same vein, can the Minister specifically justify the Government's claim that they intend to modernise our merger regime? If his claim is honourable, I assume that the Minister can assure the House that this proposed takeover directive is dead and buried. As the noble Lord knows, this directive proposes to submit the findings of our excellent Takeover Panel to the interminable delays of the Luxembourg Court and thus threaten our mergers and acquisitions industry in the City of London, and elsewhere. Can the Minister assure us that this threat has indeed been removed?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as regards the question of red tape from Brussels, I do not think that the Statement was intended to comment on the amount of legislation that is likely to be imported in the future. All I note is that there is a great deal less regulation currently coming from Brussels under this presidency than there has been under any previous presidency. Rather like our Government who have managed, I think, to reduce by one-third the number of regulations that the previous government put in place, we are all trying to deregulate, simplify regulation and make the environment easier for small businesses.
On the issue of the takeovers directive, as I believe the noble Lord is aware from my last answers to such questions, we are still discussing such matters. There is no agreement yet in Brussels as to any change of regime. Indeed, the matter is still under discussion.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I have three questions for the Minister. However, I should begin by welcoming the Statement and its support for small businesses and especially the proposal to review the bankruptcy laws, which I believe will be an essential element in stimulating the economy. First, can the Minister give us his views on the importance of business incubation units to develop the businesses which have been referred to—that is to say, the 10, 000 new businesses—in a short period of time?
Secondly, will the Minister consider the value of setting up either a national or regional trust which would act as a support mechanism for seedcorn capital, which is very important for the development of small businesses but which, nonetheless, is a difficult structure to develop without the right support? If the Minister indicates that he is interested, I shall be most happy to write to him with a more detailed proposal.
Thirdly, will the Minister refer again to the issue raised earlier by my noble friend Lady Miller; namely, that in order to stimulate competition and bring forward new businesses you must reduce the cost of entry into business. Is he satisfied that the Government are looking
294
closely enough at the regulatory regime? Could we not find methods to make it easier for companies to start up in business?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's encouraging comments as regards the first two issues that he raised. As regards a venture capital trust, as the noble Lord is probably aware we are putting in place at the regional level regional development agencies. As regards the £50 million fund for venture capital for the regions, that will probably end up, after discussion between the Small Business Service and the regional development agencies, as a fund which is structured and deployed very much as the regions would wish. The concept of local trusts is not inappropriate at all as regards this kind of operation. I should be grateful to receive any ideas that the noble Lord may have about how that could work at the regional level. I would pass that information to the appropriate sections of the department. As regards reducing start up costs for business, that is a difficult matter but it is an objective. However, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Baroness have said; namely, that we have to tackle the matter.

Rail Industry
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood rose to call attention to the case for greater investment in rail infrastructure to enable the rail industry to play its full part in an integrated transport policy while maintaining the highest safety standards; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in opening this debate I should say that I shall concentrate on railways as defined by BR in pre-privatisation days. We are currently seeing a rapid rise in the use of rail for both passenger and freight transport. Passenger kilometres have risen by 22 per cent. since 1994–95. Freight tonne kilometres increased by 12 per cent. last year compared with the previous year. That increase is welcome but it has also led to problems of overcrowding, breakdowns, delays and frustration, all of which are reflected in a higher rate of complaint.
New initiatives for better and more imaginative use of existing track can open up new routes, particularly what might be called cross-country routes. The recently announced initiative by Anglia Railways to connect Ipswich and other East Anglian towns with Watford and Basingstoke via north London is a welcome example. But most of the initiatives require either restoration of unused lines or chords, the building of new sections of rail or new signalling, or indeed a mixture of all of these. Future funding from the train operating companies may taper off as subsidies decline.
We recognise the investment already being made on the track, including, as a major example, the building of the Channel Tunnel rail link with government backing. But the fact is that we need more investment in rail infrastructure to overcome the lack of investment of the past and to provide for future growth in passenger and freight traffic. The problem in a privatised and

295
fragmented industry is how to achieve this investment. In a word, do the Government accept responsibility for ensuring that a strategic approach is adopted to investment in rail infrastructure as governments used to do for road infrastructure? Or does the responsibility rest with Railtrack and whatever will be its equivalent in London? If so, are the regulatory and financial systems in place to facilitate the strategic exercise of this duty? These are some of the questions to which we hope to get answers tonight.
Quite soon now Railtrack's annual network statement will be published. Following last year's statement the rail regulator stepped in and negotiated an amendment to Railtrack's licence, requiring the development of the network. We welcome this determination on the part of the regulator to keep Railtrack up to scratch. We hope that this year's report will signal Railtrack's determination to satisfy the new requirement. After all, the value of Railtrack's shares has quadrupled since privatisation, reflecting a healthy profit situation and handsome dividends for shareholders, all based fundamentally on the transfer of public subsidy into Railtrack's trading accounts via its charges to the train operating companies. The public have a right to know that their money is being used to respond to their demand for better services. Our thesis is that strategic planning of network expansion requires long-term thinking, a recognition and implementation of public policy, as well as private opportunities for profit and the correct financial and regulatory context for decision-taking.
Let us look at some detailed proposals. My first example is Thameslink 2000. The increase in capacity of this essential north/south link through London has been postponed until 2006, due, it is said, to delays in the arrival at St. Pancras of the Channel Tunnel rail link. King's Cross/St. Pancras is due to become a major hub for international, national, suburban and London Transport routes. But it is difficult to see why moving the Thameslink 2000 station from east of King's Cross along the line to a position on the western side of St. Pancras should be delayed by the delays to the CTRL. Would it not be better to get on with it? After all, previous studies showed this scheme to have the highest return of all the London rail schemes. Is it not the case that at flotation some of Railtrack's inherited debt was written off in return for an undertaking to build Thameslink 2000? What is happening to that money meanwhile? What importance does the Minister give to this upgrade in terms of relieving congestion on London's roads? What action could be taken to hasten its implementation?
I now turn to the thorny subject of freight on the West Coast mainline. The UK's two major freight companies, Freightliner and EWS, are both heavily committed to investment in rolling stock—locomotives and wagons—as their contribution to a rapid increase in their business in line with government policy. They also require increased track capacity. I have already raised with the Minister in Questions for Written Answer and in the House the difficulties faced by EWS as it tries to increase its operation from 30 to 115 trains per day on
296
the West Coast mainline over a 10-year period. Despite the regulator's instruction that Railtrack should demonstrate how sufficient capacity could be achieved, no conclusion has yet been reached by Railtrack. Moreover, Railtrack has already stated that it is not willing to upgrade the West Coast mainline to piggyback standard, partly because the Government are not willing to fund the upgrade. Yet this reluctance, wherever the fault lies, means that the chance of introducing new systems of rail freight, which could result in enormous gains in respect of easier transition between road and rail, will be lost. Do the Government have a view of the best solution and could the Government affect the outcome if they wished to do so?
An alternative strategic freight route from Glasgow to the Channel Tunnel has been announced and would be an acceptable conventional route from the point of view of the freight companies. But the question of capacity at key points, and of who pays, is becoming a major issue between Railtrack and the operators. Railtrack maintains that freight loses it money, despite access fees of £150 million per annum, and that its variable income from freight does not cover its variable costs. While the regulator investigates the balance between fixed and variable costs, no investment is taking place and the freight industry, like others, awaits the 1999 network management statement with some anxiety.
A commitment to investment in both routes and a retention of the present charging structure are regarded by the carriers as essential to maintaining the drive towards a bigger rail freight industry. Is the Minister satisfied that Railtrack has adequate incentives to make increased freight traffic financially attractive? In particular, can he explain to the House what combination of strategic rail authority, regulator and DETR powers and funding are, or will be, available to ensure that rail transport can play its part in the Government's own plans for an integrated transport system? After all, there may be a number of schemes which could deliver real social or environmental benefits but where the capital costs will exceed the available return in terms of paths sold.
I now turn to the matter of pinch points where the concerns of the Secretary of State to push ahead with action in the system has our full support, as does the availability of a government fund to assist with the action. This effort seems to be an excellent result of knocking heads together on the part of the Secretary of State. I hope that it has a successful future.
Next, there is the whole problem of maintenance, which is essential for the safety and comfort of passengers. Headlined in the last network management statement were 10-year programmes of £2 billion each for track renewal, for signal modernisation and for stations and structure—all good stuff and clearly funded. But it would be interesting to learn from the Minister what proportion of the £60 million which we are told is being spent on Paddington station is being spent, first, to benefit the passengers and train operating companies and, secondly, to raise Railtrack's revenue from retail premises. While we are on the matter of property, can the Minister assure us that sales of railway land really are under control and that profits from such

297
sales are being ploughed back into the network? More importantly, is the Minister satisfied that the track and signalling renewal and maintenance programme is sufficient to guarantee levels of safety as use of the railway increases?
I fear that the Minister will be tempted to reply to my questions by referring me either to the strategic rail authority or to the rail regulator, but I cannot accept that either of those two institutions really has the task of considering where strategic new investment in rail infrastructure is required, over what timescale, and with what cost benefit analysis as a justification. As far as concerns investment in track, Britain sometimes seems stuck in the age of make do and mend. We have always been very good at that, but one has only to consider the efforts which went into the planning, justification and construction of the motorway system to feel that nowhere in the present rail set-up is there any person or group capable of taking a similar approach to track provision. We want to know, the industry needs to know, and rail users need to know that the regulatory and financial frameworks which will ensure that rail plays a full part in government policy are, or very shortly will be, firmly in place. I challenge the Minister to convince us that that is the case. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as an adviser to Adtranz and as chairman of the Rail Freight Group and the Piggyback Consortium.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on initiating the debate and on her thoughtful and wide-ranging speech. She covered many of the infrastructure concerns that I certainly have. I should like to expand on one or two of them, but before doing so I wish to reflect on just how much has changed on the railways in the past five years. We spend some time in the House criticising the awful service, short trains and delays. Occasionally we praise the railways as well. We often forget that there was as much if not more that was awful with the old British Rail but then we could blame the government of the day directly. Perhaps that is what is missing today. It is more difficult to get information. I shall come back to that point later in my speech.
Railtrack, for better or worse, now owns our railway infrastructure and we must ask ourselves whether the company is fulfilling its licence obligations to maintain the network and enhance it to meet the reasonable demands of its customers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, maintenance is patchy. Some good work is being done, but there are two many stories of even worse bureaucracy now than in the days of BR.
Noble Lords may have seen today's publication by the Health and Safety Executive into the Bexley accident in February 1997. It gives me great cause for concern. Noble Lords may recall that a ballast train was derailed. The report blamed Railtrack, the South East Infrastructure Maintenance Company and the Southern Track Renewals Company for the accident. It was caused by the two rails moving apart because the
298
sleepers were rotten. To me, that is plain bad maintenance, which was reflected in the fines on the companies totalling £150, 000.
In how many other places on the network is that happening? There could be a disaster. We do not know. We do not know whether Railtrack is maintaining the network efficiently, at the minimum rate for a safe railway or even to modem equivalent form. We need more information. We have a right to that information because the Government are providing more than £1 billion of subsidy to the railways. That information must be provided and verified independently. Whether that should be done by the rail regulator or the SRA is to be discussed but they must have sufficient resources in order to do that.
As the noble Baroness said, the challenge now is to cope with growth. Rail freight showed a 16 per cent. increase last year and passenger traffic grew by 7 per cent. If one projects that forward, there will be a doubling of traffic in 10 years. Yes, we can make the trains longer, we can make them heavier and put more coaches on the passenger trains, but we will still need double the number of trains in 10 years. The train builders can build plenty of trains and one can probably improve stations and other facilities. But can the infrastructure cope and how will it be done? Yes, more trains could be run at night, but not all passengers want to travel at night. To a large extent freight is moved at night but some freight must be moved when the customer wants it to be moved, which is often in the daytime.
We can run trains seven days a week, which does not always happen at the moment. Many passengers would be pleased not to be put on a bus when they want to travel on Sunday morning. We can also build more flyovers and junctions and we can lengthen platforms, but we still have to double the number of trains.
I have two solutions which I hope will be considered worthy of consideration. The first is to make the network a real seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day railway. The main routes would be signalled for bi-directional working with regular crossovers to allow work to be done on one track while trains operate on the other. There is nothing new about that—it has been done on the Continent for years—but it needs to be done here. One of the freight customers who sells milk wants to use rail but will not do so until that kind of service is provided. Cows produce milk all the time and the customer wants to have trains run all the time. Bi-directional signalling and more crossovers would certainly enable that to happen. However, it means someone—probably Railtrack—investing in the equipment so that it can be done safely.
The other solution is signalling. Two years ago Railtrack told us and the world that there was such a shortage of signalling engineers that it was having to sub-contract some of the work to Australia and that this problem was constraining its growth and investment. Two years on, the signalling industry is complaining of few if any orders and is warning of major redundancies. On the ground very little new work on signalling is going on apart from at Euston. The reports on the development of the transmission-based signalling for the

299
West Coast Main Line, as the noble Baroness, said, seemed to indicate that development work is continuing but is not going very well or very fast. I certainly have my doubts whether that signalling system will, in the near future, be able to provide Virgin with the contractual commitment to which Railtrack has agreed. That has a severe impact on the capacity for other passenger and freight trains.
The other way of increasing capacity is to build more lines. We have seen the Channel Tunnel rail link and Central Railways. But that is expensive. What is needed to increase the number of trains is major resignalling in many places in order to reduce the headway or distance between the trains. If we are not investing in signalling and if signalling engineers are going on the dole, it seems to me that not much strategic thought is going into the problem at the moment.
Where does Railtrack come in? At the rail summit a couple of weeks ago, which the Deputy Prime Minister chaired, Railtrack showed £45 billion of investment over 11 years from the year 2000, of which £6 billion was in rolling stock, £19 billion in maintenance and £19 billion in infrastructure enhancement. But investment by whom? Railtrack states that it has invested £1.4 billion in the past year, and that the amount will rise.
But let us examine some of those claims. I have the document in front of me. One problem relates to bottlenecks. The noble Baroness gave some examples. There is one in Leeds. Railtrack has taken a year to start work on that and has now begun to improve capacity. However, capacity for freight is not being improved, only passenger capacity, because EWS refuses to pay any more money. EWS says that it has a contract with Railtrack, and that Railtrack must provide the capacity. Railtrack is effectively saying, "Tough". So that is the position. The work is much cheaper now with a passenger enhancement, but that is not being done. Railtrack says that it has identified 90 new freight depots, indicating that it has paid for the work. I know that it has not paid a penny.
The noble Baroness mentioned Thameslink. As she said, there is no reason why work cannot be started now. What annoys me is that the document which was sent to 300 or 400 people states that West Coast upgrade, Thameslink, and Channel Tunnel rail links were all committed to from 1996 to 1999, and that before 2002 delivery will be well under way. The last announcement I saw indicated 2006 for Thameslink. That is not giving the whole picture to those who fund the work.
My question to Railtrack and the Government is: how much of Railtrack's investment relates to new work, or is it enhancement of capacity or capability; and how much is maintenance? We need the figures broken down separately. We also need to know how much is Railtrack's money and how much comes from grants. Unless we receive that information, we shall not receive a final answer as to whether Railtrack is capable of investing and whether it will invest at all.
The rail regulator is studying all these issues before further developing his decision on Railtrack's access charges and the regulator asset based regime. However,
300
I understand that the regulator has three people working for him and Railtrack has 40. Will the regulator again be pushed into a situation where there is a lack of information?
My message is that I hope the SRA and the regulator will get a grip on the information, so that these issues can be debated. We are continually told that documents are confidential. Even the study that Railtrack did under the trans-European network fund in relation to the south-west of Cornwall was confidential until my noble friend the Minister kindly placed a copy in the Library. There are many other people who also wish to see it.
The railways have always been secretive. Now is the time for them to open up the information for debate, consultation and then action. I welcome Sir Alastair Morton's appointment as chairman of the SRA. I hope that there will be an equally strong and fair rail regulator when that appointment is announced. In the end, if Railtrack will not fulfil its licence obligations, the SRA must have the power to take action to ensure that someone else does. That is the only solution to achieving forecasts of double the number of passenger and freight trains on our network in 10 years.
7.43 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. First, I am chairman of BICC, a company which not only has, through its Balfour Beatty subsidiary, extensive involvement in railway maintenance and renewal, but has also won the first two major contracts for the West Coast mainline. Secondly, I am also a director of the Canadian Pacific, one of the world's most famous railroads.
There are many aspects to the subject that we are discussing. However, I wish mainly to touch on the financing of rail investment. Perhaps I may begin with a little story. When I was a small boy, we had in our house the skin of an enormous grizzly bear. The poor bear was shot by my Canadian great grandfather with his trusty Colt revolver. My forbear (if I may use that word) was the leading civil engineer in Canada and he plugged the beast, which was being unfriendly, while surveying the route of the Canadian Pacific.
Driving that railroad through the formidable barrier of the Selkirks and the Rocky Mountains remains to this day an outstanding triumph of willpower and engineering. But if that was a challenge of astonishing difficulty, raising the finance required was in its own way scarcely easier. Then, and now, the financing of railway infrastructure—and indeed much infrastructure generally—has always met with the same problems.
The first difficulty is that the return on the investment is so often long term. Modern capital markets are fundamentally very competitive, so infrastructure financing, if by way of equity, has to compete with the equity returns available from other alternatives, and the total returns that shareholders expect today are high and often pretty quick.
Equally, the financing of infrastructure projects by debt often carries a higher risk element than, in simplistic comparison, fixed interest lending to a stable government.

301
The problem is made more acute for many infrastructure projects by the cost of dead money; that is, the cost of servicing capital during prolonged construction periods before the investment starts to produce cashflow. In that context, I am open to correction, but for the Channel Tunnel I believe that the dead money cost was pretty close to the actual cost of driving the tunnel.
An even more important consideration in infrastructure financing is the real destination of the return on the investment. If any of us builds a factory, the profit—that is, the benefit of the activity—goes into our profit and loss account. But for many infrastructure investments, that is not the case at all. To return to the Canadian Pacific, it eventually made, and still makes, good profits. Those profits, however, are microscopic compared to the general economic gain (it may be called profit, if we wish) that Canada gained from the construction of the railroad.
I would add two comments. First, the general national economic gain may be very real, but it is also very difficult to quantify. Secondly, there can still be an important economic gain of that kind even if an infrastructure project may not itself appear to show a profit at all in conventional accounting terms. Those factors hardly make conventional financing easier.
Again, if noble Lords will forgive my delving into history, the Canadian Pacific could never have been built at all if it had had to raise its finance in simple financial market terms on a stand-alone basis. What happened in Canada was that the splendid ancestor of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, in the face of great political opposition, prevailed upon the government to guarantee some of the debt. Moreover, as an additional and very valuable incentive the railroad was given huge federal land concessions.
I say all this, not to recount ancient history, but simply to demonstrate that there have always been the same basic problems in financing railways. They therefore often need to be addressed by government not only with imagination, but with the recognition that capital markets have developed primarily to meet the needs of conventional business, rather than those of peculiar beasts like railroads and that there may often be an unquantifiable, and sometimes large, public benefit.
I do not know whether Mr. Prescott has a motto or slogan above his desk. But if he does not, he should have one that reads simply: "He who wills the end must will the means". And he should send that motto in triplicate to the Treasury.
Finally, I believe that for the best end result the system under which our railways operate should correspond closely and in a complementary way to the timescale and manner in which its infrastructure is financed. I am not sure that that is entirely the case today.
To illustrate what I mean, it is not helpful, where a long-term view is needed, to give concessions to train operators for periods which are too short. If you do so, those operators will simply act in a short-term way. It is
302
stupid to expect them to do otherwise. They will not make enough long-term investments in rolling stock or, more important, in modern operating systems.
Equally, if operators' returns are subject to the changing whims of the regulator, we will have just the same result. Similar considerations apply to those involved in railroad maintenance, where every party's interest is always better served by long-term alliance agreements rather than short-term contractual confrontation.
Above all, Railtrack must be treated in a sensible way. It is absolutely unhelpful to talk, as some outside this House have done, about obscene profits. That blows off populist steam and does nothing constructive whatever. Railtrack needs to make good profits simply because it has such large ongoing investment requirements. To put it rudely, it needs money to pay for decades of shameful neglect by governments of all persuasions.
I happen to believe that the railway industry has a great future. I do not say that because I am a railway fan or enthusiast or even because I am somewhat involved in the industry. I say it because only by developing our railways have we the slightest hope of relieving the ghastly congestion of our roads and cities. In conclusion, I wish to thank the noble Baroness most sincerely for making the debate possible.
7.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I, too, am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, has introduced this timely debate. Her opening speech was excellent; she threw so many shrewd and searching questions at the Minister that he will need all his 20 minutes to answer them. We have also had two excellent speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley and the noble Viscount, Lord Weir.
This is an opportunity for us to raise the essential question of the urgent importance of ensuring a process of continuing, coherent and consistent investment in our railway system. I believe that we are only just beginning to understand both how urgent it is on environmental grounds to transfer traffic from road to rail—that must be both passenger and freight traffic in large quantities—and the huge potential that still exists for such a change.
There have been some encouraging signs. Speakers have already referred to the significant upturn in passenger traffic. Figures have been given for the increase in freight traffic. I was told by English, Welsh and Scottish railways recently that it was 60 per cent. in the first three years of its existence. That is one of the few but really beneficial fruits of the privatisation process: the infinitely more efficient and enthusiastic management of the rail freight business by EWS and by Freightliner.
But we are starting from an unhappy position. It is common knowledge that the last government were unenthusiastic about public transport in general and railways in particular. That led to a long period of disastrous under-investment and a collapse of confidence in the industry. I believe the roots of our

303
problems in fact go much further back in history. When most European countries were rebuilding and electrifying their war-damaged railway systems from the late 1940s onward, we had a so-called "modernisation plan" in 1955 which was essentially backward-looking and unimaginative: simple, rugged steam locomotives; small, unbraked freight wagons; enormous marshalling yards where freight was stuck for days or weeks. It was, in retrospect, a recipe for absolute disaster, the recreation of a 1930s railway, not the birth of a system for the end of the 20th century.
Our present problems have been exacerbated by the absurd fragmentation of the privatised railway industry. We urgently need a properly integrated national transport system, but we have not even retained a properly integrated railway system. That creates enormous difficulties in terms of investment. Those have already been touched on, but I believe that there are two fundamental problems: first, the conflict between short-term and long-term interests and objectives, to which the noble Viscount referred; secondly, the inherent difficulty which he also spoke about, of persuading a private company which needs to please its shareholders to make the long-term investments whose benefits may take 20 years or more to emerge and which inevitably entail some element of risk.
A railway is a long-term business. Most of our railway lines have existed for 150 years or more. New railways involve immensely expensive civil engineering work, which is particularly difficult in our small and crowded country. But those new railways need similarly to be built to last. It may be a generation at least before a return on the capital investment is seen. Locomotives and carriages have a life expectancy of 30 years or more, yet franchises to train operating companies are let for short terms like seven years. That makes it impossible for train operating companies to justify buying new stock, so a system of leasing is developed instead. But the leasing companies need maximum flexibility so that their locomotives or rolling stock can be leased to a different train operating company if need be. That means that they need to be flexibly deployable; it means carriages which will fit within the maximum number of loading gauges, and the most restrictive. So we have the ludicrous production at the moment of the Class 170 Turbostar trains for ScotRail, Anglia Railways and Midland mainline which are the most cramped carriages to be built for many years. It also means diesel, not electric traction.
We face the ludicrous and appalling prospect of railway engineers speaking of decommissioning electrified railways—perhaps even the Great North Eastern Railway—because of the dilemma created by the conflict of long-term and short-term interests and because of the extreme difficulty in financial and business terms of justifying new electric locomotives, with a limited number of lines on which they can be deployed. There are no plans at all for any further significant electrification of main lines, like the Great Western and Midland main lines, both of which use the ageing and now rough-riding 125 high-speed trains.
304
I am sure we all welcome the Government's intention to establish a strategic rail authority. We wish it well and hope that it acquires great skill quickly in wielding the limited range of sticks and carrots which I can see will be at its disposal. But it will need to think radically about how private companies can be persuaded and/or enabled to deliver an integrated railway system in the public interest and especially how the crucial aim of adequate long-term investment can be achieved.
Some of the players are in it for the long term, notably Railtrack—and speakers have mentioned how eagerly we await the network management statement. Will it promise a vigorous programme to address the critical pinch points or the notoriously rundown track: Euston-Rugby-Birmingham and Reading West; the Settle and Carlisle and the Glasgow and South Western? What about Thameslink 2006, or whatever it has become? What about gauge enhancement, if we are really serious about freight traffic?
There are some hopeful signs, not least that the problem seems to be beginning to be understood by Railtrack management. Perhaps I am naive and optimistic, but their chief executive, Mr. Gerald Corbett, said on 15th January, apropos the commitment to spend £165 million on Leeds station—though I recognise the partial character of that work:
"The Regulator questioned our willingness to take risks and commit to projects without a guaranteed return. We believe that this initiative takes us out of the model of a boring utility, and puts us on track to becoming the key to integrated transport".
I wish it were true. I welcome that statement but it is only the very beginning and there are good reasons for doubting how seriously Railtrack takes that commitment.
Public money will certainly be needed for rail investment. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the strategic rail authority will address ways of making that kind of investment possible. I hope also that he may give us assurances that electric traction, so clean, efficient and environmentally desirable, will be extended and certainly not curtailed.
Perhaps I may say a word about safety, since the Motion includes a reference to the maintenance of "the highest safety standards". I echo the recommendation last autumn of the Transport Committee of the other place that the work presently carried out by Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate should be transferred to an independent rail safety authority along the lines of the Civil Aviation Authority, and that Railtrack itself should be required to obtain a safety case from that independent authority. That might give one some confidence about the kinds of accident that we have heard described. This authority must be publicly funded and entirely separate from any of the private organisations involved in the rail industry. That new safety authority would also ensure fair and accurate attribution of responsibility for delay and the award of compensation. If Railtrack and all the train operating companies had to relate to an independent safety authority there would be no room for confusion, less scope for delay in the award of safety cases and much greater public confidence in rail safety.

305
Finally, I should like to relate a brief story about the high-tech, modernised railway. Yesterday I went to the booking office at Hereford to buy my ticket. I asked for a saver first ticket, with a senior rail card, to London. The booking clerk scratched his head and said, "Hm! We've got 17 different fares to London. I don't think we have that one in the machine". Since I knew the fare I said, "What about £55.20?" His response was, "Done!". I must be a trustworthy-looking chap.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I too join very warmly in congratulating my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood for initiating this excellent debate. We have enjoyed listening to some knowledgeable speeches including that by the right reverend Prelate. I am tempted to suggest that he should be appointed honorary chaplain to the railway network. His was a most authoritative and optimistic speech.
I begin with an apology to the Minister who is to reply to the debate. I do not expect from him any reply to the points that I raise in my speech for two reasons: first, everything that I intend to say relates to the responsibilities of the Scottish Office, not his department; secondly, I hope to escape from the debate before the end, a practice of which I thoroughly disapprove.
I intervene briefly in this general debate to raise a specific example of the problem of investment in railway infrastructure; namely, the position of the railways in and around the city of Edinburgh. When I was elected a Member of Parliament in the Borders in 1965 I inherited a situation in which the Border railway line was under threat of closure following the Beeching Report. I refer to the attractive 95-mile-long line between Edinburgh and Carlisle through the Borders. That line was in the event closed in the late 1960s. The other day my wife came across my ticket for the last train to leave Galashiels to head for London on the night sleeper. I do not believe that the decision to close that line would be made today by any government for two reasons. First, attitudes have changed completely over the past 30 years. We are well aware that we have been putting far too much traffic into our cities from surrounding areas. We are also very concerned about pollution and the effect on the environment. Secondly, referring specifically to Edinburgh, there has been an enormous expansion in housing over the past 30 years to the south of the city on the very route that was closed.
The hopeful sign is that Border Transport Futures Ltd has produced plans over the past few years to reopen at least parts of the line, beginning with the southern section. That is to be a freight-only service. Plans are well advanced to extract wood from the great forest of Kielder and, rather than clog up the roads in that locality, transport it when mature via the railway line through Longtown to Carlisle. As to that, the tender process is about to begin, and I am sure that we all wish the new freight service well.
My main concern is for the future passenger service at the north end of the line. A pre-feasibility study has already been conducted by Border Transport Futures of
306
a branch line from Edinburgh to Galashiels. The Government have themselves commissioned a study concerned with the same route that is now under way. It involves Railtrack, Richard Branson's company and the Scottish Office.
I become very suspicious when I consider the number of studies and consultancies involved. Possibly it is a means of putting off decisions. I recall that at the time of the closure—which we campaigned against—the local authorities in the region, with my full encouragement and support, commissioned a feasibility study from Professor Hibbs. That could be dusted down and looked at again. It recommended a single track branch line from Galashiels to Edinburgh. Perhaps we are re-inventing the wheel two or three times in paper studies. However, I do not in any way disparage the study which is now under way. The economic situation in the Borders is so grave that we look forward to a positive outcome to the study and the restoration of that route in the interests of the whole of the Border counties.
My particular plea—this is all I say tonight—is that, without considering the long-term possibility of reopening the whole line, work should proceed immediately on the extension of the Edinburgh suburban rail network at the northern end of that line. It is rumoured that there will be an announcement by the Scottish Office, possibly tomorrow, of agreement to fund the crossrail project put forward by Edinburgh City Council to extend the existing suburban network, which has been so successful, from the west to the east of the city. I very much welcome that. When my honourable friend Mr. Donald Gorrie, the Member for Edinburgh West, was councillor for that area he was very successful in the campaign to reopen Gyle station. That has proved an enormous success. It brings people from the outer housing estates to the west into the city centre. A week or two ago I went to look at the even older example of the reopening of the branch line to Bathgate. There I observed the number of commuters who arrived in the late afternoon. To reopen stations and lines in the Edinburgh area has proved successful. I wish the crossrail scheme all success.
The plan is to extend the suburban line through Waverley to Kinnaird Park with a station at Brunstane. I believe that a mistake has been made in not reopening the station at Portobello. A large population in that area would prefer to use rail rather than take their cars into the city centre. Since this scheme is supposed to be up and running by 2002 I am bound to question why there is not to be a station at Holyrood where the new Scottish Parliament is to be established. I am informed that the cost is very substantial. I cannot understand how a station on an existing line can cost £5 million All that is needed is a platform and a shelter. I believe that the future Scottish Members of Parliament should set an example by providing access by train to the new Parliament. I hope that the matter will be reconsidered.
I give a warm welcome to the project, which, if I am right, is to be announced tomorrow. It will enable the northern part of the old Waverley line to be reopened. I urge the Government—it will be the responsibility of the Scottish Office and the Scottish Parliament, together with the rail authorities—to press on beyond Kinnaird

307
Park to Millerhill and the new housing areas of Newtongrange and Gorebridge. If that is done it will be relatively simple to extend the line south to the Borders, as I hope will happen.
One of the main blockages to the restoration of that suburban link is the new Edinburgh road bypass. The Scottish Office is faced with a repeat problem. The traffic on the bypass is greater than was forecast. Just as at the western end of the bypass, at the Gogar junction, there was first a roundabout, then traffic lights, and eventually an underpass—which should have been constructed at the very beginning—so the same story is being repeated at the eastern end at the Danderhall roundabout. At that end we are now at the traffic light stage. The new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary is under construction just north of the roundabout. We should now be beginning to construct an underpass or overpass. That should be wide enough to accommodate the rail link to avoid a long argument about future expenditure and disruption to the Edinburgh bypass. My plea is that we have some real forward thinking to integrate the road and rail networks and that a decision about the necessary capital expenditure is taken in time.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the subject today. We seem to be having a good crack of the whip lately, given the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in January, and the more recent discussion on the Severn Tunnel last month. The Severn Tunnel debate highlighted the importance of keeping our rail infrastructure in good order, and any lack in that direction could have drastic economic consequences. Shutting part of a system even at weekends for repairs tends to put many people to vast inconvenience. Perhaps more lines should be dual signalled—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned this—so that one line can remain in use while the other is worked on, a practice which is widespread in Europe.
Investment is the key to unlock the future potential of the rail industry to meet the greater demands that will be made on it in an integrated transport policy. Railtrack is responsible for the biggest part of that investment. It has to justify the many improvements and upgrades, to say nothing of eliminating pinch points in the system to provide the train operating companies with a suitable railway for their needs. Passenger growth over the past five years has been around 20 per cent. and rising, which presents quite a challenge. Freight is similarly growing. Railtrack has a difficulty in that in the private sector strict commercialism seems to reign supreme whereas the railways provide a public service. Many recent studies have revealed that many schemes are somewhat difficult to justify without considerable subsidy. That has led Railtrack to concentrate initially on station regeneration schemes which provide a greater return through increased business development of the premises. Railtrack has been inclined to ask users to-help with the finance of upgrades and new route development. That really is the role of Government who respond by providing the infrastructure investment fund and freight facilities grants. It is likely that in the not
308
too distant future, the demands made on those funds will be considerable, and their augmentation will be essential.
Railtrack has been unwilling in the past to take risks, a lamentable policy indeed, but unfortunately somewhat necessary in commerce. Therefore it is to be congratulated on making a start on modernising Leeds Station where £160 million is to be spent on increasing the train paths available from 24 to 40 per hour, and shouldering much of the commercial risk itself, despite a certain lack of commitment to freight.
In the main, the train operating companies are investing heavily. Some 1, 800 new carriages of various descriptions are currently being built or on order. That will release many older vehicles for scrapping and less old stock for refurbishment and re-use. Anglia Railways' plans to start a new service from East Anglia to Watford and Basingstoke via the Feltham gateway to Heathrow involve the use of new trains. Its more controversial and competitive plans to connect Waterloo with hitherto untapped areas in Southampton and Romsey will use refurbished stock cascaded from the Gatwick Express which is to receive new rolling stock this year.
Virgin Trains is committed to massive investment in its West Coast mainline and cross-country fleets for which it has contracted Railtrack to produce a suitable railway to enable those new, in the main tilting, trains to operate properly. This investment by Virgin, along with Railtrack, now brings the total committed private sector investment in those projects to above £4 billion over the next six years.
Other companies also operate on that railway, especially freight; and Railtrack seems to be having some trouble accommodating them. Providing for piggyback and high cube traffic within the upgrade does not, it seems, appear commercially viable. I have to say that since the completion of the Channel Tunnel, this country needs somehow to provide a route properly to connect our system with that on the Continent where such traffic is widely carried without a problem. If Railtrack is unwilling to get to grips with this, one's mind is directed towards another scheme which continues to lurk in the background. I refer to Central Railways whose highly controversial and ambitious scheme involves a high cube route from Liverpool and Manchester, crossing the Pennines using the redundant Woodhead Tunnel, thence to the London area using the old Great Central Formation via Nottingham, Leicester and Rugby, eventually connecting with the Channel Tunnel at Folkestone and then on to Lille in France.
It may be of interest to your Lordships to learn that that scheme is actually 100 years old and was conceived back in the 1890s by the late Sir Edward Watkin who, as a railway baron, planned to use the Metropolitan Railway and Brunel's tunnel under the Thames to connect his Great Central London Extension with the South Eastern Railway to the nascent Channel Tunnel at Dover. It is interesting to speculate that had Sir Edward's plans come to fruition, we would have had a bern gauge route east-west across London, making Crossrail unnecessary and providing much improved

309
communication around the capital. Having built his London extension from Nottinghamshire to Marylebone, unfortunately takeovers and mergers thwarted his plans and, sadly, he died before anything else could happen.
Central Railways have had considerable presentation problems, but I feel that the scheme is worthy of some consideration, if only to goad Railtrack into accepting that if it does not get to grips with this piggyback traffic, others perhaps will. That will surely be to Railtrack's loss.
Continuing with the freight theme, there will be a need for terminals, both intermodal and more basic ones to load and unload rail vehicles. The planning regime associated with those facilities is very obstructive and time-consuming and needs to be reviewed. Perhaps that is an issue that the strategic rail authority can address. While the Transport and Works Act can be used to facilitate the provision of rail services to those terminals, their inevitable need for buildings is not covered by that Act and local planners become involved. Many of those authorities are quite co-operative, but some still seem to be living in the dark ages and need to realise that the renaissance of the railways will need their blessing. Planning for those projects must be speeded up if a real part is to be played by the rail freight industry in removing some of the traffic from our roads.
I should like to cite a project at Colnbrook near the junction of the M. 4 and M. 25, which is rail connected and will provide a much-needed facility in that perhaps sensitive area but close to London. There is also a useful project at Avonmouth where a large area of wasteland is being redeveloped to provide an intermodal terminal and other industrial premises.
Thus we see that privatising the railways has been somewhat successful with both an increase in passenger numbers and the number of freight tonne/miles up and rising. The system is struggling to cope now and will continue to do so in the future unless investment keeps pace. The railway industry welcomes the setting up of the strategic rail authority and looks forward to the legislation which will enable that body to provide the appropriate strategic direction. Unfortunately the Government seem to have got their priorities wrong in that constitutional matters are to take precedence over important matters such as transport, food standards, health and welfare, and now even access to the countryside. I am sure that the voters will not thank the Government who, in their zeal to emasculate this House, neglect to address those more important matters that they were elected to get on with.
The rail industry needs strategic support now; otherwise we would not be having all these complaints about poor service. Let us hope that this debate can go some way to help achieve the renaissance that the rail industry needs and is willing to provide.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I have learned a great deal in the debate. We have heard some good and informative speeches. I am in the same class as my noble friend Lord Steel. I have no expertise
310
except as a passenger. It was while I was seething as a passenger that I allowed my name to be put down for the debate. I express the communal feelings of my noble friend Lord Geraint and myself. He has decided that I shall let off steam on behalf of the both of us because we were involved in the same incident.
We travelled together about a fortnight ago. It was not an unusual incident, but the worst of our experiences. We left here at 4 p.m. to catch a train from Euston at 4.45 p.m. We should have reached our local station at about 8.25 p.m. We reached there at about 11 o'clock that night. We were delivered by a minibus. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, had to drive me home which is on the way to his home. I do not know what time we got home. It was our worst, but not an unusual, experience.
We were travelling on Virgin trains and should have changed at Wolverhampton. We were told at Birmingham that there had been trouble on the track on the other side of Coventry. We had not noticed it. When we reached Wolverhampton we expected to change to Central Trains. Its train had left 10 minutes before we reached the station. There was no other train for another two to three hours. I have travelled on this line for the best part of half a century from Aberystwyth to Paddington. I have never experienced as bad and unreliable a service as I have done in the past few years. It might be more comfortable in some sections, but the service is nothing like as reliable as it was.
What happened was because of trouble on the line. It has happened repeatedly. The noble Lord and myself travel on average once a week during parliamentary sittings. It is amazing the number of occasions something has gone wrong. We hear anecdotal evidence from other passengers.
When I say that I have no experience of railways, I had a transitory one some years ago. I had to object to some of the Beeching proposals as a Member of Parliament concerning my own constituency. I was also briefed many times by local authorities and pressure groups and had to attend public inquiries in order to object. I learnt a few things about the railways then which I had forgotten until today.
The contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, was interesting. He spoke about the capital cost of railways and the long-term investment they represent. I am a great admirer of French railways. I believe that France has got it right. It has taken a long-term view In this country we have been inclined to take short-term decisions on most issues over the past 20 years. We have failed to take the long-term view.
I objected to privatisation of the railways. I thought it was a mistake at the time. I believed that we should have more freight on the railways. It is very much easier for people to travel on the railways. Many of my friends in mid-Wales travel to London by car because the trains are so unreliable. Most of them would much prefer to travel by train if the service was reliable.
A major problem faces the Government. I am very glad to hear about the setting up of a strategic rail authority. Is it going to be provided with additional money? I suppose it has no money at all at the moment.

311
Is it going to be properly funded and carry out a proper investigation of the kind of investment that is required in this country over the next few years? Trains are held back because of difficulties on the track or with the overhead lines. Sometimes one has to change from one line to another. Is the strategic rail authority to be allowed to hold back a train operated, for example, by Central Trains, and so on? All these things need to be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, mentioned the Severn Tunnel. I have an interest to declare, as I did on a previous occasion. I am chairman of the Severn River Crossing plc, which provides the road links. It is very important to have a reliable service through to South Wales. We depend so much on the engineering works of the Victorians as regards the rail track. They performed marvellous feats of engineering. I do not know how many tunnels I go through between mid-Wales to Euston but there are many. The tunnel under the River Severn is a masterpiece of engineering. We could not hope to rival it today because it would cost an enormous amount of money. I suspect that the tunnel, and many like it, need careful investigation to see whether more work should be done now to give them additional support.
In our debate on the Severn Tunnel about a fortnight ago it transpired that work on the rail track through the tunnel required the tunnel to be closed for about six weekends, if my memory serves me right. It transpired that all that was being done was changing the rail track, which has to be changed in any event from time to time, whether the track goes through a tunnel or not. No work was being done on the tunnel as such.
The strategic rail authority needs to look at the whole rail network to see what is required to bring it up to modern standards. It will have to start with the main lines. I am sure that my noble friend has performed a great service by raising this point at this time. It is obvious to anyone that major investment is needed. It will be virtually impossible to raise that money on the market and therefore one can only look to the Government to provide the funds.
8.26 p.m.
The Earl of Leicester: My Lords, I remember that at about this time last year the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, led a debate on more or less the same subject. I suspect that the catalyst for that debate and what prompted her to bring it forward was her intense frustration, which I remember very well, at the appalling lateness and overcrowding of the trains on her particular sector.
Regrettably, the trains are still late, overcrowded and dirty. This continuing unpleasantness, if one can so call it, really prompts us to believe that privatisation was, and is, a disaster and that perhaps the only way that we can remedy the defects of that process is by throwing more money at Railtrack.
We have heard very little about what Railtrack does well. It would be a great shame to ignore the progress in growth. By that I mean the growth in passenger
312
traffic, freight and investment. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a few facts. Ten years ago at the height of the boom there were 21.3 billion passenger miles travelled. In 1995 it had dropped to a low of 17.8 billion passenger miles, but now it is back at 21.3 billion passenger miles again. That is an enormous increase in passenger numbers. As we have also heard, freight levels have risen accordingly.
Every day 20, 000 trains run on the network. There are 1, 000 more passenger trains now running each weekday than there were three years ago at the start of privatisation. At peak times the railways run at capacity. I can never quite understand why the railways should be immune from peak time delays when the roads are not expected to be immune from such delays and indeed not only at peak times. In the 20 years prior to privatisation the average investment by BR at 1998 prices was £850 million a year. We have heard that this year Railtrack is investing £1.4 billion. It has a programme of some £17 billion for the 10 years from 1997 to 2007.
In 1996, at the start of privatisation, Railtrack had a staff of 400 planning, designing and monitoring investment. Such is the volume of work today that it has increased the number to 1, 200. The range and amount of work that has been undertaken is astonishing. Approximately half of Railtrack's 2, 500 stations have been improved, modernised and generally refurbished. One-third of those stations now have CCTV security monitoring and 90 freight depots have been opened. In addition, there are the major capital projects about which we have heard.
Is it doing enough? The short answer is no. The politicians and pundits are right in pointing to the 20 years of under investment with which Railtrack must catch up, never mind the past three years' growth which it must sustain.
Can it do more? I bow to the technical expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who outlined ways in which during the next 10 years a great deal more can be done and the number of trains can be doubled. However, as a layman, I believe that certain practicalities dictate how much Railtrack can do. There are logistic difficulties of undertaking track maintenance and improvements, especially bearing in mind that most of the work can be done only at night and at weekends when it can work flat out.
We heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, about the other big constraint; finance. The £17 billion investment over 10 years is the largest investment project ever undertaken by any British company in this country. By 2004, Railtrack will have a debt of £4 billion. It will be one of the largest borrowers in the City. Any company which has to service a debt of such magnitude must eventually face a reduction in profits and therefore potentially lower dividends and fewer investors. If Railtrack does not retain the confidence of its investors and the financial markets, no money will be forthcoming. The noble Viscount told us that most eloquently.
There have been calls for a massive increase in investment. Railtrack states that it needs to spend £37 billion, but I suspect that that will cause enormous

313
strains on the company. Apart from the physical constraints, I am not sure how it can raise the money unless it is allowed to earn more. I suspect that that means that the rules will have to be changed; for example, charging for each train on the line rather than the fixed charge which it generally receives.
I have said nothing about integration, which is part of the Motion, but I understand that there is a great deal of integrated bus and train ticketing all over the country, especially in Scotland. Safety has hardly been mentioned, but I am told that taking into consideration the number of train miles, the number of serious accidents has halved since 1994.
We all want greater investment, but realities must be faced. In the meantime, I believe that the facts, which have not been mentioned tonight, support Railtrack's claim that it is doing a good job under difficult circumstances.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for giving us the opportunity to debate railways, investment, integrated transport and safety. I congratulate her on attracting several speakers beyond the list of what might be called "the usual railways suspects" and I hope that we shall hear more from all of them.
I wish to concentrate on investment and safety. Not only is rail investment a good thing, but it has been a necessity for decades. That necessity is only now being addressed seriously as an anticipated result of privatisation. The private sector has abilities to raise money which the old nationalised industry, under Treasury constraint, lacked.
The noble Baroness gave us the traffic growth figures and several noble Lords repeated them. The industry, reacting to those figures, is investing at unprecedented levels, as the noble Earl reminded us. In infrastructure terms, we must welcome all the routes which are open; shared risk projects such as the long awaited refurbishment of the West Coast main line. We must also welcome Railtrack's commitment to spending £165 million—that figure has risen by £5 million between the two briefs I received last week—by 2001 on more track, new signalling, improved passenger environment and, not least, a bus station. That is all at Leeds station, which won the station of the year contest in the days when I presided over that venture.
I congratulate Railtrack on committing itself to a major project addressing the needs of its immediate clients, the train operators, and its remoter clients, the PTAs and the passengers. I look forward to seeing the results, but I have one reservation. It is that the project has been under consideration for quite a while. Under a former legislative regime I took the enabling legislation through this House, in 1992 or 1993. Even then the legislation had cleared another place, before which there must have been a certain amount of planning. Therefore, we are rapidly reaching the stage where the project has existed for about 15 years. If privatisation enables it to proceed, who am I, and who is anybody else, to condemn it?
314
If we wish to see the investment which such a project requires and which the Motion seeks, we must make sure that the regulatory environment is as good as the financial one and that neither is allowed to kick major projects into touch. I hope that the Minister will have something to say on regulation, not only as it affects the railways directly but as it affects the wider environment, be that planning or other matters, not least the wider social benefits which accrue from integrated transport.
Railtrack, too, has a further role to play. I look forward to the next addition of the Network Management Statement which is due later this month. It seems to me that previous editions have been more statements of intent, laudable but without timescales or financial commitment, than serious commitments. I hope that that situation is changed. But that is not simply a matter for Railtrack; it is also a matter for the Government, the financial sector and many other interests. One cannot assess risks nor make commitments unless there is some measure of predictability. It cannot, as the media pundits would often like to believe, on this scale be viewed like instant coffee—you just add water and go.
My second topic is safety. I address it secure in the knowledge that between 1986 and 1995 rail travel was the second safest mode of transport in terms of casualties per billion passenger kilometres after aviation. In a bus or a coach, I am five times more likely to be a casualty than I am on a train. In a van, the multiplier becomes nine times, and it is 15 times in a car. We are all obsessed with road safety, and both the previous government and this one have done a great deal to reduce the number of road casualties. At the same time, the number of railway casualties has been fairly low, and yet if there is an accident, it is a major incident. It has to be a very serious car crash to rate the same status as a train crash. As the noble Lord said, there is a double standard. If we are delayed on the motorway we say, "Oh dear, oh dear", but if we are delayed on a Virgin train we say, "Damn Virgin". The most risky means of travel is as a pedestrian, when the multiplier becomes 200.
Your Lordships will understand that I feel safe on a train; safe, but not complacent, for as long as there are humans there will be scope for human error. One error is one too many and as today's HSE report into the Bexley derailment, which has already been referred to, shows, errors can be compounded. In the case of Bexley, four bystanders—not passengers or even railway employees—were injured because of a combination of Railtrack error, the errors of two contracting companies, poor driver training and inadequate locomotive maintenance. As we have already been reminded, Railtrack and the two contractors were subsequently convicted and penalised.
I have mentioned only the highlights of the HSE press release, but that in itself raises concerns. The first is divided responsibility—no single and united accountability. I wonder whether we need an enhanced HSE, funded and staffed to set and enforce the standards rather than a whole number of parties none of which, in this instance, was either setting or sticking to its own safety objectives.

315
Going further, should the providers of services—and at Bexley, all five parties were providers of services—also act as regulators at the lowest level, which is a legacy of the old British Rail regime or should regulation be more arm's length? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford is not in his place, but I echo what he said about the Civil Aviation Authority. For decades, ever since I can remember, it has, for example, employed checking captains to inspect and ratify the flight-deck performance of the pilots in the commercial sector. More recently, it has recognised that structural change has followed privatisation—there is a paradox to be drawn there—and the CAA is taking steps to ensure that its regulation is not only arm's length but is also tough and accountable and seeks to eliminate absolutely the multiplication of opportunities for buck-passing, which, for example, Bexley showed us in the first instance.
My second concern, again arising out of Bexley, is timescale. In the high summer of 1940, when we were at war and there were other complications, driver error led to a sleeping car train colliding with a freight train just west of Taunton at Norton Fitzwarren. The Railways Inspectorate issued its report and its recommendation in time for the Christmas Eve newspapers. That was four or five months, a timescale so brief as to be admirable when in the case of Bexley the accident was in February two years ago, so we are talking of 25 months.
More recently, and more modestly, my wife—and perhaps I should declare an interest on her behalf because she carries out PTS medicals nowadays, which obviously have a safety element—was injured on a train. The process then was internal inquiry, possible external inquiry by the Railways Inspectorate, conclusions, recommendations and, if necessary, litigation. In our case, all that was concluded and the damages claim settled within months.
Nowadays, things drag on and on and bucks are passed, as Bexley illustrates. That hardly seems satisfactory for consumers, injured parties, operators, regulators or, indeed, anybody else. We all need to draw the conclusions from every accident as quickly as possible in order to act upon them. In overhauling our railways, I hope that the Government will not overlook the fact that safety is paramount and that perhaps the safety regime, too, needs overhaul.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood for introducing this debate. The debate has been about investment in rail infrastructure, integrated transport and rail safety. It is a coincidence that the report on the Bexley accident on 4th February 1997 was published today, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords.
Reading the summary of that report shows dramatically the pitfalls in the fragmentation of the railway industry into its present disconnected portions. None of the participants at Bexley comes out with any credit; neither Railtrack nor its sub-contractors nor the
316
train-operating company concerned. It is lucky that there were no fatalities in that instance. The situation of the Railways Inspectorate and the length of time it took to report on the accident are significant and, compared with the recent accident in Germany, our showing is very poor.
The railway industry grew, grudgingly, a culture of safety during the last century. The companies of those days had to have legislation passed before they would install such matters as continuous braking systems which we take for granted now. Boilers blew up, bridges collapsed and there were horrendous accidents when hundreds of people were killed due to wooden coaches and gas lighting. The institution of the Railways Inspectorate in the last century was predominant in achieving the levels of safety we now have. I should like to see its independence preserved.
Most, but not all, accidents now are due to some form of human failing, and that was certainly so at Bexley. Railway signalling—and I speak as a sometime railway signal engineer—has led the way to safer railways, minimising the effect of human errors and permitting greater traffic density and higher speeds.
We are about to see a new generation of railway signalling which should give greater traffic densities and better regulation of the mixed traffic; that is, the high speed and suburban passenger trains and the freight trains. The modernisation of the West Coast main line and London Transport lines is highly dependent on that new transmission-based signalling system to deliver the benefits mentioned above without compromising safety.
Improved signalling, however, is but a minor factor in the story. I am told that the new signalling will offer only some 25 per cent. improvement in track capacity on the West Coast main line, reducing the headway from five minutes to four minutes between trains. Further improvement is constrained by the track and by traffic considerations—the need to load and unload trains and things of that nature and speed restrictions which exist, particularly in the Shap area.
The huge improvements we need to handle the projected increases in both passenger and freight traffic must come from major changes to the physical infrastructure, the reinstatement of lost track formations—for example, the redoubling of the Glasgow and South Western Railway, the restoration of the Matlock-Buxton link and the provision of flyovers in places like Reading, or new chords, as at Ipswich and similar at the identified 15 major pinch points.
I suspect that many of us have received a briefing document from EWS. It talks about a new strategic north-south route using the old Glasgow and South Western, Settle and Carlisle and Midland mainline and thus to London. I do not believe that those proposals directly help the piggyback consortium, due to the restricted loading gauge on the Settle to Carlisle railway. But I wonder whether that might not be countered by singling the tracks at those portions of the lines with heavily tunnelled routes and slewing the track to the centre of the tunnels to achieve adequate clearance. With modern centralised traffic control and a double track where it is practical, that might provide adequate capacity for EWS and piggyback.

317
But what about elsewhere on the West Coast main line? I am told that the main congestion is south of Rugby. Would it not make sense, therefore, to reinstate that part of the old Great Central route between Rugby and Banbury? The Great Central route crossed the West Coast main line at Rugby over a large bridge. I do not know whether or not it is still there. From Banbury, access to London already exists and that section of the line was redoubled between Princes Risborough and Banbury quite recently.
That is part of the central rail scheme but I cannot help feeling that that is probably financially more beneficial than the rest of what is proposed.
The danger is that the West Coast main line proposals will be pared away down to something quite insignificant during the current debates. However, we are already seeing improvement in investment in some pails of the system—£9 million has been spent on the Felixstowe branch so that Freightliner trains can now pass. However, I cannot help feeling that, whenever that line was built, the Victorians built it with the earthworks for a double track. Why did they not put the double track in on those bits where it was practical and thus virtually do away with the passing loops but have a double track railway? The cost of doing that would have been fairly minimal. The Princes Risborough to Banbury line was already installed as a double track, as I have said, but this is nothing like enough. As the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Hereford said, surely we should be examining the cost-effectiveness of electrifying between Paddington, Swansea and Plymouth, for instance.
The high speed trains are now 30 years old. By all means let us replace those on the Great Western line with East Coast main line-style electric stock. There is the added benefit that regional Eurostar services could then use an electrified line to Bristol and Cardiff and beyond. But to get this done the train operating companies would need longer-term contracts to encourage them to make the necessary investment in such stock.
The right reverend Prelate also mentioned that certain lines had been de-electrified or may be de-electrified. I would remind him that has already happened with the Manchester-Shepperton-Wath line, which is the Woodhead tunnel line, which has already been mentioned in connection with the central rail service. We shall have a better idea of Railtrack's proposals when their management statement is published. In the words of last night's airline debate, I hope they will put the customer first, and I look forward to the establishment of the strategic rail authority.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, deserves all the thanks that she has received tonight for initiating this debate. I am happy to add my thanks to those of so many other noble Lords. As the noble Baroness said in her introduction, and as so many other speakers have also mentioned, the railway business has expanded
318
enormously over the last four or five years. On both the passenger and freight side we now see plans for major expansion across the country.
That fact does not indicate that the system is in imminent danger of collapse. Indeed it would seem to indicate that perhaps privatisation has had some merit in that the benefits have still to work fully through the system. The problems, if problems there are now, are largely those of success. Indeed some areas, as again has been mentioned, particularly the London commuter area, have reached the physical limits of their capacity for the first time ever. We have seen reports that capacity can only increase as a result of track signalling and station improvements to permit more and longer trains to run on the same lines: a common theme in tonight's debate.
The question is not whether there should be greater investment in railways, but how best to achieve it. The history of British Rail, while it was under the control of the Treasury, was one of consistent long-term under-investment, under governments of all political persuasions—I am sorry, "all" is too many in a House which has three political parties. In the situation in which we now find ourselves, we know that funds can be made available and the question is whether the Government and the regulators between them can or will create conditions for that money to come forward.
The previous government invested large sums in the national railway network and the Channel Tunnel was funded entirely with private funds. That of course has created enormous opportunities for enhancing both passenger and freight operations. Since privatisation Railtrack, which raised less money as a result of its sell-off than should have been the case because of the activities of the Labour Party when in Opposition, has seen that access to private sources of funding through the markets has produced investment programmes in the upgrading of the existing network and indeed in existing rollingstock on a scale that the Treasury could not have made possible.
Many noble Lords tonight have rehearsed details of those programmes, so it would be superfluous to go into them again, but one success has not been referred to and so I will mention it. The British Airports Authority invested £300 million in the Heathrow Express: a good example of integrated transport. However, we need to recognise that continuing success in this field will depend on confidence in the stability of the railways' political and financial support.
Much of the current debate takes place about train performance or, in other words, unreliability. Railtrack is criticised for causing delays to train services, but I sympathise. How do you upgrade track and signalling services which really are major engineering works when you have to keep the system running at the same time? It cannot be done without some disruption, and short-term disruption has to be the price that we are prepared to pay to bring in long-term improvement. The option of closing lines does not exist, although it can be done in the case of roads. Indeed we saw, with the closure of the Mall here in London, the ensuing traffic problems that such closures cause.

319
Of course disruption must be managed and minimised. Perhaps this will be the real job for Sir Alastair Morton and the Strategic Rail Authority, since the comprehensive spending review projections do not suggest that they will come forward with a dowry of additional money to invest from the public purse.
While on this theme of public financial support, reliable industry sources are suggesting that the Government are planning to pay track access charges direct to Railtrack rather than through the operators as at present. Will the Minister, in his reply, confirm that this does not contravene any European directives, since the change results in rail infrastructure being directly funded by the Treasury? In any event, such a change may well put aspects of improvement, such as Thameslink 2000 and the modernisation of the West Coast mainline at risk, since those improvements depend on the willing participation of the train operators who will lose funding as a result of the change.
As so often in the past, there is a danger that "hands on" by the Government may lead to "hands off by the commercial world. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no disruption to present programmes of improvement as a result of these rumoured changes, if they are introduced?
It is not possible to have a debate such as this, despite the self-denying ordinance of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, without having some mention of London Underground, which is in every real sense a part of rail infrastructure. Present proposals suggest that as a result of the formation of public-private partnership the Treasury's funding support will cease as from 1st April 2000. To break even and maintain the network in its present state, the Underground has to achieve a gross operating profit of around £400 million. In 1997–98 that margin was only £265 million, leaving a funding gap of £135 million to be bridged next year.
Are we to assume that the large rail fare increase we saw this year will have to be repeated next year in order to cover that deficit? Perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister, could confirm what is to happen when he replies. In any event, the Government have been relying on their formation of a public-private partnership to raise £7 billion of private funds for Tube infrastructure improvements over the next 15 years. Are we to assume now that these improvements must be further delayed? I read in yesterday's Evening Standard that the new Tube ownership arrangements will now be postponed until after the next general election because of the impracticality of the present proposals. It appears that the potential bidders for participation are falling by the wayside. Can the Minister tell us what is to happen? London is desperate for practical solutions, not theoretical paper exercises. Can we be assured that there will be no delay in the maintenance and modernisation of the network? How is that to be achieved?
The truth is that the Government face an intractable dilemma. By history, tradition and philosophy, they would prefer to deal with a nationalised industry even though history shows quite clearly that that system has led to permanent, chronic under-investment and has
320
therefore clearly failed. By history, tradition and philosophy, they find the implications of the privatised, free market solution difficult to accept—and so they search for a third way. In this area, it seems that the third way is becoming less and less clear.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for initiating this debate. From the Government's point of view, its timing is particularly apposite, coming as it does fast on the heels of the National Rail Summit, which was held on 25th February. The summit brought together the operators, infrastructure companies and others involved in the railways. It crystallised the Government's determination, together with the industry, to develop a new strategy, replacing the present unsatisfactory position which in part we inherited and which in part has been due to the inadequacies of the operators and infrastructure developers.
I must get this point off my chest before I go any further. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tried to blame the inadequacies of the privatisation on what the Labour Party did in opposition. I am quite prepared to stand here and defend the Labour Party's decisions in government. But our decisions in opposition reflected what was clearly a rushed and botched privatisation—whether or not one believes in the principle—and we are still living with the consequences.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, that the history of the railway network under nationalised control was not one of great or appropriate investment. However, the noble Lord neglected to say that for the last 17 years of that nationalised operation the government he supported were responsible. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that under neither rigid centralisation nor the present privatised system are we getting the investment we need.
The debate is also apposite in its timing because, as the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Mountevans, pointed out, the report of the Health and Safety Executive into the Bexley freight train accident was published today. In one sense, we welcome publication of the report. We endorse its findings and recommendations, which were spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. We view with serious concern the fact that an underlying cause of the accident was Railtrack's poor management of its contractors. We note that revised procedures have been put in place. However, the report demonstrates that Railtrack needs to invest in maintenance and that its procedures must not put profit before safety.
Although Railtrack, as the operator of the network, has the prime responsibility for ensuring the safe operation of the railways, we continue to look to the HSE and to the Railway Inspectorate, by continuing their independent monitoring and investigation of rail safety, to ensure that Railtrack and the train operators meet their commitments and that safety standards are maintained and, where possible, improved. That point was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Methuen and Lord

321
Mountevans. In the case of Bexley, the HSE and the Railway Inspectorate will ensure that all the report's recommendations are implemented and acted upon. Ministers are determined to ensure that, as part of improving the railways, safety is not compromised.
The noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Hooson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to the safety structure. We have instigated a review of transport safety arrangements, as announced by my colleague, Dr. John Reid, on 8th December. The Health and Safety Commission has also brought forward its planned review of the arrangements for setting and regulating railway safety standards. We need to consider also the extent to which Railtrack's role in enforcing as well as setting its own standards might be transferred. The initial response of the HSE is expected in the spring. The first of those broader assessments is also looking at the system of inquiries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred, and which may need some degree of improvement. We can never become complacent when considering safety issues. Railtrack and the railway system as a whole have a much better safety record than do many other modes of transport. Nevertheless, when accidents occur they are serious. We are committed to ensuring that the safety regime is appropriate and the best possible.
I return to the subject of the National Rail Summit and investment, which has been a central concern of the debate. At the summit the Prime Minister made clear in his opening speech that the Government believe that the railway industry needs to start doing better and that it needs to start doing so now. He said that there had to be an improvement in two key areas, in service and—the subject of this debate—in investment. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister then went about, to quote the noble Baroness, "knocking heads together"—he is quite good at that—which led to the summit resulting in a co-ordinated approach. That also indicates that at the highest level in this Government there is some understanding of the kind of frustration about the present system which the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Geraint, have experienced, along with many hundreds of thousands of other rail travellers.
The summit resulted in a commitment from the rail industry which has stated that investment is already increasing and that some 1, 800 vehicles, trains and carriages have already been ordered and will be operative in the next two years. Railtrack states that its current investment programme, to which the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, referred, is to spend £17 billion by 2007, which is the biggest-ever investment programme undertaken by a UK company in this country.
Nevertheless, despite that level of commitment, the Prime Minister's message was that there must be more investment, not just to replace existing capacity but to expand in a way which addresses the issues of capacity raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and perhaps even the specific issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, though I doubt all of them. Without that investment, in the face of growth in passenger numbers and rail freight, which has been impressive over the past few years, we run the risk that
322
the railway network will lack the capacity to sustain the Government's integrated transport policy to relieve roads, congestion and air pollution.
At the summit the Deputy Prime Minister launched a "spring clean" package for the railways aimed at providing a new railway architecture, putting passengers first and creating a better integrated public railway service. He announced that the Government were prepared to renegotiate existing franchises and specified criteria against which applications would be judged. One of those would be the extra or accelerated investment which renegotiation would generate, which would give the franchisees a longer period—a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Weir—and the extent to which that investment could meet passenger needs.
The Deputy Prime Minister also introduced Sir Alastair Morton as the new chairman of the British Railways Board and head of a shadow strategic rail authority. The appointment of a new franchising director and rail regulator will follow. He also launched the consultation exercise which will lead later in the year to the shadow SRA's plan for the railway. He also announced the start of work on a national passengers survey and on ways of measuring more accurately train operators' performance. He promised legislation to establish the SRA on a statutory basis—an SRA which would also regulate the rolling stock leasing companies if they do not voluntarily restrict their market power.
For its part the railway industry gave a commitment that punctuality and reliability—the biggest current problems as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out—would be better next year than they are now. Other commitments from the industry were that there would be investment in 2, 300 new vehicles so that by 2002 half the current rolling stock fleet would have been replaced or refurbished; by April next year all stations in Great Britain will have passenger information systems; and, on the safety side, an extra £39 million will be spent on measures to improve the security of passengers.
Those commitments build on the action plan agreed in November. The summit shows that the industry can come together to discuss how to provide a better rail service and increased investment in partnership with the Government. It demonstrates how, despite the fact that there have been failings on all sides in the past and currently, we ought to move away from the blame culture and pull together to achieve our common objectives, being frank with each other but also making commitments to each other which are real.
It is also important that the summit was seen as part of the railway's contribution to an integrated transport policy. Last July's White Paper was an important document. At its heart was the policy of integration. Rail transport's role, as noble Lords have said, is not only to shift cars off the roads and provide a real alternative to motor transport; it is also to improve the efficiency of our freight system, to improve the economies of distribution as a whole and to contribute substantially to environmental improvements, and to provide an interface with other modes of transport, be they bus, road or pedestrian. Therefore investment is not just in railways but in the interface between railways and other modes.

323
My noble friend Lord Berkeley expressed a degree of scepticism about Railtrack's commitment and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, expressed the belief that Railtrack was moving in the right direction. Either way it is clear that Railtrack is responsible for the stewardship of and investment in the railway infrastructure and the system we have. Under the conditions of its network licence, it is required to produce an annual statement—its network management statement—covering a 10-year period with greater detail given for the first three years. The Government look to the rail regulator to monitor Railtrack's investment, the form of the NMS and the period it covers, all of which have to be approved.
Over the past two years the regulator imposed certain conditions on Railtrack to improve the company's accountability and to place it under explicit obligations. In September 1997 Railtrack's network licence was modified to require it to maintain, renew and develop the network in a way which meets the "reasonable requirements" of train operators—both passenger and freight—and of funders. The condition in its network licence makes Railtrack explicitly accountable to the rail regulator and in effect to the train operators and the funders of the railway network for its stewardship.
Nevertheless, it is fair to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, that the 1998 NMS in practice contained few firm commitments on investment for future years. As a result, further conditions were imposed by the regulator last July. Railtrack was then required to improve its network performance—reducing delays it caused—in 1998 by 7.5 per cent.; to eliminate poor track quality by April 2001; to produce plans aimed at addressing key capacity bottlenecks; and to improve the consultation process with train operators.
Railtrack's new NMS is due to be published towards the end of this month. Many of the issues raised by noble Lords will be addressed in that new plan. The ball is very much in Railtrack's court. We hope and believe that it will have learnt from last year and that the 1999 NMS will meet the needs of the industry, and the broader points raised in this debate and, indeed, by Ministers at the rail summit.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport made it clear that the Government will be looking closely at the 1999 NMS to see whether Railtrack's proposed investment is sufficient. The rail regulator will also be looking at the NMS carefully and will be looking for the shadow SRA's view on it and on the outputs it wants Railtrack to provide. We expect the rail regulator to take appropriate action to ensure that the network is maintained, renewed and developed in a way which meets the reasonable requirements of the industry and of its ultimate passengers. In doing so, it will need to provide more information than has been the case in the past. However, I believe that Railtrack is apprised of that fact.
In the immediate terms of the NMS and in the longer term, one of the major problems addressed in this debate is the fact that, although investment is desirable, there are constraints because of the long timescale of return and other market constraints on the funding of that
324
investment. One of the messages of the summit was that we are all—that is to say, Government and those in the industry—prepared to talk about how, together, we can provide better funding arrangements, such as the infrastructure investment fund, and so on.
However, investment in infrastructure is still primarily Railtrack's responsibility. It is Railtrack's job and a requirement of its licence. Indeed, Railtrack understood the situation when it took on that licence. Of course, it does have to operate in the market. I do not wish to enter into a debate about whether Railtrack needs a strong share price or a stronger one than it has at present. The regulator has a view on that and has said that the profits of Railtrack are in excess of what could reasonably be expected. That suggests that there is at least some money which perhaps went to shareholders rather than being spent on investment in rail. That is one source of investment, but we also need to establish confidence in the railway system as a whole so that capital markets can see a return, albeit a long-term one, and that that return is reasonably assured.
I shall now address the question of access charges. The rail regulator's periodic review of access charges will shortly be released. The NMS will be a key input to that review. The regulator has made it clear that he wants to use the review to promote investment in growth in rail services and to improve the performance of the network. The Government have obviously endorsed those objectives. We expect the regulator to put in place a charging structure which imposes incentives on Railtrack to invest properly in the future of Britain's rail network.
The rail regulator's work is continuing. Last December, he published a key document on the financial structure for Railtrack, leading to decisions on access charges from the year 2001. He concluded that the current returns earned by Railtrack are excessive and said that where new investment is underpinned by government subsidy and assurances, returns should be lower. If Railtrack is exposed to genuine risk, higher terms and higher returns would be justified.
So the rail regulator has made it absolutely plain that the profits of Railtrack are in excess of what can reasonably be expected. That is already in the pipeline, but let us now look briefly to the future. We shall have a shadow strategic rail authority from 1st April. We are committed to bringing forward legislation in due course. I noted the views of the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, on our priorities, but we are where we are. As of now, the timing of that legislation, whether it be this Session or the next, is at least in part in the hands of your Lordships.
Among other things, the strategic rail authority will promote railway use, plan the strategic development of the network for both passengers and freight and promote integration between transport modes. The legislation will also give the authority and the regulator new enforcement powers so that they can impose penalties or conditions upon train operators and Railtrack more swiftly, and penalise past breaches of franchises and licences.

325
Several noble Lords indicated a feeling that rail freight should not be seen as the poor relation on the railway. There has been an impressive improvement in the level of rail freight in this country. Both the operating companies and those who use them are to be congratulated on a more effective way of shifting freight which is more appropriate to an integrated transport policy. We need to develop those provisions for rail freight. We believe that Railtrack needs to take into consideration the needs of the freight industry and that the new regime we are proposing will allow it to do so.
A number of other detailed points have been made, notably on the West Coast mainline which usually features fairly large in these debates. Railtrack is currently taking forward the first phase of its passenger upgrade programme and Virgin Trains has submitted an action programme to the franchising director indicating how it intends to improve its performance. There are capacity problems on that line which Railtrack needs to attend to.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, mentioned issues relating to the London Underground which I was quite relieved the noble Baroness did not mention at the beginning of the debate. All I will say at this point is that negotiations on the PPP are complex and detailed. It is a case of "watch this space. "For the moment I shall not go further than that. I shall certainly not comment on newspaper reports on these matters which in my experience leave a little to be desired.
This has been a good and informed debate. Without engaging too much in a blame culture—as I mentioned earlier—I should say that Railtrack now understands that certain responsibilities exist and it is now taking those on board. We must move into a new era under a new regime where the operators, Railtrack and the Government all accept their responsibilities and all look for the resources which will be necessary for investment, identify the priorities and move together to ensure that we have a railway system which is appropriate for the integrated transport needs of the 21st century.
9.21 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I wish to thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I, like others, was particularly glad to hear from those who are not normally counted among the usual suspects in these debates. I refer to my noble friends Lord Steel and Lord Hooson and in particular to the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, who added a fresh and distinctive historical and financial perspective to our debate.
We were reminded once again what an extraordinary expert in these matters the right reverend Prelate is. How he fits rail and the countryside in with all his other responsibilities I am not quite sure. We did not touch on the Underground. That was partly because—the Minister will perhaps be relieved to hear—my noble friend Lady Ludford was not able to be present tonight. Otherwise I can assure the Minister he might have been challenged on that subject, and no doubt on another
326
occasion he will be. For the moment at this late hour I thank the Minister and everyone else who has taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Ageing Population
9.22 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what changes they expect in public policy in the new millennium as a result of the ageing population.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords on all sides of the House that the debate is taking place so late in the evening. The fact that noble Lords are present shows the importance of this debate.
The debate does not concern what happens to our ageing population now, but what kind of policies we should pursue in the next millennium. It would be so easy to deal with this subject on a piecemeal basis by increasing pensions a little and making a little more provision for winter fuels as part of the annual budget provision. These are welcome measures, but I think we are talking about issues that go beyond that. The debate is about developing policies and programmes so that every aspect of the ageing process is taken into account.
Britain is getting older. One does not have to look simply at your Lordships' House to confirm that. The average age in our society is steadily rising as a result of falling birth rates and increasing life expectancy. Very soon, for the first time in history, the over 65s will outnumber the under 20s. We will be the oldest society that has ever lived on earth. How will we cope with these changes?
I want today to draw attention to the Millennium Debate of the Age. My purpose is to stimulate debate on this issue in your Lordships' House. The Debate of the Age is co-ordinated by Age Concern and was launched in the spring of last year with messages of support from all three main party leaders. So it has cross-party support. It is an action-based programme which aims to raise awareness of and influence policy about the implications of an ageing society on all aspects of our lives and to encourage government, organisations and individuals to plan how to meet the challenges of the next millennium.
Sally Greengross and her staff at Age Concern should be congratulated on undertaking this initiative. Over the past year Age Concern in the Debate of the Age has held over 1,000 events and debates. It has commissioned surveys and encouraged a mass of public participation through voting brochures, an interactive website and a free phone information line. Running parallel to these mass public participation events are the largest series of citizens' juries and the Millennium Papers. I cannot recall such a massive consultation ever being undertaken by a voluntary organisation. The formal research, public reaction and feedback will culminate in recommendations for future priorities and will be published as the Agenda for the Age, ratified at the final

327
debate in December 1999 and presented to government in early 2000. But we should be highlighting our concerns now.
The debate is structured around five themes: the future of health and care; values and attitudes; paying for age; the built environment; and future work and lifestyles. Let us look at some of these aspects and the work done so far. It is in everyone's interest for older people to remain healthy and independent for as long as possible. But as life expectancy increases, how do we ensure that extra years are quality years? In Britain, the majority of expenditure on health goes on people over 60. When Britain's National Health Service was created 50 years ago, few people lived beyond retirement age. Now it is not unusual to live for 25 years in retirement. However, in those 25 years elderly people will be more likely than ever to require medical treatment. Consequently, the NHS will come under ever-increasing pressure. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will have something to say about that.
A MORI poll carried out in the UK for the Debate of the Age showed that the British public still strongly support the principle of free treatment. Difficult choices will have to be made. We already know a lot about how to stay healthy. Should we be doing more now to ensure that people have healthy lifestyles? If we do our best to stay healthy, should we have to pay for those who become ill because of their own irresponsibility? Medical advancements continue to conquer many ailments. Will we be so healthy that we will not need medical treatment? Or will medicine become so expensive that it will need to be rationed? What are our priorities about who should be treated? Already there is evidence that treatment is being rationed on the basis of age, so the tough decisions obviously lie ahead. Who is responsible for caring for those who cannot care for themselves—the family, the community or the state? The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is a member of the group of experts which produced the Health and Care interim report for the Debate of the Age. I am grateful to her for highlighting such concerns.
In looking at values and attitudes, what will life be like when there are so many more older people and fewer younger ones? The challenge is to think ahead, to plan the sort of society we want to live in. There is a danger that society could become more fragmented. In the future more people will live alone. In England by 2016 there will be almost 24 million households, 23 per cent. more than in 1991. More than one in three households will consist of people living on their own. From where will our values come? Should the opinions of young people carry more weight than those of older people? Should older people make the decisions? Should people have their say whatever their age?
Is it important to be independent, or should people rely more on their families? Or should all members of a family be responsible for each other? How can older people remain connected to society? One of the options is voluntary work, with the benefits that it provides to the individual and the community. But is there a danger of voluntary work replacing paid jobs?
Then there are "end of life" issues. In British law euthanasia and "mercy killings" are murder or manslaughter. Should people have more of a say in how they die?
We talk about paying for age. How well off shall we be in the next century? If we are to make the most of longer, healthier lives, we shall all need enough money to live on. In the next century only half the population of the United Kingdom will be working. The other half may be people who are unable to work, including children and pensioners.
Many of these are being raised by the Government in their pensions Green Paper. Should private pensions be compulsory? Who should pay for those who have not worked? What about people who will not save enough? Should it be their choice; or should government help them from the contributions of everyone else?
Is it the responsibility of government or communities, or of families, to make financial provision for people who cannot work? Should young people pay more to fund a growing number of retired people? Are today's young people putting enough money into their pensions early enough? Those are some of the questions that must be asked.
Last week, we heard the Statement repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the report of the Royal Commission on long-term care. The Government have called for a national debate on the issue. The Debate of the Age is already encouraging people to think about this issue, asking how long-term care should be paid for. Should it be paid from taxes for everyone who needs it, regardless of how well-off they are? Or is that unfair on the five out of six people in the UK who will never need long-term care? What alternatives are there for financing long-term care?
There is discussion about the built environment. Buildings and roads are made to last. So it is important to plan now for how we should be building for the future. Through the Debate of the Age plans are already under way for a nationwide programme for national policy proposals on building needs for the 21st century. The issues will include many points that concern us all.
Britain will need around 5 million new homes in just 20 years. Will they be built in towns, or in the country? Where we live in the next century depends on how far we travel, to work, or to stay in touch. How do we want to travel? And how do we wish to deal with the impact on our environment?
What should new homes be like? Will it be important that houses change to meet a person's needs as that person grows older? Or shall we choose to move into homes specifically designed for different stages of life? Now is the time to think about how to make more buildings, not just houses, more accessible than they are at present.
On the matter of lifestyles, my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf chairs the study group that is looking into this issue. He has considered such matters as changes in employment; future workforce reductions; attitude to paid work; age discrimination in the workplace; and lifelong learning.
There are concerns that we can no longer assume a job for life. The number of men who are over 50 and unemployed is alarming. Who will resource re-training at a later age in life? How shall we equip young people better with the ability to take responsibility for their own learning throughout their lives?
I hope that I have outlined the numerous issues posed by the democratic shift towards an older society. The Government will have to respond to many of those issues. Indeed, in welcoming the Debate of the Age, the Prime Minister said:
"We have got to assess the huge impact of the changes that are all around us which are going to affect all our lives, particularly as we grow old".
I welcome the Government's establishment of the Inter-Ministerial Group examining issues across government which affect older people.
It is worth noting that many of these issues are worthy of special consideration with regard to our ethnic minority communities. On Thursday 4th March, the Debate of the Age ethnic minorities consultation programme was launched at a reception in the House of Lords. Again, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for allowing the use of his premises, and also for showing his support for the issues under consideration.
All I wish to do at this point is to highlight one particular problem. By the year 2030 the number of black and ethnic minority people over 65 in the UK will have increased tenfold from 175, 000 to 1.7 million. Ethnic minority elders already face challenges with access to housing, healthcare and pensions and they could increase in line with the demographic shift.
All I ask at this stage is for us to be able to identify the issues that we need to tackle in the next 20 or 30 years. I thank noble Lords.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, like my noble friend who initiated the debate, I am involved in the Debate of the Age. As he mentioned, I am chairman of a group concerned with work and lifestyles and it is in that connection that I wish to make a few brief remarks. I am glad that we are having an intimate discussion here tonight because what I want to say may well be regarded as slightly delicate in your Lordships' House: it concerns old men who have nothing to do.
In his Budget yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was evidently concerned about men who are no longer employed. He was talking about those who are 50 and older, so hardly old men, or not at least from this perspective. He pointed to the important and serious developments which we face. In 1979 12.6 per cent. of 50 to 64 year-olds were out of work. In 1999, the figure is 27.4 per cent. of those aged between 50 and 64. The Government's answer is that every effort must be made to find employment for as many of those as possible. Who would dispute that intention? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced, or is about to introduce, an employment credit system which is supposed to help those in that age group who find employment.
330
That is fine so far as it goes, but the problem is much larger. That is not said with any intention of being critical of the Government's progress. In 1995 the OECD published figures comparing the position of different countries. There are interesting and important differences. The figures relate not to 50 to 64 year-olds but to 55 to 64 year-olds. In the United States, 85 per cent. are employed. In Japan, it is 80 per cent. At the other extreme, in France 38 per cent in that age range are employed, and in Italy 42 per cent. As in so many respects, the United Kingdom is somewhere in the middle, though closer to the European experience. In 1995 56 per cent. of the 55 to 64 year-olds were in employment. Is the glass half full or is it half empty? In that age range 44 per cent. are not in employment.
The UK is not an extreme case, but we are talking about millions of people, not small numbers, at a time when, for a man of 50, the remaining life expectancy is 27 years. For a man of 55, it is 22 years. That raises important questions, not just in economic terms, but in human terms. In economic terms the obvious question is the contribution that can be made by these men to our wellbeing, but in human terms the question is what kind of life people aged 50 or 55, who have perhaps 25 years to live and no firm place in the scheme of things, will have.
I believe that the two obvious answers are right but not sufficient. One relates to employment and the other to an attempt to introduce legislation against age discrimination. I am favourably inclined to both, but I do not believe that either gets to the heart of the problem. One does not stop a tide of this kind by legislating against discrimination, or suddenly find jobs for people who may desire them but who may not be wanted given society's present values.
Perhaps I may pose two or three questions in this connection which concern what governments may be able to do. Age discrimination is one factor. The time has come when we must change our attitude to the retirement age. We cannot continue, either in the UK or elsewhere in Europe, to give the impression that an early retirement age is a good thing. For both the individuals concerned and society as whole it may well be desirable to move in the American direction and not insist on ever-earlier retirement but open opportunities beyond what has come to be the traditional retirement age of 65, or perhaps as early as 55 or 60.
The American experience is quite useful. It shows that people in the higher age groups do not necessarily have positions of responsibility, but they can continue to work in the context in which they have worked in the past. The field that I know best, which is perhaps the easiest to adapt to this point of view, is the academic world, in which retirement is a pretty pointless exercise. It results in the loss to universities of some of the best experience. I believe that the American example is a good one in this respect. But this is by no means confined to universities. Attitudes to retirement age need to be reconsidered, and perhaps the Government can set an example in the areas under their direct or indirect influence.

331
The second matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Dholakia is the vexed and difficult question of retirement savings. On what do people live in the long period in which they are not fully involved in the world of employment? We have only just begun to find ways to encourage more effective methods of saving for that period to enable people to make sense of their lives when they reach that stage.
The third matter, also referred to by my noble friend, relates to the voluntary sector. I have considerable involvement in the voluntary sector. I am aware that we are experiencing a paradoxical reality in that those who have the most time are not necessarily those who are the most active in voluntary activities. On the contrary, it is those who have full-time jobs who are prepared to give a great deal of time to that activity. Very often it is women who are prepared to do that, not men aged 55 or 60. They are the mainstay of small and medium-sized charities, or they volunteer in other ways.
An interesting question is whether there should be a change in values, and perhaps in training, to encourage men to become carers. That is one of the obvious and greatest needs. I would not rule out a change in mood, values and lifestyles which encourages men to move in that direction. I think, for example, of our splendid and justly admired doorkeepers. When they retire, many become guides around these buildings. I have taken many student groups through the buildings and have admired the way in which the doorkeepers use their experience in order to inform others about institutions of great importance to us all. That is one example among many of what can be achieved once people are no longer in active employment.
There is a fundamental issue here. It is not for government to resolve. How do we encourage men to take a more flexible attitude to work and life, as women have had to do for some time? It is one of the reasons why there is less unemployment among young women, and why older women on the whole find it easier to cope with the predicament at which I have hinted.
I hesitate to recommend yet another government commission. After many years in which I think that we had too few commissions looking into issues, we may now have sufficient; I shall not say that we have too many. We receive plenty of reports, but if the Government were able to encourage the production of a report on those men who are and will be lost to society, I, for one, would regard that as a good idea. It might stimulate not only debate but further action in relation to an issue of considerable importance to many people.
9.47 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, it may be a record in your Lordships' House that on a day of Liberal Democrat debates we now have four Liberal Democrat speakers following one another. I am pleased to speak in the debate in support of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I have to declare an interest as one who fully anticipates that he will be intimately concerned in comparing experientially the answer that the Minister will give tonight with the way events work out in practice.
332
At this stage in the debate, most of the obvious points have been made. I am not charged with winding up the debate, so I have to put forward a relevant point which has not been raised. Fortunately, I do have a contribution to our discussions which I hope your Lordships will feel is useful. I have had the good fortune to spend a little time in countries with a less technologically sophisticated culture, in which the flow of knowledge, wisdom and useful, and generally accepted advice is from the previous generation to the next generation. In those cultures, men and women acquire status and respect as they accumulate experience and years. In Britain, as in other high-tech countries, that process is reversed. As technology becomes more and more highly sought after, the importance of a lifetime's experience of human affairs appears to pale in importance and usefulness. That can only add to the feeling of exclusion which may make one's years of retirement a trial rather than a welcome relief. If one has been lucky enough to remain in full-time work until the official retirement age, the rite of passage which signals the change from a productive existence to a less purposeful one can be a painful process. In our complex economy, rites of passage often have significant economic consequences.
As chairman of the Unitax Association, what I want to say this evening has an important bearing on the economic transformation of retirement. I am always in a quandary when contributing to debates where the benefits of resource economics and Unitax would have a significant bearing on the subject under discussion, because the benefits may seem remarkable without an understanding of the mechanism which underlies what I am going to say. But this is not the time for digression into theory and I shall confine my remarks to the effect that such a change would have on the way the process of growing into older age is perceived by those experiencing it.
The Unitax mechanism, taken to its logical conclusion with a basic income or citizen's income, would provide under the present calculations a basic income of about £117 per week for every citizen from 16 years of age to the end of life. Because the burden of direct taxation has ended it also abolishes the distinction between employment and non-employment, self-employment and retirement. If noble Lords were to think about this as a new idea and ponder on the difference that it would make to the economics of ageing, it will be realised that it is definitely an idea worth considering.
At the most simple level it is obvious that this would give hugely more freedom of choice to people of all ages as to how they manage their working and leisure activities. It should also make possible a gradual reduction in working hours and make it easier to follow the advice in the wonderful poem, I suppose it was, set to music in the late 1960s called "Desiderata". The advice was,
"Take kindly the counsel of the years Gracefully surrendering the things of youth".
I hope that I can follow that advice.

333
There is another hugely important fiscal benefit to the changes I am suggesting. Our present direct tax situation has come under worried scrutiny as we face the prospect, foreshadowed by my noble friend's Question and much discussed this evening, that when my age group reaches retirement age there will be so many more of us than now relative to the number of the working population. Any change from direct to indirect taxation will transform that situation. However that is achieved—I notice my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf smiling—if one moves from direct to indirect taxation, then whoever breathes consumes. If one consumes, one contributes to the tax take.
It is so simple that it is hard to find too much to say about it. In replying to this debate, I do not expect the Minister to have much to say in detailed reply to my suggestions because I did not provide the Department of Health with advance information about Unitax and resource economics. Some basic information is now with officials. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to study the papers and write to me after she has studied the previous set of papers about something completely different which I passed to her the other day.
I have one suggestion to add to the point that my noble friend Lord Dholakia dwelt on in his remarks; namely, the cost of healthcare. On a number of occasions I have mentioned in your Lordships' House the question of hydrogen peroxide. I do not believe that my hair is lighter than it was because I take a teaspoonful of hydrogen peroxide every morning, when I remember, against the advice of the Medicines Control Agency. It tastes disgusting, but it is the best prophylactic measure in terms of general healthcare that anyone could possibly adopt. I guarantee that if my generation follows my example the cost of growing old to the National Health Service will be greatly reduced.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it is not often that I have the pleasure of summing up after three noble friends have spoken, and I must be careful when doing so. I thank my noble friend Lord Dholakia for giving us the opportunity to take part in the Millennium Debate of the Age. As he and my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said, it is an ongoing problem and important questions are being raised. But far be it from me to attempt to answer many of them. I firmly intend to stick to my last in terms of the health agenda, perhaps touching on a couple of other areas, too.
The recent Royal Commission, which is the vital starting point for the debate, laid to rest some of the more doom-laden scenarios and stated that there is no demographic time bomb. Before Christmas the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, initiated a debate based on the BMJ book, Clinical Futures. It contains an excellent chapter by Professor John Grimley Evans on ageing. He is the professor of clinical geratology at Oxford University. The book contains some good quotations, such as:
"Immortality is a minority taste, and the notion that all humanity is in pursuit of it is merely a health economist's fantasy".
334
What is even more reassuring for health economists, he also states that:
"There are good grounds for scepticism about claims that immortality or massive increases in human lifespan are within the general grasp next century".
The Department of Health can take some comfort from that!
The report of the Royal Commission was described by The Times leader as being widely off message, but I wonder whether its proposals are as radical as painted. Its basic conclusion was that public support for the genuinely catastrophic costs of care is needed. My noble friend set the scene, which is glossed by Professor Evans, but there is general agreement that costs will rise and by how much. However, there is less agreement about the significance of that. That was evidenced by the fact that there was a majority report and a dissenting report. There is general agreement that costs will rise from £11 billion to £45 billion in 2051, excluding social security costs. However, as a proportion of GDP, it appears that that will not be a huge rise; approximately 1 to 1.1 per cent, in terms of the existing system. The general view was also that the costs of carers will rise because the supply of informal carers will decrease over time. Again, that was not underpinned by the evidence to the commission.
One of the problems highlighted by the Royal Commission was the poor quality of available data—that is a very important point—particularly that underpinning assumptions about trends in health expectancy. The commission suggested that that was a prime role for the new national care commission. There are also few data about preferences; whether older people will always prefer to be at home and favour domiciliary over residential care in most cases. Anecdotally, there are clear differences of opinion and we do not have the evidence on which to base future preferences. However, we know that the role of government must be to enable choice and that that must be the starting point.
I wonder whether, given time, the Royal Commission might have reached agreement. It had a breakneck timescale within which to reach its conclusions. I agree with the statement of the dissenters that there should be no distorting ideological preference for publicly-provided over privately-provided activity, or vice versa, but I do not agree with the dissenters' conclusions drawn from that. I believe that crucial to the debate—and one can be quite objective about it—is the efficiency of universal benefits over means-tested or targeted benefits. Interestingly, I notice that in this week's Budget there was no resiling from universal benefit. Child benefit was not taxed and continues at a higher rate. I firmly agree with the Chancellor that there are considerable advantages in universal benefit.
Then again, there is the question of how efficient the NHS is as a universal service. I am rather prejudiced in favour of a universal service and I am greatly in favour of the kind of language which the Royal Commission used in terms of risk-spreading or risk-pooling, which is similar.

335
We also have some of the emotional arguments, the perceived unfairness. There is a considerable difference between the way some of those with illness or a chronic disabling disease may be treated. One has to look only at the difference between the way in which cancer patients and those suffering from Alzheimer's are dealt with. There is a wide variation in the charges levelled by local authorities for home care. There is more consistency for residential care but home care is the key area.
I believe that the majority report got it right. I cannot yet speak for my party as a whole because it has not yet reached its conclusions on the matter. It is easy to characterise the majority report as speaking from the heart and the dissenters as speaking from the head. There was an attempt by the press to characterise it as such. But I believe that, by and large, the majority got it right—for example, in relation to asset disregard, the need for clear rules, the need for a contract between government and the people and between the generations. That is not just romantic language. It is extremely important that, when you start work, you should know what to expect when you retire and when you begin to need long-term care. Also, there is the whole question of personal care. It seems to me that the logic in the conclusions is right in terms of hiving off personal care and seeing that as something which should be provided universally in the same way that NHS care is provided.
Also, the question of respite for carers was not ignored. It was suggested that government support should be doubled or more than doubled from the recently announced figures in the Government's carers strategy. The report rightly picked up on the need to switch priorities towards supporting people in their own homes and adapting those homes for the use of older people. Of course it deals with the whole question of carers and services provided to those people in their own homes. That will be extremely important.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that the figure which it achieves of £1.1 billion—which is something like 1/44 of the NHS bill—is relatively modest. Yesterday we heard how public spending is coming down as a percentage of GDP. The Chancellor engaged in a bit of old-fashioned redistribution and I applaud him for that. Perhaps I may put into context the figure of £1.1 billion mentioned in the Royal Commission's report. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced £3 billion-worth of measures for older people, and that was in one Budget. In contrast, he announced that £1.7 billion is to be spent on a new computer initiative. It seems to me that the £1.1 billion suggested by the Royal Commission, when put in context, has considerable advantage for us all in the longer term. Therefore, if the Government had the will to implement the Royal Commission's recommendations in full, I am sure that they do have and will have the resources to do so.
I could talk about some of the other solutions—for example, private insurance. Those matters were referred to by the dissenters as having advantages. In particular, David Lipsey talked about the four-year care cover so that there would be a limit on the amount for which one would have to insure. It seems to me that some of those ideas are attractive but they are only for those who have
336
more than moderate assets. The Royal Commission did not believe that those solutions—equity release schemes, insurance or whatever—would hit the 60 per cent. of those in longer-term care, and I agree with that.
The whole question has been raised—and I raised it on the Health Bill—of joint working and pooled budgets and whether that goes far enough. Although great detail is not gone into, there is agreement with the Health Select Committee's conclusions and I believe that the Royal Commission was influenced by the Audit Commission's report, The Coming of Age, which illustrates in detail the effect of separate health and social care management.
The commission welcomes the direction of government policy but said that the lack of "coterminosity" may hinder proper working in the future. The dissenters went further than that, which was interesting, and said it could be done via the new primary care route rather than by local authorities. That may be an attractive route and I have no particular ideological preference. But certainly the bringing together of those two strands, which I know goes further than current government thinking, is something in which we on these Benches firmly believe. At the end of the day nearly all those who have looked in detail at this issue believe that a one-stop shop is essential.
Touching briefly on the issue of discrimination, my noble friend Lord Dholakia mentioned this. We welcome many of the actions which the Government are taking: a long-term care charter, the ministerial group on old people, the better government for older people initiative, national service frameworks and so on. However, there are gaps, and we have drawn attention to them. We have drawn attention to the rationing of Aricept and to the Department of Health's own report, Not because they are old, by HAS 2000. Again, there are major points that my honourable friend in another place raised in a debate on discrimination and rationing. These issues are very important and we hope the Government will carry them forward.
Unashamedly, I have dwelt on the question of the fourth age and, as Peter Lazlett recently pointed out, that must be distinguished from the third age. My noble friend Lord Dahrendorf raised key issues relating to employment among the over 50s and the fact that they could not be dealt with merely by non-discrimination provisions or job creation. He also raised the issue of going beyond the traditional age of retirement. The Carnegie Report, which I reread in preparation for this debate, contains some very important conclusions and I very much hope that the Government will dust down that report and have a look at it again because I believe that, taken together with some of the points made by my noble friend, it contains key issues and recommendations which, if put into practice, would be of enormous significance.
10.6 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is to be congratulated for bringing such a broad and fascinating subject to the Order Paper this

337
evening. We have heard from all the contributors but perhaps especially from the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, himself, how broad and multi-faceted a subject it is. That is why I shall not attempt in summing up to distil what has been said into a neat portmanteau-type summary. I shall leave that to the more expert skills of the Minister, but what I can do is to pick up some of the themes that have been raised in the debate which to me carry a particular resonance.
The starting point for the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is of course demography. For governments whose chief and quite proper concern is to plan for the short and medium term—typically a five-year time-frame—it does no harm to focus exclusively for once in a while on more distant horizons. In asking the kinds of questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, we can at least hold on to one reasonably firm framework of predictable fact; namely, the trends in general population growth and the likely patterns in the growth and shrinkage of different age groups.
It is possible to say now with a fair degree of certainty what those patterns will look like in 2020 or in 2035. However, as we have heard this evening, once we start addressing within that broad framework some of the particular issues which most concern government day-to-day—health needs, housing requirements, transport networks and so on—we find ourselves beset by a whole host of variables: so many variables that the marginal benefits of spending departmental time gazing into the very distant future become less and less evident. That is not to say that we should not be doing it at all; only that we should be aware of the limitations of such an exercise in terms of its usefulness to policy making today.
That feeling came over to me very strongly in reading the report of the Royal Commission on Long-term Care. We know roughly how many people over 65 there will be in 30 years' time, but we do not know how unhealthy they will be. We do not know the extent to which changes in society will increase or reduce the availability of informal unpaid care from families or relatives and we do not know what paid care will cost. We can of course carry out sensitivity analyses, as the Royal Commission did, to show the effects of different assumptions in the key determinates. But the range of those assumptions is so great that what the commission's report refers to as "the funnel of doubt" rapidly begins to resemble one of those brass horns on an old phonograph.
That is why I have some sympathy with the commission in one of its main recommendations, which is the establishment of a national care commission, the remit of which would include the job of updating the projections of long-term care need in the light of changing circumstances. I am not entirely certain why that task should be thought to warrant the setting up of a brand-new, purpose-built body when it could as readily be carried out by an interdepartmental committee of officials. However, there is absolutely no doubt that these matters need regular scrutiny and review.
338
However, it would be a mistake to think that there are no areas of public policy-making in 1999 which have a bearing on the way the world will be in 2049. In environmental policy, one need think only of greenhouse gas emissions. With long-term care, just because one needs to monitor and update the projections every few years in the light of new data does not mean that very long-term influences are not also at play. Perhaps the most obvious example of such an influence is preventive medicine. I am not thinking particularly of hydrogen peroxide, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord McNair. A dental technician at this week's RCN Congress referred to cigarette smoking as "slow suicide". The success of an anti-smoking campaign today will yield huge benefits long into the future. In general, the more we can build up awareness now of what a healthy lifestyle actually means, the more healthy our elderly population will be in the years to come.
Nutritional advice—always seen as the classic manifestation of the nanny state—is nevertheless very important when we consider the increasing trend towards the consumption of processed and fast foods. I have nothing against processed foods, but the fact is that some of them contain a great deal of sugar, and others contain a great deal of salt. We need to be generally more aware of what levels of those substances we are ingesting.
The mention of greater awareness leads me to an area to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred and on which we touch regularly in our debates on health matters. I refer to rationing. As I visit hospitals, doctors regularly say to me, "If only politicians would be more honest with us about the rationing of care instead of sweeping this issue under the carpet". Perhaps my biggest worry over the new national institute for clinical excellence and the commission for health improvement is that they will act as covert mechanisms for the rationing of healthcare. I should naturally like to think that that is not their primary purpose, but I fear that it will almost certainly be one of their effects.
The three hurdles of safety, quality and efficacy which a new drug treatment has to surmount is now to be joined by a fourth hurdle—that of cost-effectiveness. That hurdle, when combined with an adherence to the fashionable principles of evidence-based medicine, is bound to mean a curtailment of the availability of new treatments. But that curtailment will not necessarily be apparent to the patient and, when it is, it will be the doctor who will appear to be the author of what is actually a politically-driven decision.
If we accept, as I believe that we must, that the demand for healthcare in this country will continue to rise in the years ahead, we owe it to ourselves to have an open and inclusive debate on what treatments are and are not affordable. That debate should not be conducted behind closed doors in Whitehall, because the result of that, as the recent case of Viagra shows all too clearly, tends to be an arbitrary fudge that makes little clinical sense.
The question of affordability brings us back to one of the most important parts of public policy-making. I refer to the management of the economy. If I were to identify

339
one of the weaker aspects of the report by the Royal Commission on Long-term Care, it is the rather skimpy treatment that it gives to the need for sound economic management as a means of ensuring that its proposals are affordable in the long term. The report contains some rather blithe assumptions about the growth in GDP over the next 50 years and about higher industrial productivity. Yet the stark truth is that, whereas in 1999 there are nearly four people of working age for every pensioner, the equivalent figure in 2040 will be only two, and the number of pensioners will almost double. That may lead us to reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, was saying about the age of retirement, but it also has serious implications for the cost of care.
While the commission's main report projects an increase in personal care costs that it deems affordable to the public purse, the minority report takes issue with that conclusion and the assumptions underpinning it. As the minority report emphasises, small changes in the assumptions can make a big difference to the end cost, so enlarging the "funnel of doubt" even further.
Those factors are extremely important for policy makers because the potential sums of money involved are large. But it is important for another reason as well. One of the main criticisms of the current system, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is that people cannot plan ahead with certainty because the availability and quality of long-term care facilities is patchy depending on where one lives. Many people are not in a position to know clearly what they are entitled to in their old age. I suggest that it should be one of the Government's objectives to eliminate that uncertainty in whatever response they make to the commission's recommendations. If free personal care is to be made universally available, then that must be a clear long-term pledge from government. To make such a pledge with conviction, the Government need to be satisfied that, over the long term, it is affordable from the projected growth in national wealth.
If we on this side of the House have a concern about the Government's macro-economic policy, it is that they are making that necessary growth in national wealth less and not more likely. The thrust of the past three Budgets, including yesterday's, has been to increase significantly the tax burden on business. That is not the way to maintain either inward investment or the UK's international competitiveness. The UK is a low-cost—though not a low-wage—economy. The more the Government load British business with additional social costs (as I am afraid they have done by signing up to the Social Chapter and accepting the working time directive) the less competitive we shall be and the more we shall struggle to maintain our flexible labour market which underpins job creation, the importance of which the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, reminded us.
Simultaneously, the Government's decision to tax savings and pensions is already resulting in a fall in the savings ratio—a predicted 7.5 per cent. this year compared with 10 per cent. when Labour came to office. That is not the way to ensure that men and women of
340
working age are able to support themselves in the future, once they become pensioners. And the radical reform of pensions that we were promised has not yet come about.
But I want to end on a positive note. The fact that we are able to look forward to greater numbers of elderly people in this country is something which we should celebrate and be proud of. I pay tribute to Age Concern, which has been in touch with me about this debate and whose work in improving the lives of elderly people and raising issues of importance to the elderly is to be wholeheartedly applauded. My noble friend Lady Carnegy, had she been able to take part in this debate, would have wished to hand out similar bouquets to Age Concern (Scotland).
It is time to stop classifying the elderly as a burden on society and time to emphasise instead the contribution that the older generation makes to the economic, cultural and spiritual life of this country. As Age Concern emphasised, it is grandparents who are childminders for the working generation, carers for their peer group and counsellors to young adults—all for free. It is right and proper that public policy should value the older generation appropriately and work consistently towards the quality of life and living standards that our society has a duty to provide.
10.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has instigated a debate which has been fascinating, though short. It has ranged very wide. I believe that the House will understand if I do not follow the noble Earl, Lord Howe, through some of the issues of macro-economic policy arising form yesterday's Budget and the Government's management of the economy overall. Nevertheless, it was an important issue to raise, especially in this United Nations Year of Older Persons. I agree with the noble Earl that it is important to have the opportunity to take a longer term perspective which has been offered to us tonight than the normal time span of a politician, which was recently characterised to me as that of an intellectually challenged goldfish.
It is valuable to step back and look at the issues, although I must say that I had not perhaps characterised them as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, did tonight. I always knew that we had a problem with young men with time on their hands, but the idea that older men with time on their hands were also a problem was a new one to me. A little later in my response I may go slightly off message and talk more about the flexibilities and the gender differences involved because they are most interesting.
However, I return to the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, started. The Government are also grateful to Age Concern for initiating the Millennium Debate of the Age to raise awareness about ageing among the entire population of this country. That is most important; indeed, it is an issue which is too important to be left to the elderly, if I may put it that way. It is of interest and of significance to the whole population.

341
As has been pointed out many times in tonight's debate, people are living longer and older people make up, and will make up, an increasing percentage of the population. By the year 2031 we estimate that 42 per cent. of the country will be over 50, 23 per cent. will be over retirement age and 6 per cent. will be over 80. However, it is important to make the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, namely, that gloomy talk of a demographic timebomb is not justified. Two authoritative pieces of work, the Royal Commission's report, published last week, and the pensions Green Paper, make clear that there is no need to be so dismal about the possibilities of rising as a society to the challenges which will undoubtedly be posed by those demographic changes.
In his foreword to our document Building a Better Britain for Older People, the Prime Minister said;
"Among the greatest achievements of this century has been the increase in life expectancy. We can now look forward to many more years of healthy active life. But society has not kept up with this change … This Government's goal is to build a country where all are valued and where everyone, young and old, can play their full part".
As has been said tonight, we need to recognise the significance of more older people with a lifetime of skills and experiences, who are more active and keen to continue a productive life. We also need to recognise that older people will have more disposable income and will become a powerful consumer force in their own right. Similarly, we need to recognise that the structure of the elderly population will also change; in other words, there will be more single older people, many of whom will be living alone. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, that has implications for planning policies and for the built environment. It has implications, too, for transport policies. Moreover, we must recognise that there will be more older people from black and ethnic minority groups and the needs of that particular group of elders must be considered.
Perhaps I may put it in the context outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. We will see a generation of elderly women who are less dependent in many ways, both financially and in terms of their social experience, than was the case with the generations of elderly women who lived on their own in the past. So we must also consider that change.
In all this there are many uncertainties, as has been pointed out. However, the Government have an important role both in changing people's perceptions about ageing and in identifying and helping remove the barriers that stop older people fulfilling their potential. Following the early work of the Inter-Ministerial Group on Older People—I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to that today—we published a consultation document, Building a Better Britain for Older People, in November. This brings together the different strands of the Government's overall strategy. Many individual departments have made their own significant announcements in the past year or so.
The older volunteers initiative aims to increase the quality and quantity of opportunities across England for older people to volunteer. That is an important role that we need to consider alongside the possibilities mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, of
342
extending paid employment. We need to ensure that people have a role and make a contribution. That may not be exactly the same as the role and contribution they make while in full-time employment.
As regards crime reduction strategies, it has been made clear to local authorities that they need to involve older people specifically in drawing up those strategies. The "Foresight" programme over the next two years will consider the changing age structure, particularly in terms of its social and commercial interface, and some of the possibilities and implications of developments in information technology. That is an interesting area. I understand that the fastest growing group of people using the Internet comprises the over-60s. Interesting possibilities are offered by information technology.
As has been mentioned, we have already consulted on the code of conduct on age discrimination in employment. As announced in yesterday's Budget we shall introduce a New Deal to help the over-50s get back into work. Yesterday's Budget also included measures which will benefit pensioners now, such as the new higher winter fuel payments which will provide much needed help to around 10 million pensioners.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, pointed out that many of the issues which relate to elderly people have particular health aspects. I wish to endorse the attitude that has been put forward that we are not just talking here about health in terms of services but also about health overall. Investment now in children's fitness and in effective anti-smoking measures for young people—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to this—will pay dividends in future generations in terms of the health of the elderly.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that I shall certainly read his comments and consider the document he mentioned. I do not undertake to follow his example with regard to hydrogen peroxide. My hair seems to be turning white perfectly well through the natural ageing process and ministerial office. I am not sure that the Chief Medical Officer would endorse the approach the noble Lord mentioned.
We should consider not just health and the importance of improving health for the individual and society in the future, but also the other initiatives. The NHS and social services White Papers, among many other important proposals, aim to break down the barriers between health and social services as regards the care of the elderly and promote better commissioning of social services which are more individually tailored to users, particularly those from ethnic minorities. The need for services to be culturally sensitive was recognised in the Royal Commission report.
The national priorities guidance gives priority to helping adults achieve and sustain maximum independence. The national service framework for older people will set national standards and define service models, put in place strategies to support implementation and establish performance measures and tackle some of those areas regarding access to services about which concern has been expressed.

343
In addition, the long-term care charter will be a framework for informing the setting of local standards by authorities, giving users and carers ideas about what local standards might be. Discussions have been held with users, carers, professional bodies, voluntary organisations and statutory agencies about the possible details of the charter and a draft is now being prepared for formal consultation. The National Strategy for Carers is important. Not only do carers look after elderly people but we should not forget that more than a quarter of carers are themselves over 65.
As far as concerns the United Nations Year of Older Persons, we will have a programme of work based on three key themes. One is on active ageing. This will focus on practical measures to help older people to remain active through work, volunteering, mentoring and supporting families. That reflects some of the flexibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, referred. It is interesting how inactivity in old age has never been considered a social problem for women but it has been for men, even though women retire earlier and live longer. In the same way, generations of women, when working patterns were different, did not need paid employment to define their role in society. There are interesting compare and contrast issues between the sexes.
On care, we need to follow up the Royal Commission report and ensure that the debate it stimulates provides a way of ensuring that people have access to high quality long-term care that is fair both to individuals and to the taxpayer. I agree that what elderly people seek second
344
only to good health is financial security and certainty—that ability to plan ahead. That is what the Government are seeking to deliver through the debate based on the Royal Commission's report.
On consultation and involvement, we can only make the most of an ageing society with the involvement of older people themselves. We want a strong public voice in health and healthcare decision-making. We must include those individuals and groups who have traditionally been more difficult to reach; for example, older people and black and ethnic minority groups. If we are to provide a health service that is effective and suitable for meeting needs, we have to ensure that groups like older people who make most use of it are properly consulted.
Across government we are looking at how we can best involve older people in influencing government locally, regionally and nationally. The Better Government for Older People programme is working with local people and local service providers to find out what services they need and how those can best be provided. The Cabinet Office-led programme is already focusing on listening and responding to the voices of older people at a local level, stimulating good practice that can be spread through local government.
I, too, will conclude on an optimistic note, and perhaps most aptly, with the Prime Minister's words in Building a Better Britain for Older People. He said:
"Our population is getting older and is set to get older still. This is not a burden, as often painted, but an opportunity. The task of this Government is to make sure we all seize this opportunity".
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  DFID Forestry Projects
  DFID Forestry Projects
  Immigration Applications: Policy Alteration
  Immigration Applications: Policy Alteration
  Female Prisoners Aged Under 18
  Female Prisoners Aged Under 18
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  University Challenge Competition Results
  University Challenge Competition Results
  NHS Pension Scheme: Employers' Contribution
  NHS Pension Scheme: Employers' Contribution
  British-Irish Treaties
  British-Irish Treaties
  Nepal: Persecution of Christians
  Nepal: Persecution of Christians
  Mr. Abdullah Ocalan: Trial
  Mr. Abdullah Ocalan: Trial
  Lifelong Learning
  Lifelong Learning
  Civil Procedure Rules: Modernised Terminology
  Civil Procedure Rules: Modernised Terminology
  Defamation Act: Implementation
  Defamation Act: Implementation
  Extradition from Australia
  Extradition from Australia
  Mr. Peter Clarence Foster: Extradition Proceedings
  Mr. Peter Clarence Foster: Extradition Proceedings
  Kosovo: NATO Deployment Plans
  Kosovo: NATO Deployment Plans
  Gypsy Sites: Funding
  Gypsy Sites: Funding
  Genetically Modified Crops and Wildlife
  Genetically Modified Crops and Wildlife
  London Underground
  London Underground
  Correction to Official Report
  Correction to Official Report
  Joint Consultative Committee with Liberal Democrat Party
  Joint Consultative Committee with Liberal Democrat Party
  Cabinet Office Better Regulation Unit
  Cabinet Office Better Regulation Unit