Sitting of 5 November 1999

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

  Family Friendly Employment Policies
  [Relevant document: The Ninth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1998–99, on the Social Security Implications of Parental Leave (HC 543).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  9.33 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): The Employment Relations Act 1999 establishes and fosters a new culture in the workplace. The world is changing, and the workplace has changed with it. More people are working part time, and the composition of the work force is also changing. More women than ever are working, and returning to work after having a baby. Some 52 per cent, of married women with a child under five work, which is more than twice the number of a generation ago.
  More families depend on two earners, and attitudes are changing. British people want civilised employment rights and decent jobs, not because they want to spend their whole life at work but as an essential element of a fulfilled life outside the workplace. Fathers want to play a more important role in raising their children, and women want support in balancing their work and family life.
  Different working patterns and the changing make-up of the work force have put new responsibilities on us all—in Government as well as in business. It is up to us to ensure minimum standards of fairness and decency in the workplace. Businesses that want to be successful will embrace this agenda.
  The Government's employment relations settlement is forward looking, and provides fundamental decent minimum standards based on partnership and underpinned by law. We reject a hire and fire culture in favour of employers and employees working in partnership towards a better climate of employment relations. We are extending the safety net of basic employment protection rights to reflect the diversity in today's work force. It is wrong that some workers are being denied basic civil rights at work. Insecurity at work is one of the principal causes of the tension and unhappiness that can lead to a breakdown of family relationships. We are determined to address this issue, not only for workers in conventional employment but for so-called atypical workers, such as home workers and agency workers or workers on fixed-term contracts, many of whom choose those working arrangements to fit in with their family commitments.
  Part timers will be guaranteed the same rights as full timers, and we will enhance the status of part-time work.
  592
  We are undertaking a review of the temporary work sector to benefit both workers and hirers, and we are giving security to all workers when a company changes hands.
  Our policy is about treating people fairly and being, to use the Royal College of Nursing's term, employee friendly as well as family friendly for those with family commitments. It is about providing decent standards and rights at work to help people balance their work and family commitments, laying down minimum entitlements in law but promoting a partnership approach for higher standards and underpinning our policies by providing financial support to low-income families.
  Business benefits from putting in place decent standards. Security at work makes for a better motivated, versatile and stable work force. Investing in people can lead to improvements in the bottom line from customer satisfaction to company profits. Employees who think that they are being treated fairly by management are prepared to go the extra mile for their employers. Policies that help people to balance their work and home lives can help improve recruitment and retention, and reduce the costs of absenteeism.
  One of the main challenges facing parents is how to juggle the responsibility of bringing up a family while holding down a job—how to respond to the demands of a difficult job and the demands of young children. Balances have to be struck rather than sacrifices made. Starting to have a family should not mean the end of a promising career. Management understanding about balancing work and family responsibilities can be the key to employee satisfaction and commitment. We need to introduce family friendly policies into the workplace, and we have begun the process in just over two years in office.
  We intend to go further. This week, we have laid regulations before the House that will introduce a new right to 13 weeks' parental leave. This is a significant advance: for the first time, fathers as well as mothers will be entitled to have leave to look after their children. For the very first time, leave will be granted to adoptive parents. There will be special provisions for parents of disabled children. Parents should not have to face the dilemma of choosing between being a good parent or holding down a job.
  Our parental leave scheme achieves a fair and sensible balance between the needs of business and the work force. We have kept our promise and implemented the regulations with a light touch. We are guaranteeing minimum standards, but we want employers to go beyond these standards where they can. Employers and employees, or their representatives, will be able to build on the foundations that we lay.
  We have also recognised that there will be times when agreement cannot be reached. In such cases, a default scheme will come into effect, guaranteeing that all employees will be able to exercise their basic rights.
  In our White Paper entitled "Fairness at Work", we gave a commitment to improve and simplify maternity rights, and we are honouring that pledge. We are increasing the length of ordinary maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks, and reducing the qualifying period for additional maternity leave from two years to one year. More women will be able to spend more time at home with their new babies. Our improvements to maternity leave rights ensure that the UK's maternity leave provisions remain generous, even compared with those of

  593
  other member states. We have also aimed to bring clarity to this complex area of law by simplifying notice procedures and making it clear that contracts of employment continue during additional maternity leave.
  As part of our family friendly policies, we want to encourage a working environment where employees' needs are recognised, whether those employees are responsible for young children or dependent adults. More than 2.5 million people in the UK combine paid employment with providing informal care.
  We want people who want to work to be able to do so, safe in the knowledge that their dependants are being cared for. However, when things go wrong—a child falls ill, the nurse or child minder fails to turn up or the dependant is involved in an accident—we want employees to be able to take time off to deal with such emergencies, and, importantly, to be able to do so without fearing victimisation by their employer. We recognise that most companies already provide time off in such circumstances. That is encouraging, but it is important that we provide such facilities where employers have a less enlightened approach. From 15 December, all employees will be entitled to a new right to take time off for family emergencies, and not to be treated unfairly or dismissed for exercising it.
  Part-time work can also make a difference for employees who are balancing their work and family life. It also provides employers with a flexible work force capable of meeting the demands of an increasingly 24-hour consumer society. In the next few days, we will publish for consultation draft regulations and guidance that will tackle discrimination against part-time workers and promote opportunities for part-time work.
  Part-time workers will no longer be treated as second-class citizens. We will guarantee equal pay pro rata for part timers, as well as equal terms and conditions. Unscrupulous employers will no longer be able to discriminate against workers just because they work fewer hours. Taken together, the regulations and guidance should help men and women to move between full-time and part-time work as their circumstances change. They will also increase the number of people who will be willing to vary their hours to help suit their employer's needs. People will recognise that part-time work is a valuable asset to the business, as well as to the employee. We want employees to work reasonable hours, in a way that suits them and the business.
  British men have by far the longest working hours in Europe, and fathers with dependent children work the longest hours of all. Working excessive hours can take its toll on family life, with costs for society. There is no advantage to employers in having exhausted employees: 30 per cent. of sick leave is related to stress, anxiety and depression. Stress at work is costly to business and families. It is wrong to portray the British worker as a demented workaholic. He or she wants to be treated fairly and to be secure at work and successful in his or her career, but as part of a satisfying and fulfilled life away from the workplace.
  In the working time regulations, the Government have taken action to support working families by tackling the long hours culture and giving workers more time to spend with their families. There are seven basic rights: no
  594
  worker can be forced to work more than 48 hours on average; we have given a right to paid annual leave, rising from three to four weeks later this month; we have given a right to rest breaks during the working day; there is a right to rest breaks from work, including the right to a day off a week; we have given special protection to night workers, including the right to health assessments; we have created special protections for adolescent workers; and there is also protection from unfair dismissal or detriment for asserting those rights.
  British workers should not have to work excessive hours to provide basic support for their families.
  Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister pointed out that British men work the longest hours in Europe. Now that we have the fastest rising tax burden in Europe, is there not a danger that people might be pressed into working longer hours merely to sustain the same standard of living?
  Mr. Johnson: No. It is not only a matter of working longer hours than the rest of Europe. In Finland, only 1.5 per cent of workers work more than 48 hours; in Luxembourg, the proportion is 3 per cent. and in France, 14 per cent. In the UK, the figure is 28.6 per cent. The problem is horrendous and too serious to be wrapped up in minor political points on other issues.
  The Government are delivering on their promises to make work pay and to provide better financial support for low-income families. The minimum wage came into force on 1 April this year and has had a significant impact. Nearly 2 million workers—more than 1.2 million of whom are women—and their families have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. Thanks to the minimum wage, Britain is no longer a country where Scrooge employers can freely exploit their workers through poverty pay and get away with it.
  Our working families tax credit will provide a guaranteed minimum income of more than £200 a week for working families earning the national minimum wage. Our child care tax credit will make child care more affordable for working families, benefiting about 400,000 families and underpinning our national child care strategy. The new deal for lone parents will help them overcome barriers to work and so enhance not only their lives but those of their families. We have announced the largest ever uprating of child benefit and are extending access to income support for low-paid couples who are taking parental leave.
  The Government are ending the scandal of poverty pay. We are removing the roadblocks on the road from welfare to work by addressing the shortage of marketable skills, the failure of the tax and benefits system to make work worth while, the poverty and employment traps that mean for many that work does not pay, the lack of employment opportunities and the scarcity of affordable child care.
  With our employment relations package, we are laying down minimum standards in law. We need to encourage employers to build on our provisions and understand that family friendly employment policies are good news for families and good news for business. In the coming months, the Government will pursue a campaign to promote good practice in balancing work and home commitments among employers and to encourage businesses to go beyond the legal minimum in their own interests.

  595
  We will seek to change the culture of the workplace by working with the business community. We are already working with the private and public sectors to share best practice in family friendly policies through partnership across the national health service and the retail industry. With their many female employees and 24-hour, round-the-clock services, those sectors have much to gain from increased sharing of best practice in successfully implementing flexible work patterns that help people to balance their jobs and homes.
  Partnership is the cornerstone of our modernising agenda. We will not change attitudes in the workplace without a partnership approach. The case for partnership at work makes good business sense, creates greater social equity and helps enhance UK competitiveness. Our partnership fund will help employers and employees to work better together. We want the fund to act as a catalyst for change and are particularly encouraging ideas based on family friendly policies and on how the partnership approach might benefit small businesses in drawing up, for example, work force agreements on parental leave.
  In time, our family friendly employment policies will be seen as fundamental rights in the labour market—as fundamental as the Equal Pay Act 1970, the right to maternity leave, and health and safety protection. For now, the measures that we are introducing on the back of the Employment Relations Act 1999 will help to improve the day-to-day working lives of individuals, support family life, and encourage the beginning of a culture change in the workplace, based on partnership, for the millennium and beyond.
  I hope that all parties in the House will join us in our quest. It was once said, perhaps unfairly, that the Conservatives' approach to family friendly policies was summed up by their belief that a creche was something that happened between two Range Rovers in Tunbridge Wells. I hope that that has changed and that their Front-Bench team will demonstrate that today.
  9.50 am
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I was about to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for the second day running; it is a great pleasure to see him there again, especially as he had such a wonderful write up in today's papers, following his debut at Department of Trade and Industry questions yesterday. However, I must also say—in response to his rather good joke—that we are looking forward to more jokes from him; it will provide a light touch that we shall welcome. No one could ever accuse me of confusing the words "crash" and "creche", any more than I confuse "rates" and "rats". I look forward to more engagements with him from the Dispatch Box.
  It is somewhat ironic that the Government have chosen to debate family friendly policies during a week in which they faced the forces of conservatism, who protected from the Government's policy the interests of some of the most vulnerable members of the family—widows and people with disabilities. All those people are members of families.
  I begin with the specific damage that will be done to elderly and frail members of families by the Government's employment policies. In talking of family policy, our focus is often on children and the responsibility of working parents; we can all understand that. However, children
  596
  grow up and, all too often, the balance of juggling work and care for elderly parents and other relatives becomes the main challenge in people's lives. It is often difficult for adult children because they may live at a distance from their elderly relatives.
  Many people take comfort from the fact that extra care—often provided by staff from employment agencies—helps their elderly relatives to maintain a good quality of life, especially in their own homes. On 30 September this year, the Government concluded a consultation process on changes to all employment agencies in the private sector. Some of those agencies provide live-in carers and others who ensure that the frail elderly and the disabled are able to live independently and safely. The Government now propose to make changes to the way in which agencies employ those staff, especially in the way that value added tax is levied.
  On 29 September, at the end of the consultation process, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pointing out that there is great concern about what he intends to do, and about its impact on those specialist agencies and on their staff who provide care for a vulnerable group of people. At present, the agency pays VAT on its own component of the cost to the end user—the salary of the carer is free of VAT. However, the proposals in the Government document would change that. In future, the employment status of the carer will change; a carer will register as an employee of a particular agency. That means that carers will not be able to take up work from a range of agencies. The effect on the number of carers who will then be available for such work is self-evident. Agencies will also have to pass on to the elderly person the full VAT costs of salary. Unlike a business, an elderly person would have no way of reclaiming that VAT.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is it clear from the Government's consultations, or from their response, whether the same applies to the highly paid actors and pop stars who are so welcome at No. 10? Do their agents have to treat those stars as though they were employees, or is there one rule for the rich and another for the poor?
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have seen no evidence that the Government have held consultations on that group of people. However, we are now close to a decision on carers that will affect many families throughout the country. I share with the Minister the comments and concerns of people involved in the caring industry.
  I quote from an article in the Recruiter, which represents those who work in the industry. The article states:
  "As self-employed workers, our carers dictate to us which assignments they will accept and how, when and where they will be prepared to work.
  They come to us specifically in order to have this flexibility and do not wish to relinquish it. At present our carers are paid considerably more than the minimum wage, but their fees would have to he cut to keep costs down."
  The article continues:
  "the nature of the business was such that work for carers could not be guaranteed"—

  597
  because of the changes the Government intend to make and because, normally—
  "carers have to register with more than one agency, sometimes several.
  If their status changed … many would be lost to the caring industry, which was already severely under-staffed."
  Mr. Alan Johnson: I understand the genuine concern about that matter. Will the hon. Lady accept that the burden of employment—with everything that that entails for health and safety and responsibility for employment rights—should fall not on the person in need of care, but on the agency that recruits the carer?
  Mrs. Browning: Of course, we are aware that the consultation document shows that the Government are trying to protect carers from any form of exploitation or outside responsibility. However, their proposals will put carers in danger, despite the fact that the document claimed that that was not the case.
  Mr. Johnson indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. However, I quote from a letter sent to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from a London agency, which is most concerned. The letter states:
  "By insisting that bureaux such as ourselves become employment businesses as opposed to employment agencies Regulation 7(1) would mean that the cost of care would increase drastically and well beyond the reach of all but wealthy clients … Most significantly VAT would be chargeable on the whole of this increased amount (rather than, as at present, the agency fee element only). It seems nonsensical that an elderly person who receives Attendance Allowance would have to give more than the amount of that benefit back to the Government in VAT."
  Members of the DTI Front-Bench team are known for their frequent use of the words "fairness" and "justice". The Minister is new to the Front Bench, but he will have followed his Secretary of State's words on various subjects and will know that fairness and justice are parroted regularly by his ministerial colleagues. However, there is nothing fair or just to the elderly in the policy that the Government propose.
  The agency's letter continues:
  "Small specialist agencies such as ourselves will be squeezed out of the market. Some of the most vulnerable in our society would be denied the choice to purchase care from such specialist agencies, who provide a high level, one to one personal service … This does not seem to accord with the stated aims of this Government."
  Although the hon. Gentleman makes the point that the purpose of the consultation document's proposals was to protect the frail elderly from any form of exploitation, in practice, the Government's very policies will do the opposite.
  Mr. Johnson: This is an important point. Some employment agencies have legitimate concerns, but others have illegitimate concerns. Last week, an article in The Economist states of unnamed agencies that
  "The agencies think this bureaucratic burden"—
  598
  by which they mean paying the national minimum wage and complying with employment law and the working time directive—
  "is all the more unnecessary because many carers come from abroad, mainly the Commonwealth."
  Those are not legitimate concerns. Such agencies are looking to avoid their responsibilities.
  Mrs. Browning: Wherever the staff come from, the fact remains that there are people who live in their own homes at the moment and receive care from other people, who come in to help them get up in the morning and put them to bed at night. Sometimes, extremely frail people or those who are severely disabled have full-time, live-in carers. Those carers will now be subject to VAT on their salaries, which was not formerly the case.
  When the Minister was asked about that matter at DTI questions yesterday, he replied that representations were being made to the Treasury by DTI Ministers. He may not have had as much experience as Opposition Members in dealing with former Treasury Ministers—of whom he numbers three among his colleagues in the DTI ministerial team. They do not have a good track record on facing down their Treasury colleagues on taxation policy, where the Treasury is seen to be a net gainer, while others are the losers. If this is a battle between the Treasury, which wants to raise more VAT revenue—clearly it will do so—and DTI Ministers, who are standing up for the interests of those people whom their legislation will affect, I tell the Minister, in the strongest terms, that his duty should be to go to those Treasury Ministers, with his colleagues, and fight as hard as they possibly can for a proper solution to a potentially serious and damaging policy. That policy will affect the most vulnerable members of families throughout the country.
  Mr. Bottomley: May I help my hon. Friend to make the Minister understand? Normally, when an employment agency charges VAT, it charges a business that can recover the VAT because it sells goods to a customer. However, in this case, the only customer is a person who is frail, elderly or handicapped. I should be grateful if the Minister intervened again in my hon. Friend's speech to say that he understands that the VAT will fall on the frail, the elderly or the handicapped, who are normally on low incomes, rather than on businesses that can pass on the charge to customers.
  Mr. Johnson rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Johnson: This is strange. I am not quite accustomed to the procedures—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Because the hon. Lady took an intervention from her hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), it is for her to give way to the Minister at a later stage. This is not Question Time.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall make a little progress, then give the Minister an opportunity to answer specifically the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing,

  599
  West (Mr. Bottomley) and me. It is important that Department of Trade and Industry Ministers, who are in the driving seat of the policy, fully understand their responsibilities and make proper representations to Treasury Ministers.
  Let us consider what the policy is likely to cost and how individuals will be affected. It has been calculated by the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services that the policy will increase the cost of care by about £1 an hour, so people who need four hours help a day will face an increase of £28 a week. We all know the sort of incomes received by many of those who need care; even with attendance allowance and other benefits, such an increase in living costs would force many of them to reduce the number of hours of support they receive. In addition, those requiring full-time live-in help, whose care costs a great deal more, would for the first time be forced to consider stopping being independent within their own home and going into residential care—they would be priced out of their own home. That has a consequence: it means that social services departments throughout the country should be made aware that there might be a sudden demand for residential care from people whose care requires great expertise.
  When we hear, as we often do from Ministers, the language of self-congratulation, it begs the question whether they realise that the elderly, the frail and people with disabilities are all members of families; and that their relatives, whether they live close by or far away, will be desperately concerned about their plight. If the Government intend to pursue the policy, I warn the Minister that it will be seen as VAT on grannies. As the Minister knows, unless he is able to ward off the Treasury, such a policy will not be greeted with widespread acclaim.
  Yesterday, the Minister said that the DTI was
  "working closely with the Treasury"
  to resolve the issue. As I interpret that answer, it means that DTI Ministers recognise that the policy that they created has developed a complication.
  Mr. Johnson indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Browning: If the Minister does not see the problem, that concerns me greatly, given that, in the DTI, he is surrounded by former Treasury Ministers. We all know that, once part of the Treasury, something happens to hon. Members.
  Mr. Johnson indicated assent.
  Mrs. Browning: I am glad the Minister realises it. I am not sure what happens to people in the Treasury, but they are never again the same and they never again see things the same way. The Treasury initiation ceremony appears to ensure that, whatever portfolio Ministers take on after leaving the Treasury, they never quite dump the baggage of thinking that they must bring more revenue into the Treasury at every opportunity. However, in all fairness, they should not behave that way at the expense of Britain's pensioners and people with disabilities.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I give way to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons).
  Lorna Fitzsimons indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Browning: Is there to be an auction? In that case, I give way to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
  Mr. MacShane: Not an auction, but a choice. I am fascinated by the hon. Lady's comments on what happens to people who become Treasury Ministers—that they leave the Treasury totally deformed, transformed individuals. Does that explain what happened to the former right hon. Member now standing for election in Kensington and Chelsea? Was the right hon. Gentleman a human being before he became Chief Secretary to the Treasury and only became Michael Portillo when he left?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady realises the limits of the allusion she made and that she will go no further down that path. We are debating family friendly employment policies.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will be aware that there are as many elderly and frail people living in Kensington and Chelsea as there are in other parts of the country. Does the hon. Member for Rochdale now want to intervene?
  Lorna Fitzsimons: No. I would have made the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
  Mrs. Browning: Fine.
  Yesterday, the Minister said that DTI Ministers were now to engage with the Treasury on the matter. He is new to the DTI, so I should tell him that that is not uncommon. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has introduced a range of employment policies that are ill thought through and create unfairness. Does anyone in his Department have any common sense? Does anyone think policies through and anticipate the problems? I genuinely believe that the Minister will make a valuable contribution to the DTI and I trust that he will bring a little common sense to bear on future policy making, so that policies are thought through properly before being put into the public domain.
  Mr. Johnson: To answer the hon. Lady's point, there is no battle going on between the DTI and the Treasury. The DTI highlighted in May's consultation document the fact that changing the relationship so that the carer was clearly linked to the employment bureau and not to the person in need of care, which is a crucial concern of all the agencies, would have VAT implications. Having flagged up the problem, we are not about to fail to resolve

  601
  it during the consultation period. Therefore, discussions are taking place between the DTI, the Treasury and the Department of Health to resolve the issue.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. In the part of country that I represent, my natural political opponents are not members of the Labour party but Liberal Democrats, so I am familiar with the political tactic of creating a problem so as to be seen to solve it. It is a characteristic of Liberal Democrats—
  Dr. Vincent Cable indicated assent.
  Mrs. Browning: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
  The Minister tells us that discussions are being held, but, in the meantime, many elderly people are extremely concerned. If the problem has now been recognised and Ministers understand the need to resolve it, I hope that they will get a move on and end the uncertainty that is making many people extremely anxious.
  We have heard a great deal about policies for members of younger age groups and families with younger children. However, we are alert to the fact that such family friendly employment policies emerge from a Department whose Secretary of State has, as I said yesterday, quoting a report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, earned a reputation for having the respectable habit—that was a Freudian slip; I meant to say, a
  "regrettable habit of issuing potentially misleading information".—[Official Report, 4 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 461, 468.]
  Mr. MacShane: Who is Freud?
  Mrs. Browning: A former Liberal Member of Parliament.
  I should like to draw the Minister's attention to some of the family friendly policies, especially those involving children, that have been promoted by Ministers. I refer to the Government's annual report, which was widely available in Tesco and elsewhere earlier this year. The report claims that the Government's policy is,
  "The first ever national childcare strategy backed by an extra £470 million, to increase good quality, affordable childcare: 30,000 new childcare clubs and up to a million new childcare places."
  We hear much about what the Government are supposed to have done about various sorts of child care places. Why is there an overall reduction in types of places that are available, especially for children who are under eight? Library figures show that the total number of places—in day nurseries, with registered child minders, in playgroups, nursery schools and classes—has decreased from 1,345,658 in 1998 to 1,298,410 this year. I shall put that in context. The total number of day care places for under-eights fell by 47,248. Of those, the number of places in nursery schools and classes fell from 368,358 to 366,910; the number of playgroup places fell from 370,700 to 336,600; and the number of places with registered child minders fell from 383,600 to 347,200.
  The only increase was in the number of day nursery places. Although those figures have risen consistently since 1992, Conservative Members have often drawn attention to the fact that that increase is due to the fears
  602
  of parents of rising fives and four-year-olds that, if they do not take up a place in a day nursery, they will be unable to get their child into a primary school of their choice. Therefore, apart from playgroup places, the figures that I have cited are for places that were on a rising scale since 1992—
  Mr. Chris Pond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I shall give way when I have finished dealing with the figures, because it is difficult for people to grapple with them. Apart from playgroup places, figures rose consistently between 1992 and 1997. Despite the Government's pledge in their annual report, the number of places has dropped. Perhaps the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) or the Minister will explain why that pledge has not been honoured.
  Mr. Pond: Can the hon. Lady tell the House what happened to the number of playgroups and other forms of pre-school child care under the previous Government's voucher system? Does she realise that the working families tax credit entitles people to help with their child care of up to £70 a week if they have one child and £100 a week if they have two or more children? If the Conservative party regained office, would it scrap that provision and take help away from working families?
  Mrs. Browning: I shall comment on the working families tax credit shortly. However, when the Government create problems through their policy implementation, it is not for the Opposition to get a broom and clear up the mess.
  Mr. Pond rose—
  Lorna Fitzsimons rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I am dealing with one intervention; I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
  I was citing a lot of figures when the hon. Member for Gravesham intervened. Therefore, I reiterate that the figures between 1992 and 1997 show clearly that the total number of available places in all categories increased consistently. Given the Government's commitment in their annual report, why has there now been a drop in the number of child care places across the spectrum?
  The Opposition believe in providing choice, and allowing parents to choose the type of facility that they want for their children. We believe in a range of provision so that parents can decide what is appropriate for them and their children. With the one exception that I mentioned, there has been a drop in all categories of provision. The Government put their policies in writing and make great play of how wonderful everything is. It is incumbent on the Minister, who is present to answer questions about Government policy, to explain the reasons for the drop in child care provision. I am anxious to know that.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): We will attempt to check the figures with the Department for Education and Employment. Perhaps the drop is due to

  603
  falling rolls. The hon. Lady has great expertise in the matter and knows that the figures are volatile, and vary from year to year. However, we shall check them.
  In the unlikely event of the Opposition ever gaining government, would they do away with the help of £70 for one child and that of £100 for two or more children? If so, what would that do for the availability of places?
  Mrs. Browning: The Under-Secretary asks a question and then anticipates my response. As many Labour Members said when they were in opposition, we are undertaking a complete review of policies and, by the next election, we will issue a properly costed policy. The Government called for the debate; I presume that they do not want to debate the common-sense revolution.
  Mr. Pond rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I am dealing with the Under-Secretary's intervention; I shall come to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
  When the Government make pledges and are in a position of power, they have a responsibility to defend or promote them. Their annual report—an important document that was available at every branch of Tesco throughout the country—shows that they made a pledge on places, which they have not been able to honour. Perhaps it is not their fault; the Under-Secretary suggested that the drop might be due to falling rolls. I do not believe that it is. The figures that I cited are from the Library and are readily available to him. He can check them with Departments and, if they are wrong, he can come back to me. Hon. Members on both sides treat with respect information that is commissioned by the House of Commons research department.
  Lorna Fitzsimons rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Gravesham and then to the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Pond: If the hon. Lady checks the record, she will read that several Conservative Members have said that they oppose the working families tax credit and would withdraw the help that it provides. If she is making a policy statement and claiming that the Conservative party supports the working families tax credit and the extra help with child care costs for working families with children, we will applaud that.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman tries to shore up those on his Front Bench, and I am sure they are grateful for that. When the Government present policies for debate in the House on which they intend to legislate, the Opposition raise objections. However, when a policy becomes an Act, we consider it in that light and develop our policies against that background. Those policies will be announced in the appropriate way by the Conservative Front-Bench team at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with that process because his party employed it when in opposition.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: At the beginning of her speech, the hon. Lady claimed that she was concerned about, and interested in, the provision that helped to enfranchise
  604
  families at work and at home. Does she applaud the Government's attempt to make child care provision a Government responsibility? If so, why did the previous Government believe that it was the individual's responsibility? In constituencies such as mine, the voucher system decimated the number of available places. We have managed to increase the number of places only through the Government's pledge, and the commitment from local government under the previous Administration—which provided no direct money or policies.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady seems to claim that, while in opposition, the Labour party made an arrangement with local government whereby local government would increase the number of child care places when the Labour party gained office. Local education authorities around the country have tried to filter four-year-olds from playgroups and other providers so that parents will put their children in placements that LEAs and local schools provide.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I shall just finish the answer, then the hon. Lady can intervene if she wishes.
  We have no prescriptive formula, but pressure is being put on parents. They have a choice of places, but if they do not put their child in placements provided by LEAs or local schools, they cannot be sure that that child will be able to attend the primary school that is attached to its nursery class. That is what has happened under this Government and that is why there has been a drop in provision. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
  Lorna Fitzsimons rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I will give way just once more, but I would then like to make some progress.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I appreciate the game spirit in which you are allowing Labour Members to intervene, but you asked for clarification.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must remember that she is addressing the Chair.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Lady sought clarification and I wanted to point out that, under the previous Government, child care was provided in my borough only because the local education authority thought that that was its responsibility. She also asked about current provision, but, by using smoke and mirrors, she is trying to confuse the public, if not those present in the Chamber. The Government have pledged—I hope that she backs that pledge—to provide every four-year-old with a nursery class place. That pledge has been welcomed in my constituency and we are moving well on the way to ensuring that every three-year-old receives that privilege, too. Does she not welcome that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are getting far too long. If the hon. Lady hopes to catch my eye later, I hope that she will not have run out of things to say.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Member for Rochdale legitimately states Labour party policy, but I hope that she

  605
  has thought through its implications for playgroups. The Government have introduced a whole raft of policies, but they do not see the knock-on consequences for other people. That is one of their failings, and particularly in family friendly policy where they naturally want to capture the public's imagination and gratitude. They find that, by helping one group, they put another group at a disadvantage.
  The Minister mentioned the new deal. In my seven years in Parliament, I have never seen so many glossy brochures or thick briefing notes on any subject as those on the new deal. They constantly drop on to my desk. One would imagine from that plethora of glossy brochures and announcements from Ministers that the new deal is doing a great deal to help people, particularly lone parents, to get back into work.
  When the new deal was first announced, the Government counted the number of people who were invited to attend for interview. Up to August this year, 414,770 lone parents were invited for interview, but, of those, only 2 per cent.—9,350—went on to find jobs. Although I welcome it when anyone finds gainful employment under the scheme, it appears that the attention that the Government give to it and their claims of its success merit examination. Of those who joined the scheme, 68 per cent. have left it and failed to move into employment. That means that the Government's new deal for lone parents has not achieved what the glossy brochures claim. Instead, the vast majority of people involved in the scheme have moved, at taxpayers' expense, from welfare to welfare.
  If the new deal for lone parents is to retain any shred of credibility, the Government will have to face up to the reality that it is not working on the scale that the amount of investment in it demands. The Minister should reconsider how it is implemented and how it helps people who may wish to return to employment. It is failing them at the moment.
  When the Employment Relations Act 1999 was debated earlier this year, Conservative Members made it clear that we acknowledged that people with dependants—particularly those with dependent children—need, for various reasons, to take time off from time to time. We would prefer that to occur on a voluntary basis between employer and employee rather than on a statutory basis. That is not because we are against motherhood and apple pie but because, when the Government sought to offer out the goodies—for example, on parental leave and time off for a family crisis—they yet again failed to think the policy through.
  On parental leave, I am sure that all Members will receive the representations that I have received, not in my Front-Bench capacity, but as a constituency MP. Several people and organisations are lobbying Members to ask the Government to make parental leave paid leave. For example, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children now has a letter writing campaign.
  Why is parental leave a policy for the few, and not the many? Those organisations, including the NSPCC, are pointing out that the only people who can afford to take advantage of the Government's policy on parental leave are well-off and professional people who are on the sort of salaries that allow them to take their parental leave
  606
  entitlement. The Minister will be aware that the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) marched to the door of No. 10 recently with a proposal to resolve yet another family friendly problem that the Government have created by introducing something which they thought was ostensibly popular, but that they failed to think through. That is not a question for Conservative Members, but we must be able to tell constituents why the Government introduced parental leave in the way that they did.
  We have said openly that we believe that parental leave should be a matter for negotiation rather than statute, and that is the perfectly reasonable position that we have articulated. Why do the Government continue to introduce policies that result in Members receiving a postbag full of letters from respectable people, including members of the NSPCC, wanting to know why the Government's policies will not help the people that they are most concerned about?
  Ms Ruth Kelly: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I will give way once more. However, I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that I have been very generous in giving way. I know that other Members want to speak and I want to give them the chance to do so.
  Ms Kelly: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She makes an interesting point. I believe that the way in which the policy has been introduced represents a great step forward for families, but will she take the opportunity to tell us whether the Conservative party would, if it were in government, pay for parental leave?
  Mrs. Browning: I know that the hon. Lady is a new Member, but I remind her that the Government have created the mess, so they must clear it up. The Government should not introduce a half-baked policy and then look to the Opposition to provide the answers. They must get their little dustpans and brushes out and clean up their own mess.
  Parental leave is yet another example of a policy that has been rushed through on the ground of dogma and wanting to do what everyone else in Europe does. However, when we consider what happens in the rest of Europe, we find that almost every other country in the European Union that has introduced parental leave has done so by offering benefits or pay when the leave is taken. It is all very well for the Government to introduce family friendly policies because they are popular and then to take the credit for them. However, they do not dip their hands into their pockets to pay for them. They dip their hands into the pockets of business and expect it to pick up the tab of administering their policies. Conservative Members are then left to find the solutions to the unfinished business that the Government have not thought through. That is no way to govern; it is not family friendly; and it is not very businesslike behaviour by those on the Government Front Bench who are supposed to be businesslike when they go about their duties. I trust that the Minister will convey that message to the Secretary of State.
  The Government, motivated as they have been to sign up to ill-thought-out legislation, are impervious to the unjust distortions that their policies bring about. They are

  607
  more interested in the soundbite than in the effect that they have on people's lives and on the way that families work. The Government's family friendly policies leave business to pick up the tab, hit the elderly and fail to give time off to the less well-off. They are geared purely towards the better-off. That is Blair's Britain at the turn of the century. The Government have quite a gall bringing this subject to the House. Their policy is unfinished business, it is unfair and, the last thing that it is is friendly to families.
  10.30 am
  Ms Ruth Kelly: Thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I shall not be able to stay to the end of the debate because I have to go to my constituency for an important and long-standing engagement.
  I welcome the Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) who opened the debate, to his well deserved Front-Bench post. I am pleased to be speaking in the first debate that the Government have held on family friendly employment. Drawing up policies to support family life will be a central challenge for the Government in the coming years. Those policies must support children financially, academically and emotionally, encourage parents to provide for their children and enable men and women to spend as much time as possible with their children, nurturing them. I recognise the importance of carers and caring responsibilities, highlighted by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), but I intend to focus on children.
  Times have changed. The traditional family model, based on one breadwinner and a stay-at-home mother, is breaking down for financial and social reasons. Many families combine two earners, often two full-time workers. The Government have already recognised the changing pattern of family life. Their family policies so far have focused on making work pay and enabling families to have access to good quality and affordable child care. The Government's record is impressive. The working families tax credit tops up the income of low-wage households with children. The minimum wage sets a floor under earnings. The child care tax credit will subsidise child care places for the first two children on a sliding scale in low to middle-income families. Those policies and the record increase in child benefit will give mothers a choice on whether to go out to work or stay at home with their children.
  The Government's proposals to make work pay have gone hand in hand with a strategy to encourage lone parents back to work, the primary motivation being to decrease dependency. Creating a working role model for children in such households will help to widen the horizons of the next generation.
  It is time to move on. Policies to alleviate some of the pressures placed on relationships by long hours and heavy demands at the workplace for men and women must be central to our strategy, because those problems squeeze the number of hours that parents can spend at home with their children. The situation has been called a parenting deficit. The results can be severe, with insecure relationships and attachments between parents—particularly fathers—and their children. That has been increasingly associated with children's behavioural
  608
  problems later in life, as well as with juvenile crime. Research shows that boys who have no contact with their fathers are more likely to be violent, get hurt or get into trouble, and do less well at school. It is important for boys to have a good relationship with their parents, even if they are separated. Any strategy for the family has to address those pressures on parents' time and encourage men as well as women to spend more time with their children.
  Mr. Brady: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says. Does she also believe that it is appropriate for the tax system to make it easier for married people to stay together and to promote marriage as a way of bringing up children?
  Ms Kelly: If the hon. Gentleman is alluding to the married couples allowance, perhaps he agrees that it was an anomaly in the tax system that had nothing to do with children, because people without children could still receive it. That policy is not the way forward, although we have to underpin families with children through policies that help them financially. I have spelled out how the Government are taking that issue forward.
  The Government's fairness at work legislation is the start of an important process, helping men and women to combine work and family life. I welcome the regulations that my hon. Friend set out. For the first time, men and women are entitled to take up to 13 weeks off work over the first five years of a child's life without facing the sack. In addition, parents will be able to take time off in family emergencies, such as when their child is sick or a child minder is unexpectedly unavailable in the morning. Those are important milestones for the family. Just 3 per cent. of employers have any provision for parents to take time off. The new arrangements are a step forward, giving parents an opportunity to balance work and family life.
  I found the comments of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton astonishing. She cannot argue that either we should have voluntary arrangements—or no arrangements—for parental leave or that parental leave should be paid. Surely if she believes in balancing work and family life, she should agree that the Government's policies are a step forward. I think that the Government should be going further, but the hon. Lady's comments struck me as absurd and I was astonished to hear them.
  Who is likely to benefit from the regulations that have been introduced? Unpaid leave will be useful to workers in some contexts. For example, those with a child facing a crisis point may be forced to stay at home for a short period. They are likely to be lone mothers or mothers with working partners who are low paid and receive no annual leave beyond the statutory minimum. The right to return to work at the same rate of pay will give them job security during that time. In addition, a few wealthier working mothers with working partners who are able to save or whose income is genuinely marginal to the family income will also benefit from the opportunity to take spells of unpaid parental leave. However, that is only a small group of women.
  I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister comment on the importance of fathers increasingly wanting to play a role in bringing up their children. However, fathers are unlikely to take any unpaid leave. A TUC survey shows that, among 130,000 employees at major financial institutions in the UK that currently offer

  609
  unpaid leave, over the past five years only 42 men have chosen to take it up. The Department of Trade and Industry has recognised that, pointing to the fact that 35 per cent. of women but only 2 per cent. of men are likely to take unpaid leave as the framework stands. The result will be that a whole tier of low and middle-income Britain, particularly fathers, will be unable or unwilling to benefit from unpaid leave.
  I congratulate the Government on their decision to allow low-income parents to claim benefits during their periods of leave, something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced in his speech to the Labour party conference. The Government estimate that about 1,000 people a year will take advantage of that new provision.
  Parental leave from work has far greater potential to address many aspects of the Government's agenda for the family. By promoting responsible parenthood, it could enable mothers and fathers to share more equally in bringing up children and create greater opportunities for mothers to work if they wish, secure in the knowledge that they will be able to take time at home with the children if they are needed. It could also contribute to happier, more stable families with better-adjusted children. However, for those goals to be met, parental leave would need to be paid at a high enough rate for men in the work force not to feel under too great a financial strain if they take it. As the Social Security Committee report on parental leave, which was published this week, says:
  "It is clear to us that if parental leave is unpaid take-up among fathers will particularly low."
  Any attempt to meet those goals rules out limiting payments to the poorest families, such as those in receipt of the working families tax credit, which will be introduced in the autumn. According to the Treasury, about 1.4 million families are likely to receive the new tax credit, but almost half of them are single parents, mainly mothers. A low-income payment might help those children, but it will do much less to promote stable relationships or bonding between fathers and children, which is also important.
  A suggestion that I have made, which has the advantage of simplicity, is to pay parents taking leave a flat rate of about £100 a week. The idea of flat-rate payments has now been backed by the Social Security Committee in its report. On reasonable assumptions—15 per cent. of men and 50 per cent. of women taking their full 13-week entitlement—the Treasury has estimated that the total cost of providing such a flat-rate payment at that level would be £285 million a year. That might be a building block for a more generous entitlement in future; or, if finances were really strained, the payments could be limited to the first eight weeks.
  If the payment were set at around that level, or perhaps in line with the minimum wage, lower-paid workers could spend time with their children with little financial penalty, while wealthier couples could save and top up their income so they would not be financially penalised too greatly by taking parental leave. Employers could enter into arrangements with their employees to top up the flat-rate payment.
  As well as payment for parental leave, flexibility is important. I welcome the Government's suggestion that there might be work force or collective agreements on
  610
  how to implement the parental leave directive, provided that they meet the basic requirements. The Government's consultation paper suggests that such agreements might allow parents to take parental leave by working a shorter working week for a number of weeks.
  Such flexibility seems to be the ideal, and the most likely to help employees and employers. Therefore, I was slightly disappointed to find that the Government's model contract, which will operate where there is no union and no collective agreements, and where people are probably on lower incomes—they may be agency and temporary workers—will require workers to take parental leave in blocks of at least a week, with at least four weeks notice. I do not believe that to be ideal, as parents in such employment are likely to find it extremely difficult to meet those requirements and take full advantage of the leave.
  I make two further pleas to the Government. The first is to consider extending the upper age limit from five, as parents need to take time off to look after their children even after they have started school. As the scheme limits the total time to three months, I doubt whether employers will find it too much of a burden to allow that leave to be spread over a longer period.
  My second plea is to forgo the requirement that parental leave cannot be taken until an employee has worked for a specific employer for at least a year. Part of the purpose of introducing parental leave is to encourage people back into the work force, especially lone parents who might otherwise not be attracted to the idea of taking a job. I believe that the latter will be put off by the fact that, in those initial weeks and months, they will be unable to take advantage of their parental leave. In those circumstances, they may not accept a job offer.
  However, I acknowledge that the Government's family friendly proposals are a huge leap forward for the family and for children. I congratulate them on what they have done so far.
  10.43 am
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly). She gave compelling evidence to the Select Committee on Social Security, and I am grateful to her for adverting to the fact that the Committee's ninth report, on parental leave, was published earlier in the week.
  I congratulate the Minister for Competitiveness on the way in which he introduced the debate. The subject is very important, and it is a very important time to discuss it. He was chancing his arm slightly by using clever wordplay on "creche" and "crash". As he is the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle, he had better be careful not to get lumbered with the soubriquet of "Minister for hassle". In any case, he must have got the joke from his private office, because these days only civil servants can afford to run Range Rovers. However, I enjoyed his speech.
  I am an Opposition Member—although, as Chairman of a Select Committee, I am above all the party political dialogue—but I commend the Government on what they have done on family friendly employment policies. In two years, they have made a great deal of progress, at least in erecting signposts showing the direction that we would all like to take. It is not always as easy to deliver on

  611
  commitments as it is to publish documents, but the Government have taken a positive stance on a range of policies.
  The Government must understand that the subject has interdepartmental aspects. The Education Minister who is sitting next to the Minister for Competitiveness is welcome—
  Dr. Howells: I am from the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Times change! The hon. Gentleman has made such an impact that I thought he was still an Education Minister. I beg his pardon; I withdraw that allegation.
  The point remains valid that, if the implementation of family friendly policies is to be consistent and coherent, it must be done on a cross-departmental basis. It is not simply a social security matter, or an education matter, or a health matter; all the other Departments are affected. If these policies are to succeed, the Minister for Competitiveness must accept his responsibility to co-ordinate that work. I hope that he does.
  I am especially keen for the Government's welfare-to-work plans to succeed. If they do, they will put more people into work, which is right and proper; but, by definition, they will increase the pressures on people in reconciling the demands of family life and the workplace. I believe that the Government have moved in the right direction and I wish them well. They still have a long way to go, and there are still big gaps in what they have proposed today.
  I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), but I am sorry that she came to the debate straight from Conservative central office. If she had left her brief behind and used her experience and her passion for these subjects, in which she is genuinely interested, we would have had a better debate. However, I do not want to provoke her into attacking me, because I am too sensitive for that type of thing.
  When we debate social policies, we should remember an important point. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members were reminded of that point when reading reports in The Independent and The Guardian on 25 October. They said that the market research group CACI had found huge variations in economic circumstances between the north and the south. I need not tell the Minister or the hon. Member for Bolton, West that there are huge economic and social differences between different parts of the country; and that is true intra-regionally as well. Some postcode areas within regions have much more difficult circumstances than other parts of the country.
  Ministers are right to deploy legislation based on the whole United Kingdom—it would be strange if it were otherwise. However, I would argue for positive discrimination in some of the ways that policies are implemented. We should focus on some of our most deprived peripheral estate-type areas. That is true of family friendly policies, too. It would be very positive if that were reflected in the implementation and configuration of some of the plans that the Government are making, and if pilots were targeted on some of those
  612
  deprived, hard-bitten, downtrodden parts of the country. Otherwise, inequality and the income divide will become worse, which is in no one's interests.
  We are dealing with a long-term problem. In the single generation from my father's day to my son's day, the process of family breakdown has accelerated. Marriages have fallen by half; divorces have tripled; children born out of wedlock have quadrupled; and 70 per cent. of young couples now co-habit before marriage. In a generation, that is a fantastic revolution in the way that ordinary people live. I sometimes wonder whether policy making is keeping up with that revolution. We risk being left behind. The Government are doing a great deal to tackle that, but there is an awful lot more to do.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Should Government policies follow social trends or seek to influence them?
  Mr. Kirkwood: Discuss. The hon. Gentleman, a distinguished colleague on the Social Security Committee, pursues that point with great dedication.
  Government should remain neutral in social relationships behind the family front door and recognise that people have practical problems to confront. The Lord Chancellor's Department is doing some research. Nottingham school of sociology is examining the ways in which family breakdown has arisen and whether people are now committed to personal development more than to the family.
  Government should be agnostic about that and offer practical proposals that help people to reconcile the differences. It is a mistake to contrive taxation and other policies to keep families together. Conservatives say that we are not doing enough to support marriage. I remember that, in Nigel Lawson's day, it paid people enormous dividends financially to be single and stay together, because of double mortgage provision and so on. Conservatives cannot claim to have been champions of the family friendly approach when they were in government. Governments should try to provide the best practical support.
  I was dismayed and astonished to find in the Child Support Agency's annual report, which was published in the past few days, that there are 52,000 absent mothers, who have left their children behind and gone to develop other families. That is just the tip of the iceberg—the women whom is the CSA is pursuing for maintenance. There is a real problem out there and we must grapple with it. Someone told me the other day that one in five members of Gingerbread are now men. Such figures are difficult to comprehend and reflect a situation that requires our urgent attention.
  I shall make two or three suggestions about how we should make progress. I hope that the Minister will have a chance to study the Royal College of Nursing's "Making Time" campaign. For many years, I have been a member of the RCN parliamentary panel. I was struck by a survey which reveals that one in five nurses leave their jobs because of inflexible employer practices. The Government have some influence in the public sector and the national health service. If I were the Minister—the Minister for Health, rather than a DTI Minister—I would be interested in finding out more about the survey results. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see that the Minister for Competitiveness has a copy in his inside pocket.

  613
  Two of the key findings are worth sharing with the House. Evidence of the lack of employee friendly policies comes from the finding that almost half the respondents—47 per cent.—believed that family life had been affected, with 30 per cent. of the nurses in the sample stating that their relationship with their children had suffered. An even more worrying finding was that almost two fifths—39 per cent.—of nurses in the sample felt that, on some occasions, they had not been able to give their best to patients because of outside pressures. That is worrying. If the DTI can work with the NHS, the trusts and the unions to discuss the findings, that would be extremely helpful.
  The national child care strategy is positive, but it has three gaps, which the Government should consider carefully. First, I understand that almost two thirds of mothers return to work at the end of their statutory maternity leave. I welcome the Government's steps to rationalise maternity leave, but if two thirds of working mothers go back to work after maternity leave, and the child care strategy begins to take effect only when the child reaches the age of three, there is a huge potential gap in the child care provided for the under-threes. That is reflected in nursery provision. We need more playgroups and better provision.
  Secondly, I am disappointed that students cannot take advantage of the child care tax credit. The Social Security Committee has been considering tax credits, and we warmly welcomed the massive steps forward that the Government have taken. However, many colleges do not provide nearly enough creche facilities—that is a separate point—so I hope that the Government will find some way to allow student couples with young families to take advantage of the tax credit provision.
  Thirdly, the national child care strategy does not deal appropriately with shift working. Only about 10 per cent. of working families adopt a normal nine-to-five 40-hour-a-week work pattern. Part-time work and shift working are patterns that we ignore at our peril. Much more could be done.
  We need more trained child care staff, better public transport so that people can take the children to school and get to work, and better opening times. I know that Government consultation documents have focused on public sector opening hours. The CSA offices, for example, are now accessible by telephone until later in the evening. That is valuable.
  I commend the Social Security Committee's ninth report, on parental leave. I was initially a sceptic. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) persuaded the Committee that the subject was important, and I thought that we could deal with it in a day and produce a short report. However, once we began, we could have spent at least six months on the subject. The evidence, including that given by the hon. Member for Bolton, West, was compelling and of high quality. I am a convert, or even a zealot on the positive impact of parental leave.
  I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have decided to make benefits available to a wider range of couples. The case for payment is compelling, but the Committee was tentative about the matter. The hon. Member for Bolton, West was right to say that we opted for a flat-rate system of payment. We understand the difficulties and the case against that; some businesses, especially small businesses, are nervous.
  614
  To try to reflect that, we suggested for a specified time a flat-rate payment, however it is set. The Government could discuss with the Treasury what could be afforded, and the system could be monitored. The experience in America shows that to be a positive approach. There, a commission was set up, a two-year study carried out, and the matter re-examined and taken forward.
  Mr. Alan Johnson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will study carefully the points that he makes, and we applaud his constructive approach.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That means that, even if there is no immediate payment, after the system has been monitored for long enough, the Government might reconsider the possibility of payment. Some of us might settle for that. Unless we do something, fathers and low-income groups will not be able to take advantage of the benefit.
  According to evidence that we received, 2 per cent. of fathers and 35 per cent. of mothers may be able to take up unpaid parental leave. That is welcome as a step forward. We cannot crack the problem and make a serious impact until the Government grasp the nettle. The Treasury does not have blank cheques to issue, and £200 million is a substantial sum of public expenditure. If we are serious about promoting family friendly policies, I can think of no better way of spending £200 million than putting some level of payment into parental leave.
  10.59 am
  Mr. Tony Colman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in the debate. I begin by declaring an interest as a trustee of the Daycare Trust.
  I join others in welcoming the Minister for Competitiveness to the debate. His successful career as a trade union leader will be important in informing the debate in the Department of Trade and Industry. May I add comments in respect of my not-so-distinguished career as a business man?
  I commend the Government policies that are in place, which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly), such as the working families tax credit. Work has been done on child benefit and child care help, the maternity leave extension, the working hours directive and the parental leave proposals, which were laid before the House yesterday. I commend to the House all those proposals, which I believe will do a great deal to enhance the work-life balance that we all so much require. I also support my hon. Friend in respect of the need to move further towards payment for core parental leave, which is referred to in those proposals.
  As other Members have said, it is extremely important to ensure that parental leave is not available simply for wealthier people who are, perhaps, in the higher echelons of companies—those who have the industry muscle to ensure that they can take advantage of unpaid parental leave. I ask the Government to look for a way of making core parental leave paid and suggest that we could take as a starting point the qualifying basis that is used for maternity leave payments.
  Mr. Brady: For clarification, does the hon. Gentleman, unlike the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly),

  615
  want employers to pay an element of the cost of parental leave? I think she suggested that the cost should be borne by the state.
  Mr. Colman: As core maternity leave payments are made by the state, so core parental leave payments should also be made by the state.
  I was developing the argument that the work-home balance is still a pipe dream. That was the heading for a press release published on 21 October by the Institute of Management, which brought us up to date on its five-year programme examining the quality of working life which started in 1997 and will run through to 2002. The latest figures, which were published two weeks ago, state that only 15 per cent. of executives think that the organisations for which they work make any attempt to achieve that work-life balance, and 81 per cent. of the people interviewed work for more than 40 hours a week. That figure was the same in 1997. Of those polled, 32 per cent. work more than 50 hours and 58 per cent. believe that the employer expects long hours. I would like to attract support from both sides of the House for condemning that approach in industry.
  Of those polled, 28 per cent. said that the companies for which they work already have parental leave schemes in place and 15 per cent. expect their companies to introduce such schemes this year. That is an interesting change, but only 3 per cent. receive child care support from their company. That picks up the intervention made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) about the role of employers in encouraging the work-life balance and the provision of help.
  I am concerned to ensure that companies that are interested in helping on child care and parental leave are able to do so. Barry Gibson is the group chief executive of the Littlewoods organisation, which has led the way on family friendly employment policies. In an article, he says:
  "In its own search for successful family-friendly strategies, the Government should not simply turn to the stick of legislation. Instead it should offer the carrot of incentives to encourage businesses to respond positively. These could include tax relief for employers who fund caring provision for their employees; tax relief for employees who fund their own childcare; or making employees exempt from tax where employers fund private childcare places."
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might explore those matters in the green Budget next Tuesday. It is slightly absurd that luncheon vouchers retain tax-free eligibility when parental leave vouchers do not have the same status—an issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has explored in recent days. The Minister may say in his winding-up speech whether there is a way forward on encouraging employers who wish to do so to offer parental leave vouchers.
  It has been said that the Government's policies are okay for large employers, but a problem for small and medium-sized enterprises. There is great difficulty in this area because little research has been done. However, excellent work is being carried out by Kingston university and, if I may crave the indulgence of the House, I shall quote from recent research, as yet unpublished, by Juliet Colman on flexible employment policies for SMEs in south-west London. Her work clearly shows that family friendly policies in SMEs pay for the shareholders and for the management. Furthermore, they make the work force
  616
  considerably more motivated and committed to the goals of the SME, and the empowering of SME employees is significant when such policies are implemented.
  That view was strongly expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce in work that she did for the Institute for Public Policy Research in 1991 and very much borne out by the research of Juliet Colman. If employees are able to choose when they work within a flexi-time arrangement, they feel much more committed and are empowered to take charge of their lives. She found the small but significant example of a father being able to leave work each day at 4 o'clock during term time to collect his children from school and take them to the child minder. He returned to work at 4.30 and simply added the half hour on to the working day.
  That measure sounds extremely simple, but how many businesses would allow their staff to leave for half an hour if they wanted to do so? It is important to encourage such initiatives, and I also agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who spoke for the official Opposition, about ensuring that family friendly policies cover child care and care of the elderly. That was certainly borne out by the research. Work needs to fit into people's lives, not the other way round.
  The research also showed that primary SMEs found it much easier to work on family friendly policy than secondary SMEs, which are defined as those working with the public 24 hours a day. We need to explore how we can ensure that they receive particular help. As other hon. Members have said, there has been a huge increase in part-time working, which has obviously been advantageous to employers. However, the research clearly shows that it has been advantageous to employees.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister say that a best practice guide would be produced in the next few weeks. The research also reveals that very different approaches are being taken, and that companies in south-west London lack knowledge about what is going on and what different companies do. The more knowledge that there is about what can be done and the success that can come from that, the better for all of us.
  So far, I have spoken as a business man: from my business experience, I have found that family friendly policies pay off on all sides of the business community. However, I am also a father of eight and I spent time as a single parent, so I very much relate to the 52,000 single fathers who bring up families on their own. One in five of the Gingerbread group to which I belonged was a single father. It is important to register the fact that fathers, as well as mothers, need to be empowered by family friendly policies.
  Part of the reason for my two failed marriages must be the long hours that I worked in business—often 90 or 100 hours a week. As hon. Members move to Parliament from their previous occupations, it is important to reflect on, and use, our experience, and to do what we can to ensure that the practices that did not work are prevented in the future. It is extremely important that the working time directive is implemented, albeit flexibly, and that parental leave is available to all to ensure that fathers, mothers and employees benefit from a much more family friendly society.
  11.12 am
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: We must recognise the needs of people who care for the young, as well as for the elderly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for raising the question of both family carers and paid carers of frail, elderly or handicapped people.
  The debate so far has been generally useful. I commend to hon. Members who have not yet read it the Social Security Committee's report, as they will be interested in the many submissions that were made to it. I shall not rehearse all the arguments because the Select Committee Chairman did that ably. However, I shall follow on from what the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) said—we understand why she had to leave. We must take the individual and the family life cycle into account.
  We accumulate all our material assets during our working life, although we may have other needs when we are dependent or retired. The question is, how best to reconcile needs and resources at different stages of the life cycle. It is perfectly reasonable to say that, when we die, society should be able, through the taxpayer, to give £1,000 or £2,000 towards the various costs. When considered over a lifetime of work, that should not be too difficult.
  It is also reasonable to say that, when a child is born, its citizenship should be recognised by a £500 or £1,000 grant. I shall not try to resolve the detail today, but the question arises of how much of that £500 or £1,000 should be available for parental leave. Should it be a flat-rate or earnings-related grant; how much should be available to the parents; and should the Government, the taxpayer or Parliament decide how it should be divided?
  One of the problems with giving people certain benefits, such as free public transport for the elderly, is that those who do not want to use public transport, but prefer to drive, lose out. The more one goes into the detail, the more one finds that people are losing out unnecessarily.
  A baby should either be given a lump sum when it is born, or a guarantee during the first six months of a substantial recognition of the fact that it has joined society and will eventually pay tax. After all, the tax that that citizen will pay will allow the same to happen to new babies after him, and pensioners ahead of him. Hopefully, he will get a reasonable deal when society needs to carry some of the burden that he would otherwise have to carry for himself. There should be a recognition that, over the next five or 10 years, the citizen is in transition.
  I wish to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Tiverton about charging VAT to those who have to pay for their own care. I am not sure that Treasury Ministers have in the front of their minds the fact that, ultimately, all tax is paid by individuals—businesses do not really pay tax. Shareholders, employees and customers pay tax, but businesses do not tend to have to carry that burden. People who organise or pay for their own home help, whether or not they are on income support, or receive incapacity benefit or attendance allowance, must pay VAT if it is added to the charges.
  We can discuss who the employer is, who is responsible for health and safety and other such matters, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), in
  618
  winding up the debate, will declare that, whatever solution the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury come up with, those frail, elderly, retired or disabled individuals will not have to pay an extra 17.5 per cent. on the personal care that they receive. That is the bottom line—it is the Bottomley line—and it should be the Government line. I urge the Minister to make that declaration.
  I have connections with somebody who helps to organise care for people at home, but I have not had a briefing on this matter. I am simply expressing my constituents' concerns. My constituency has the highest proportion of retired people in the country—more than 1,000 of a doctor's 12,000 patients may be over 85—so this is an extremely important issue.
  I shall not be able to stay to hear the winding-up speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who I am glad will respond, because I must discuss with my health authority the health needs of people over the age of 85. The family of an 89-year-old widow in my constituency is concerned that she will have to wait 12 months for a hearing assessment and seven months after that—a total of 19 months—before she has the chance of getting an NHS hearing aid.
  Dr. Howells: I know that the hon. Gentleman has to leave the debate early and I just wanted to tell him that I have heard the message loud and clear. We are very much aware of the fear and concerns that can be generated by those imponderables. We shall try to clarify the matter and I hope that the Opposition will play their part in ensuring that this matter does not become a prairie fire, but that we deal with it constructively.
  Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the Minister. His intervention shows a modification in the Government's response, because the last letter that I received from Ministers on this subject totally missed the point. I have made the point clearly in my representations and I am glad that the Minister has responded in that way.
  The subject of parental leave gives rise to a question about the law. The law can make some actions into an offence—it says that one must take some particular form of action, otherwise one is committing an offence, civil or criminal. The law can give people rights, although it does not necessarily mean that they will take them up, and provide a system of dispute resolution. Ever since I ran a small business putting neon lights outside theatres and cinemas in the west end in the 1970s, employing 25 people, I have feared that, if burdens were placed on my business, they might cause me to go out of business.
  When politicians consider what employers should do, we must be mindful that, if we say what they must do, that normally requires subscribing to a human resources publication. Someone running a small business—perhaps a shop with two or three part-time employees—may have to spend a day-and-a-half a week reading the new regulations. For the one in five who, at some stage in their life, run a small business, such a burden becomes impracticable. Indeed, they are likely to make mistakes because they do not know how the secondary legislation has been passed through Parliament or what the latest guidance is. I am not arguing for lower standards of health and safety or employment practice, but I sometimes worry that, in our enthusiasm for what large employers could do relatively easily, we forget that we are imposing that on small employers as well.

  619
  We must also realise that, every time we preserve employment rights, we say to temporary employees that they cannot have that temporary job on a permanent basis. I am not arguing against the preservation of re-employment or parental leave, but we must be aware that someone who replaces an employee who is temporarily away cannot have that job permanently. That is a kind of exploitation, as it reduces people's choice.
  I am glad that we are having this debate on family friendly policies. I initiated the first one in 1978 under a previous Labour Government, and the second one in the 1981–82 Session under the Tory Government. I hope that we shall return to this subject and its different aspects, informed by reports such as that of the Select Committee on Social Security.
  If we, in the government process, believe that something is a good idea, let us prove it in what we ourselves do. When I was a Minister at the then Department of Employment, I asked why it did not have more part-time workers, especially people with family responsibilities. I was told that Ministers would require half the Department to be available for emergency debates. That is rubbish. Many more civil service jobs should be part time, and not just as a job share.
  We should ask why people employed in the civil service or by other mayor employers do not take up their rights. Even in Scandinavian countries, many people do not take up their paternal leave options—unless things have changed since I last looked at the figures. Sometimes it is because of culture and sometimes it is the law, but if we want to reconcile family responsibilities with work and work opportunities, we should take the life cycle into account. We should not be mean with people who would value help, but we should expect people to play fair by paying their tax and national insurance contributions when they are able to do so.
  I was once asked to resign as a Parliamentary Private Secretary because I backed Margaret Thatcher's policy on the importance of child benefit. Sometimes, even people in the Government do not understand what they are trying to achieve—the Chief Whip in my day did not. We have child benefit and the basic child allowance. It is better to have a cash allowance than a tax allowance, and it is should be paid to the mother, weekly if necessary.
  11.22 am
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I concur with many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). I love debates in which people are honest about the problems. Some people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), have lived through them, and some of us have experienced what our parents went through. The life cycle must be at the heart of the debate. We are debating this matter in Parliament, but my constituents become exasperated because they do not think that this place is relevant to their lives. We have for years disregarded our responsibility to make it work for them.
  The economy and business do not work if they do not relate to people's lives. When all the cards are in one person's favour, it tips the balance. That is what has happened in the past 15 years. I welcome the Government's balanced approach, in genuine partnership with all the interested parties, including some who have not been welcome at the top table for some time. As the
  620
  hon. Member for Worthing, West said, we have a responsibility to take account of the life cycle in our policies, and to get the investment to back them up.
  We pay the cost. It is a hard economic cost for business, and a hard economic and social cost for our communities, the Treasury and the taxpayers. The debate is about putting social, employment and hard economic policy in the same prism. We allowed zero-hour contracts and exploitation in employment, and then we wondered why mum and dad were not at home, and did not know that Johnny was playing truant and vandalising local businesses. We then had to spend a lot of money protecting business and getting rid of the vandalism. We never made that social equation. It is right that we are now putting that slap bang at the heart of Government policy.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) questioned the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who has had to make these choices herself. The hon. Lady's comment that our proposals were unfair was astounding. She said that our policies have been rushed through on the grounds of dogma. Our policies have not been rushed through. Communities have paid the price for policies that have been out of balance and on the wrong side of the equation. The Exchequer and retailers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, with his experience of the retail industry, will know, have paid the hard economic cost of not putting family and work together in the same prism.
  The hon. Lady seemed to be more interested in playgroups as a business. For the first time ever, the Government have pledged to provide places for four-year-olds in primary classes. I hope that that will be extended by the next election and apply to three-year-olds as well. That would make a remarkable difference not only to the nurture and education of those children, but to families and their need for child care while they are at work.
  In my constituency, we have received a Government grant so that 83.6 per cent. of three-year-olds in my borough are already enjoying that wonderful provision. People are beating at my door asking why they cannot get that financial help. I hope that they will all receive it eventually. I therefore found the hon. Lady's comments surprising, given the respect that most people have for her.
  It is no wonder that boys have difficulty reading when employers say that their employees must work the hours that they are told to or they do not work at all, with the consequence that boys never read with their fathers. What I find disturbing about the official Opposition, especially given their penchant for choice, is that they criticise the Government's policies, such as the new deal, the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit, and say that they are forcing mothers to work.
  I am not an economist or a good bead counter, but I believe that, if we strengthen the family by ensuring that people on the lowest rung of the pay scale have a greater basic income through the minimum wage, working families tax credit, child care allowance and the increased child benefit, fathers will be able to choose not to work overtime, rather than being forced to work more than 48 hours a week to make ends meet. The work ethic can work through increased pay, so that people do not have to rely on benefit. Fathers can now go home and read with their children and help them with their homework before they go to bed. They can choose to do that and not suffer

  621
  economically. My parents had to make the stark choice of whether to stay home and nurture the children or go out to work. In my constituency, there are families who have three generations with no work experience.
  The changes that the Government have introduced in the past two and a half years are just coming on stream: the working families tax credit, the child care tax credit, the benefit for the lower paid and the recognition of unpaid work. We should shout about those changes from the treetops—even some hon. Members do not know about them, let alone people outside. We are changing the working environment.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, we must make hard business and economic choices. The Equal Opportunities Commission undertook pioneering work on this subject. It has played a large part in putting this issue on the agenda. It surveyed micro-businesses, with under 10 employees, and medium-sized businesses. It found that, contrary to the national perception that small businesses cannot afford family friendly policies, they were pioneering flexible working practices. The majority of small businesses, especially highly skilled businesses in e-commerce, must work flexibly. If a dedicated specialist has a family crisis, it is not a good idea to be inflexible and say, "Here are your cards", having invested in that person and with a huge contract involved. That person will be vital to the firm's survival.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Lady is right: small businesses have a superb record in terms of flexible working practices. I feel, however, that she is making the case against rather than for legislation. If it is to the commercial advantage of small businesses to employ such practices, why legislate and cause additional problems?
  Lorna Fitzsimons: The hon. Gentleman's point is based on the good practice employed by a few. In reality, however, many small businesses still believe the myth that good practice is unaffordable. We as parliamentarians have a moral obligation to act. For not just decades but generations, people have been given different rights depending on where they are in the work force—in economic terms, in terms of skills and, in some cases, geographically. Their rights may depend on the size of the business that employs them. We are saying that people should have equal rights regardless of where they are or who employs them. We believe that Government have a moral obligation to set standards, and that is what we are doing, because, as I said earlier, ultimately it is we who pay the price.
  Last year, the Ministers for Women undertook a "listening to women" exercise. Over 12 regions, 300,000 women named flexibility and a suitable balance between work and home as a priority that should be addressed by Government. It is clear that this view is not a mere aberration on our part, or based solely on our constituency experience; consultation has established that women are setting their own agenda.
  As I have said, there is a strong case for businesses to adopt flexible practices. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned research into the hard economic benefits conferred by such practices. He particularly mentioned Juliet Colman's research, as yet unpublished.
  622
  I hope that we shall have a chance to see those findings at some point. Surely it is obvious that a happy worker will be less likely to pretend to be ill when it is actually an elderly mother or a child who is ill, and will be more likely to co-operate with requests that an employer may make at certain times, such as a request for the employee to work unusual hours in order to fulfil a contract.
  This week, I joined in the celebrations marking the first birthday of TBA Ballistics, a firm in my constituency 90 per cent. of whose employees—there are fewer than 20—are women. The chief executive told me that they sometimes had to work unsocial hours in order to fulfil contracts, but that, when one of the women had to pick up her son, the boss went with her in his car. I congratulate such organisations, which have experienced phenomenal growth in the past 12 months thanks to their flexible practices. Their commitment has repaid them tenfold in terms of hard economic benefit: employees will show commitment if their employers do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West echoed the view of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security in regard to pay. I think that that view is now well established, but let me add my support for the idea of a flat rate. I also feel that we caused disappointment when we set the age limit at five rather than eight. Where is the economic sense in that, especially at a time when we are encouraging parents to adopt older children?
  Eligibility is another important issue. I fear that we have made a faux pas in specifying those born or adopted after 15 December; many children will benefit while their brothers and sisters will not, and people working in the same business as those whose families will benefit will also be excluded. I know that we are awaiting legal advice but, in the meantime, I urge Ministers to be as flexible as possible. Good government is about feeling able to reconsider, and to reconsider wisely. I think that we have been too inflexible.
  Following consultation, we decided that women on maternity leave should be allowed to return to work in a part-time capacity. Maternity is unpredictable; the birth may have been difficult, or the child may have problems. I also think that women should be able to return to work initially in a part-time capacity. If my understanding of the regulations is correct, that has been ruled out.
  The Chairman of the Social Security Committee mentioned child care problems experienced by those in higher and further education. Because further education is primarily adult education, those involved have proved to be good at working out ways in which to deal with child care, but the same funds are not provided for higher education, at a time when we are trying to increase the flow from further to higher education—often higher education in a further education setting. Hopwood Hall in my constituency has developed imaginative ways of funding good further education provision—it could be better, but it is good—but those wishing to proceed to higher education cannot do so, because the Higher Education Funding Council does not provide the same funds for child care.
  The Small Business Service should concentrate on making family friendly legislation work. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West said, we should lead by example. The Select Committee on Administration carried out a survey on child care among the 6,000 employees

  623
  of this place, and then had the wisdom, according to its Chairman—a woman—to say that 256 people wanted to use on-site facilities, and that that was too small a percentage of 6,000 to suggest that there was any real demand. Has she ever been to a nursery or a day care centre?
  If the Treasury and many other Whitehall Departments can buy into imaginative child care packages for civil servants in this area—in central London—why do we not enfranchise staff of the Palace of Westminster? I am thinking, for instance, of our catering and Library staff. We treat them as second-class citizens, but they do exactly the same job as civil servants; it is just that they are employed by the Serjeant-at-Arms rather than by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why should they have to suffer because of that? We should stop being hypocritical, and asking others to do what we do not do ourselves. I hope that the House of Commons Commissioners are listening.
  Many of the problems experienced by businesses, including small businesses, would not arise if the right approach were taken to start-up grants—if an imaginative banker looking at the balance sheets took the need for family friendly, flexible working patterns into account, thus enabling businesses to start in a healthy state. Problems are often caused not by the fact that a business person does not care, but by the fact that that person's hands are tied because of the way in which the budget was structured in the first place, which causes cash flow difficulties. We should work with the banking system to ensure that, from this day onwards, no business is hamstrung because the wrong advice was given, and the budget was not structured in a way that promoted what I consider to be the crusade of the millennium. If we get this right, everyone will be able to play a full role in society and at work, and we shall have a genuinely knowledge-based economy. People will be able to go home and nurture their children; there will be less crime and vandalism, and more people will have a chance to exercise the work ethic, all the year round.
  11.39 am
  Mr. Graham Brady: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons). During the brief absence from the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), she referred to my hon. Friend's comments, particularly those about child care provision and the fate of playgroups in the current climate. The hon. Lady has to bear it in mind that, although the Government have for the first time guaranteed a child care place for every four-year-old, whatever the argument we may have about the best mechanism for delivering that, the previous Government for the first time guaranteed child care funding for every four-year-old.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: By voucher.
  Mr. Brady: By voucher. As I have said, the hon. Lady and I may have differences about the preferable way of delivering that facility to parents, but the key difference between Conservative and Labour Members is who should have choice in provision. I am sure that she would happily accept that there is a key difference; she would say that that is a good thing. She believes in a more planned approach and that provision is the responsibility
  624
  of Government and local government—municipal authorities should provide. I suspect that most Conservative Members would rather see more diverse provision, frequently involving the private sector, which gives the parent greater choice in the type of available child care facility.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the child care tax credit would have an uncertain future if the Conservative party were ever to regain power? The credit gives individual parents the choice because it puts the money, the tax credit, in their pocket.
  Mr. Brady: Parents will not have the choice if playgroups and private providers close due a massive shift of resources to state provision of nursery child care. That is a big problem.
  I accept that good child care provision exists in state-funded nurseries in many parts of the country. The borough of Trafford, for many years under Conservative control, has a good record of providing a great number of child care nursery places. I have no difficulty with that. What I object to is a policy that results in the removal of the options for parents.
  Child care is perhaps the most personal choice that parents have to make. When one choose to put one's child in the care of others at such a young age, it is important that one should have absolute confidence and faith in the provider. The danger of overwhelming state provision and a move from the voucher model is that less choice is offered. There can be instances where parents have to use local provision, perhaps because they have to put their children into reception classes or in a local authority nursery, regardless of what they would prefer.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale referred to what she said was the myth that small businesses cannot afford to pay for flexible working practices. I call the House's attention to another Select Committee report, published some months ago, which is relevant to the debate—that on part-time working by the Select Committee on Education and Employment. We debated that issue at some length.
  I see the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), a former member of that Committee, in his place. He would bear out that there was considerable agreement in Committee about encouraging flexible working practices, flexibility for parents and flexible arrangements to cater for child care and more time with children. Again, there was disagreement on how to deliver those objectives. Today, I have sought to underline that difficulty.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that flexible working practices are generally better for businesses. That point was made by Labour Members on the Education and Employment Committee on many occasions. My argument is that such arrangements should be promoted. There is reason to encourage other businesses to follow that best practice. I applaud what the Government are doing in that direction, but there is an argument for being cautious about piling up legislation requiring certain action by businesses.
  Although some businesses, whether large or small, may be able easily to accommodate the additional costs of flexible arrangements, or may find that the benefits in terms of motivated staff outweigh the costs of regulation,

  625
  of uncertainty in terms of the work force and of difficulties in planning, for many other businesses, such provision is a genuine problem. That is not a myth.
  If a small business employing five, 10 or 20 people loses one key employee for three months, that can be a serious matter. Similarly, it would be serious if, as some Labour Members have suggested, they were to lose that employee through maternity leave, when the employee has the right to come back part-time. Not every business can accommodate such flexibility.
  Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we have concentrated so much on ensuring that it is possible for contracts that are tailored to meet the requirements of small businesses in particular to be arranged. His point is valid, but we have tried to accommodate it as best as is practicable at the moment. We have tried to go with the grain, as he suggested that we should, in promoting best practice—an awful phrase, but it describes something—to ensure that firms have the opportunity to take advantage of mentors in other firms.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister. As he will have detected, I was nowhere near to attacking the Government. I was seeking to defend them from some Labour Members, who have said that the Government should go further.
  I make no bones about the fact that I would not have gone as far as the Government have in legislation. The Government have damaged business and reduced competitiveness as a result, but some of the arguments that have been advanced by Labour Members would accelerate that damage and make its impact infinitely worse. That is not the most full-spirited compliment that I could offer, but I hope that the Government will resist the voices from behind them who say go further. At the very least, having introduced considerable legislation already—too much legislation—the Government should pause, reflect and look at the consequences in the employment market before contemplating any further steps.
  Indeed, that was one of the conclusions of the Education and Employment Committee in its report on part-time working. In paragraph 53, it said:
  "We would draw the Government's attention to the range of differing views that were expressed to us about the labour market effects of the implementation of the Directive on Part-time Work and we recommend that the Government publish a review of the effect of the Directive on the labour market and patterns of part-time employment two years after it is implemented."
  That was an eminently sensible recommendation. I do not think that I am going too far in revealing the private discussions of the Committee when I say that I would think that because I suggested it. I was pleased, however, that the Committee accepted that that was a sensible approach and agreed that the Government should publish a review of the consequences of their legislation on the labour market.
  As a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Employment Relations Bill, I was greatly saddened to find that an amendment that I had tabled to the same effect was brushed aside by the Government.
  Mr. John Healey: The hon. Gentleman has referred at some length to the work that we have done
  626
  together on the Select Committee on Education and Employment and the detailed work that we did on the inquiry into part-time working. May I remind him and the House of one other recommendation that the Committee produced in the report, to which, I am glad to say, he also signed up? It covered women returning from maternity leave. Recommendation 10 said that the Committee believed that
  "There should be a presumption that women will be allowed to return to work after maternity leave on a part-time basis, with pay and benefits no less favourable … than those which they were receiving before they took maternity leave. We recommend that the Government introduce legislation guaranteeing women the right to return to work after maternity leave on a part-time basis".
  Mr. Brady: I would be going too far in divulging the private deliberations of the Education and Employment Committee if I responded in full to that point. I shall leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions. As I am the only Opposition Member to serve on the Select Committee, I do not necessarily go all the way with my friend, the hon. Member for Wentworth.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the effect of the Government's new deal programme, about which we hear so much. She referred in particular to the new deal for lone parents. It is often suggested that Conservative Members are neolithic in their opposition to the new deal. However, it is demonstrably a waste of public money, huge amounts of which are being squandered on a programme that is not necessarily having the desired effect.
  My party and I are not alone in taking such a view. The views of the Greater Manchester low pay unit were recently published in the Manchester Metro newspaper—
  Mr. Kirkwood: Never heard of it.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman may cast aspersions on the quality of that fine journal, but he may also wish to consider what the Greater Manchester low pay unit had to say. Its view was that young people were being let down by the Government's new deal. It cast doubt on the Government's promise to make young people more employable, and recommended that Ministers should take immediate action. The author of a report on the matter was quoted as saying:
  "The government talks about young people having rights and responsibilities, but it is the government that is failing to meet its responsibilities towards young people."
  That is hardly a ringing endorsement from a pressure group not particularly associated with the Conservative party.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the new deal is not tackling unemployment, what policy would he advocate?
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Lady kindly gives me the opportunity to blow the myth of the new deal for the young unemployed. The figures for youth unemployment in the years leading up to 1 May 1997 prove that youth unemployment has fallen more slowly since the new deal was introduced than it did previously. Youth unemployment fell more rapidly under the Conservatives than it has since the Labour Government decided to

  627
  confiscate huge sums from the former public utilities for a programme that was intended purely to be a propaganda coup.
  Labour used a statistic that was clearly going the right way. Youth unemployment was falling rapidly, and Labour pledged to reduce it by 250,000, only to be embarrassed to find when they came to office that there were not 250,000 long-term youth unemployed. The hon. Lady would be wise to consider that unemployment levels today have far more to do with the flexible employment market created—painfully, and in the face of determined opposition from Labour—by Conservative Administrations. That is why our unemployment is lower than that in Germany and other countries.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) has good reasons for no longer being with us, but I was concerned by her approach to my intervention about whether we ought to support marriage as an encouraging environment for child care. Marriage is not the only acceptable environment for child care. Nor should people be penalised for not being married. However, it is legitimate for the state to encourage what is undoubtedly the ideal environment in which to bring up children. Marriage makes it most likely that children will grow up in all the ways that the hon. Member for Rochdale described as ideal. It is generally best if both parents are always there, although I accept, of course, that that is not always so.
  Ms Harriet Harman: I am intrigued. What public policy step would the hon. Gentleman take to support marriage? How would he make men and women happier in marriage, thus preventing them from becoming unhappy in their relationships and divorcing? Everyone wants to support marriage, and everyone wants everyone else to be happy, but are there any practical policies to be taken, or is the hon. Gentleman offering mood music? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton is muttering that people would be happier under a Conservative Government, and I am sure that that is true. The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) might have read in this morning's press that people are certainly found to be happier when married. In fact, the benefit has been calculated financially—at about £60,000. It may not always seem so to everyone who is married—sometimes it seems more, rather than less, expensive—but people are undoubtedly happier in marriage, and it is undoubtedly a better environment within which to bring up children. The Conservative policy is to recognise that fact in the tax system, which is a positive plan. It is a shame that Labour seems determined to give no encouragement to marriage.
  Ms Oona King: May I offer the hon. Gentleman a personal example? A friend of mine was brought up by unmarried parents, and I was brought up by parents who were married. Mine were divorced when I was three, and her non-married parents remain together to this day. Why should Governments have given my parents more money and hers less?
  Mr. Brady: We can all think of particular cases that contradict the rule—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady may
  628
  laugh at that, but is she seriously arguing that people are not more likely to stay together as parents if they are married? The evidence strongly suggests the opposite.
  Ms King: As the alleged exception rather than the rule, I have to say that there were 35 children in my class at school. Of those, only five had parents who were still together. That is a terrible shame, but it proves that the hon. Gentleman is not talking about exceptional cases.
  Mr. Brady: That is a terrible shame. However, I am simply arguing that we should seek to combat that situation as far as we can. I accept that what we can do is limited. Social forces cannot always be controlled by Governments. We may be able to achieve only modest benefits, but it is right for Governments to do what they can, even at the margins, to support and encourage marriage. That will lead to people staying together more often, which is good for children. I am by no means extreme on this matter. However, most people would accept that the married state is a good condition within which to bring up children. Governments should therefore support it, not denigrate it.
  I have talked about the Select Committee's recommendations on the part-time work directive, as has the hon. Member for Wentworth. I was strongly struck in Committee by the different approaches taken by hon. Members from different sides of the House on how to achieve objectives that we broadly share. Our debate on this points up a difference of approach that centres around whether it is better to plan, legislate and force or to encourage greater freedom and flexibility and freer environment for businesses and individuals to make their decisions.
  Labour Members argue that there is a business case for greater flexibility in working practices and that businesses will be more profitable if they offer flexible working practices. In many instances, that is true. Where it is, businesses will need relatively little encouragement to follow that course of action. It is natural for businesses to wish to maximise their profits, so they should be encouraged to do it when it is in their interest. It makes no sense for businesses to be forced into a course of action that may be appropriate to some businesses or to large businesses or to some industries, when such legislative compulsion may lead to the worst of all outcomes: not a flexible environment for parents and families but one in which there is less employment available, where there are fewer businesses and where businesses are less competitive and less able to operate successfully, expand and employ people. The core of the debate between us and the Government about the best outcome for businesses and families is whether high employment protection, even if that means fewer jobs, or an environment with maximum employment opportunities and maximum flexibility is the best route to generating employment.
  12.1 pm
  Mr. John Healey: I served on the Standing Committees that considered the Employment Relations Bill and the National Minimum Wage Bill. They were both highly politically charged and partisan, so I hoped that this debate would be more neutral territory that would allow a more considered discussion of the

  629
  Government's family friendly policies and the issues at stake. I was therefore disappointed with, but not surprised by, the sharp contribution of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) and the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) for bringing us back to a more measured consideration of the issues.
  Family friendly employment policies are shorthand for measures that help employees to combine the requirements of their jobs with their responsibilities to their families. It is an area of policy in which the Government have been very active. I strongly support that. It is right in principle, and the measures that have been taken are right in practice, but they are also necessary to respond to fundamental changes in family patterns, the structure of the labour market, the competitive pressures on business and the public policy ambition of Government following the election on 1 May 1997.
  Family friendly policies across Government are a proper response to deep-seated changes around us. They are not the triumph of feminism, a victory in the fight for workers' rights or the heel of Government coming down hard on bad bosses, although I am glad that a little of each is also involved. First and foremost, the Government's family friendly policy measures are as much to do with present-day social and economic imperatives as with political ideology.
  If we want children brought up in secure families without poverty, parents to have an opportunity to work, the United Kingdom to be competitive and make the best use of all the talents available in our population, and the UK economy to be run with low unemployment and stable, low inflation, we need family friendly employment policies. The national minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the new rights under the Employment Relations Act 1999, the record increase in child benefit, the new deal—especially the new deal for lone parents—the national child care strategy, sure start and the child care tax credit should be considered together. They mean that, for the first time, many parents have an opportunity to work, or are working in jobs that make work pay, while getting practical help to combine their desire to work with heir concern to be good parents and be with their kids as they grow up.
  That list of measures is extremely revealing; it involves the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment, as well as the new opportunities fund. An enormous effort is being made throughout government to support families—especially women and children. That support for families will emerge as one of the hallmarks of the Labour Government's first term.
  I referred to fundamental changes, both in the world of work and in the world more generally. First, there are social changes—the increasing diversity of family life. The divorce rate is rising and the number of single-parent families is increasing. More children are growing up with step-parents. That increasing diversity makes complex demands on employed parents. Secondly, there are changing demographic trends. The average age of the
  630
  general population and of the work force is rising; that means that the proportion of people who have jobs and responsibility for the care of the elderly is increasing, and will continue to increase.
  Thirdly, employment trends are changing. The increasing participation of women in the work force, because of the growth in part-time working, and the demand from firms for more flexible rostering, mean that more women are now in work and also caring for people at home. Over the past 10 years, part-time jobs have risen from 24 to 29 per cent. as a proportion of the total number of jobs in the economy.
  In areas such as the one in South Yorkshire that I represent, that change has been even more rapid and more brutal. In Rotherham, between 1981 and 1991, we lost 12,000 coal and steel jobs. We gained 9,000 jobs in the service sector during that time, but they were mainly low paid and part-time, and were mostly taken by women.
  For employees—both male and female—those changes mean that, in future, the lives of a larger proportion of the work force will be affected in some way by their caring responsibilities. For employers, the changes mean that more of their staff will want access to more flexible working arrangements—with paid and unpaid leave. Fewer of their staff will be willing, or able, regularly to work long hours. The capacity of their employees to cope with the demands of their job and their home responsibilities may be affected, leading to increased sickness, ill health and lower productivity.
  There are two main aspects to the challenge to frame the right public policy response to those changes. The first is the regulation of the labour market and the second is the operation of the labour market. The challenge in regulating the labour market must be for legislation and policy to foster a new balance between flexibility for employers and security for employees in the workplace. There must be a balance between prescription of legal minimum standards and scope for implementation that suits the employer and the employees. The modern pressures on business mean that firms need adaptable employees and flexible working, while the modern pressures on family life and on income mean that parents need security in their employment.
  The Standing Committee on the Employment Relations Bill received a briefing from the CBI that was broadly supportive of the parts of the Bill—now an Act—that dealt with family friendly policies. Recently, as a follow-up comment on that section of the Act, which is due to take effect on 15 December, the CBI concluded that
  "we support the approach which the Government has adopted. We believe the proposals strike a reasonable balance between individual rights and business realities."
  The British Chambers of Commerce have urged the Government to issue clearer guidance on how far voluntary arrangements for parental leave can differ from the statutory model. The BCC noted that
  "employers and employees entitled to parental leave may find it more practical to make arrangements for working part time over a period of time for their parental leave, rather than taking full time leave."
  The TUC advanced the same argument and proposed that there should be no cut-off for eligibility for parental leave, that there should be some form of paid parental leave, and that the age limit for parents looking after disabled

  631
  children should be raised. Those are the sort of judgments the Government must make when preparing the regulations, not only on paternity leave, but on the extension of maternity leave and on time off for domestic emergencies. The challenge lies in striking the balance between flexibility and security, legal prescription and the promotion of good practice.
  A powerful publicity campaign is needed to support the introduction of the new rights. Ten days ago in my constituency, I led a seminar attended by trade union officials and a couple of dozen local employers. One employer, on the assumption that the range of family friendly employment policies mattered only to women, said that if the new rights came into force, firms would stop employing women. We heard that same argument when the equal pay legislation was introduced, when maternity rights were strengthened and when the minimum wage was introduced. The fact is that employers did not stop employing women then and they will not stop now. However, that employer's incorrect assumption underlines the importance of disseminating accurate information and running a proper promotion and publicity campaign.
  We are pushing at an opening, if not fully open, door. Companies increasingly regard family friendly provision as a business solution rather than a legal obligation. I am privileged to have served on the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which carried out an exhaustive study of part-time working, already mentioned by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.
  The Committee took evidence from Mr. Nigel Broome of Sainsbury, who told the Committee:
  "almost overnight we made many, many thousands of temporary colleagues"—
  his description—
  "permanent, and we believe we have reaped the benefit of that action."
  He was keen to tell us that Sainsbury takes a positive attitude to part-time workers, saying that they
  "need to be valued and treated in the same way … have access to the same terms and conditions, and have the benefits and training and other services we provide, because at the end of the day they will provide the competitive edge and in many cases it is the part-timers who are serving our public at the most crucial times and busiest times of the week."
  The Committee heard the same arguments from Tesco and from Norwich Union and other financial services providers that submitted evidence. The Midland bank mentioned that it described its part-time employees not as part-timers, but as key timers. Being part time and flexible need not mean being temporary, insecure and poorly paid.
  That was underlined by a report published last month by the Department for Education and Employment, which analysed the business case for family friendly employment policies and their practice and implementation among a number of companies. It drew five key business benefits from family friendly practices, the first of which was reduced casual sickness absence. The study reported that most employers felt that sickness absence due to employees caring responsibilities had been reduced. That was reinforced by employees interviewed as part of the study, who felt more able to be honest about absence caused by dependants illnesses.
  The second benefit was improved retention: each of the firms in the study was able to identify individuals who had stayed with them longer because of access to family
  632
  friendly provision. The third benefit was improved productivity: many of the firms were convinced that those of their employees who worked flexible hours were more productive than those who worked longer, traditional hours.
  Fourthly, the firms reported improved recruitment. They believed that offering family friendly practices attracted potential recruits that they would not otherwise have had when filling vacancies. The fifth business benefit was the improved morale and commitment of the work force. When family friendly policies benefit business, the work force and their families, there is a powerful case for Government action.
  My second point is the operation of the labour market. The challenge for legislation and public policy is to create the opportunity for people to work, to make work pay better than benefits and to help people take that step into work. For two reasons, I strongly endorse the Government's approach of introducing measures that encourage not only the unemployed but the economically inactive into work.
  The first reason is the legacy of the Tory years. The jobs legacy that we inherited from the previous Government was a huge underemployment problem, flattered by the unemployment figures. At the time of the 1997 election, economic inactivity was at a record high—7.5 million people of working age were not working or looking for work. When the economy expands, economic inactivity usually falls. However, in 1997, male economic inactivity was 10 per cent. higher than in the trough of the previous recession in 1993. Four in every five of nearly 1 million lone parents wanted to work, or wanted to work more.
  The second reason is that, by getting more unemployed people into work and by bringing more economically inactive people into contact with the labour market, we contribute to reducing the non-inflationary rate of unemployment in the economy. That is part of the current picture of improving growth, stable low inflation, rising employment and falling unemployment. Family friendly employment policies are central to persuading economically inactive people that work is worth seeking and in their interests. Such policies are crucial to making the labour market more effective.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, I was involved in a study of the new deal for lone parents. The impact of the new deal on Rotherham in my area is impressive. In the past six months, 221 lone parents attended an interview: 86 per cent. have kept in contact with their new deal adviser, and 70 are now in work. One in three of those lone parents are now working in a labour market in which unemployment rates are twice the national average and problems of deep-seated, long-term unemployment are as bad as anywhere in the country.
  While performance is encouraging, the testimony of some lone parents is truly inspiring. Laura lives near me in Rotherham. She applied for a job at a local hospital but had not thought about the financial impact and had made no provision or inquiries about child care. She was becoming despondent after trying to contact various agencies to solve the problem. She sat down with a new deal adviser for lone parents, who explained her job of collating all the information and helping Laura to make an in-work benefit calculation. Laura was unimpressed with the results based on family credit.

  633
  However, as the beginning of October was approaching, the new deal adviser suggested that they make an in-work benefit calculation based on the working families tax credit. The adviser confirmed that 70 per cent. of Laura's child care costs would be paid and her maintenance would be disregarded. The calculation revealed that, if Laura claimed the working families tax credit, she would benefit by an additional £65.52 a week compared with her existing circumstances on income support. By working for 16 hours a week, Laura could make herself and her family better off by £137 a week. That demonstrates the impact of the working families tax credit.
  Ms Harman: I was interested in, and encouraged by, that example. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not only a financial benefit to that family because of the extra income that they will receive, but a solution to the problem, which many hon. Members are concerned about, of children being brought up in workless households where they see only a pattern of benefit dependency? Children learn about the world of work by seeing their parents going out to work. Is not that one of the important benefits of the new deal for lone parents and the working families tax credit?
  Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friend reminds me that another aspect of the jobs legacy that we inherited from the Tories in May 1997 was that one in five households containing someone of working age had no one in work. In areas such as my constituency that was a deep-seated problem, and the new deal, which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West criticised, has played an important part in breaking the cycle of generational unemployment. In Rotherham, 45 per cent. of those eligible for the new deal had never worked but, since the new deal was introduced, more than 1,000 have found work. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that many would not have found those jobs without the new deal.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: At a recent jobs fair in my town hall, the Employment Service staff who are responsible for implementing the new deal for single parents said that it was the most ecstatic job experience that they had ever had because they were delivering a product that they believed in and that people wanted. They could not cope with the demand, such was the interest from women and single parents who had heard, by word of mouth, that the new deal could give them what they wanted—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot make a second speech. That was a very long intervention. I remind her also that she should face the Chair when she makes her remarks.
  Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend made a point that all Labour Members will recognise. In my discussions with new deal advisers, they often tell me that they are now doing the job that they wanted to do when they first entered the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency or, in the case of advisers to lone parents, the Child Support Agency. That has been a liberation for them. The advice and detailed personal support that they are able to give to their clients, backed by the range of family friendly
  634
  support and employment rights that are now in place, mean that they are now able to help people in a way that they felt they could not before.
  The working families tax credit has pride of place in the panoply of family friendly employment measures taken by the Government in the past two years. By 2001, 1.4 million working families will be receiving the working families tax credit—500,000 more than would have been receiving family credit. After just over a month of operation, 600,000 calls have been taken by the working families tax credit advice line and more than 160,000 people have been identified as eligible and sent claim forms. The working families tax credit will transform work opportunities for parents and increase the levels of family income and quality of life for almost 3 million children.
  The national minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the new deal and the new employment rights in the Employment Relations Act 1999 are the fulfilment of manifesto commitments. If one also accepts that our family friendly policies are the right response to help people achieve a better balance between work and home life, to certain competitive pressures on business, to structural changes in patterns of employment and to our pursuit of full employment, logic insists that, as broad social and economic changes continue, our family friendly employment policies must also develop.
  Like so many in the House and outside, I warmly welcome the steps that have already been taken. I shall watch their impact with interest and join in arguments over how to build on the base that we have established.
  12.25 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall make a short speech, because I have only one point to make.
  This week, an obituary of Lord Jakobovits, the former Chief Rabbi, was published. He was a towering figure. Towards the end of his life, his greatest pleasure was the fact that one wall of his house was covered with pictures of his 38 grandchildren. He gave some marvellous speeches during his time in the other place. If he were here, I am sure that he would say that much of what we have been discussing this morning can be no more than a palliative. Families and the nation are best supported by following the Judaeo-Christian tradition that he regularly defended robustly, diligently and skilfully.
  I am not going to climb on my soapbox and rant about that today, because everybody knows my views. Regardless of whether I like it, we have to accept that society has changed. Not all people get married and stay married with a sense of lifelong commitment. Not all young mothers want to stay at home and bring up their children. Divorces, the break-up of marriages and the desire of mothers to work are all increasing. Hon. Members may be surprised to hear me say that we have to accept that state of affairs when we frame our policies. I do not want to take those trends lying down. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), we can influence social trends. For example, we do not strengthen families by making divorce easier. However, we have to accept society as it is.
  Last week, the Social Security Select Committee visited Finland and Norway. This time last week, I was with my colleagues at a day centre in Finland. In Finland, every

  635
  mother can place her child, from the age of one, in a full-time nursery. If she does not wish to do that, she is entitled to a generous grant from the state for looking after her child at home.
  I was impressed by what I found out in Norway and Finland. In Norway last year, there were just 19 teenage pregnancies. In Finland—I cannot believe this figure, but we were told it—there were no teenage pregnancies. We have to recognise that, in this country, we are not managing matters very well. There may be other reasons why there are no teenage pregnancies in Finland, but I suspect that the fact that families there are fully supported by the state is an important factor.
  I know that there are serious implications for public spending in such policies and I am not recommending that we immediately copy the Nordic model. However, we have to recognise one point—and this is the only point that I want to make. In the society that we are moving towards, whether we like it or not, in which there is an increasing trend for young mothers to work, we have to encourage fathers to take equal responsibility for their children below the age of five. That is why—surprisingly in the view of some—I was happy to put my name to the report published by the Social Security Select Committee. It suggested not only that parental leave should become a fact of life—it will be a fact of life—but that it should be paid; and that, given that small employers simply cannot take up the burden, the state must take it up.
  That comment may sound surprising, coming from someone who has a bit of a reputation as a Thatcherite, but I am simply trying to address society as I find it. In this country—as the Minister said, in a speech that was at times excellent—fathers work longer, and spend less time with their children, than those in any other country in Europe. We have more teenage pregnancies, more family breakdown and more stress on families than any other country in Europe has. We must address that. If we do not, we are building up enormous problems, and huge social costs, for our society. Therefore I was happy to put my name to the Select Committee report.
  When I was in Finland, I was very impressed when I heard that the country's Prime Minister had taken several weeks' parental leave. It is an extraordinary situation. Could hon. Members envisage it happening here, with our manic work culture? Parental leave should be taken by all sections of society. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who has just had a baby, has been made a Minister. I hope that her husband, Ed Balls, will take parental leave from the Treasury. He may be the chief economic adviser and a very important man, but if the Prime Minister of Finland can take parental leave, Ed Balls can take time off to look after his children. The economy might run slightly better if he did.
  I agree that the changes recommended in the report will involve dramatic changes in the way that we structure society. I know that the focus has been largely on people who live in poverty or near poverty—we have heard about the working families tax credit—but many of the problems extend right up the income scale. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) quoted a study that had been done on 1,500 men working in the financial sector; only 42 had taken any parental leave. Throughout society—right up the income scale—men are not seeing enough of their children.
  636
  When I knew that I wanted to speak in the debate, I took the trouble to consult a person who was working in the retail sector, doing a very ordinary job on the shop floor. Enormous pressures are placed on people in the retail sector. Contrary to all the undertakings that we were given during the debates on Sunday trading—I voted against the liberalisation of Sunday trading because I saw that it would happen—the person to whom I spoke said, "You can only get a job if you agree to work on Sundays". He has now been told that he must work on Sundays and on every bank holiday throughout the Christmas period. He must work on new year's eve, right up to 5 pm. As it happens, he is a young man and has no children, but if he had, when would he see his children? He has to work from 9 pm to 7 pm every day. That is what is happening in the retail sector.
  I do not have the solution, but I do know that, unless we have the courage to understand society as it is, and to create a firm principle of society that fathers have as much of a duty as mothers to look after their children, we shall never make a better society.
  12.33 pm
  Ms Oona King: I am honoured to follow such a commendable speech by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I welcome the honesty of the speeches that have been made from both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman said that we must view the matter in terms of what is happening in the real world. Regardless of whether we like change, it has happened.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) and I were both 29 when we were elected to the House, and we can tell hon. Members, in case they had not noticed, that life for our generation has changed beyond recognition. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is not so much beyond our age group—
  Mr. Brady: I was also 29 when I was elected, but I have not aged as well as the hon. Lady.
  Ms King: I apologise for having mistaken you for middle-aged. You evidently have the aura of an elder statesman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady must remember to use the correct parliamentary language.
  Ms King: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  This debate is about time and money. It is about people having enough time to bring up their children and care for their relatives, and enough money to prevent their development or care being stunted by poverty.
  I congratulate the Government on the steps that have been taken so far. The difference in the attitude between this Government and the previous Administration—although not necessarily current Front-Bench spokespersons—is the difference between night and day. However, as other speakers have pointed out, we must continue to move on and move further.
  The Nordic model has been mentioned. In five or 10 years, and I hope sooner, that will be the norm in Britain. Eventually, in any civilised society, a woman will

  637
  have the right and the ability to put her child into care or some kind of provision from the time the child is one year old.
  Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Lady make it clear that a woman should have a choice between putting her child in a full-time nursery or looking after the child at home and being paid by the state for so doing? That is an important point.
  Ms King: It is an extremely important point, and I wholeheartedly commend the concept of choice. I shall return to the subject of choice and flexibility.
  Although my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness is no longer in his place, I congratulate him on his appointment and look forward to the contribution that he will make, given his experience in the trade union movement.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for her campaigning efforts to raise awareness of the problems faced by many parents in maintaining the balance between work and parenting commitments. I am particularly indebted to her for the research that she commissioned from the Centre for Longitudinal Studies and the policy proposals that have arisen from it.
  In their employment policies, the Government have recognised that families are changing. In the vocabulary of the modern business lexicon, we would say that families are more flexible. Too often, as we have heard, marriage or any type of stable partnership is no longer for life. Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, I want to put it on record that I, like most of our generation, believe in a stable partnership and do not care whether that is in the institutionalised framework of marriage.
  Our generation should not be penalised for not choosing the establishment route of marriage. The most important aim is to ensure that the children are not penalised. That can be achieved only by encouraging couples—not necessarily married couples—to stay together in stable relationships.
  The good news is that children can be, and often are, nurtured in all types of families. It is the role of the state not to dictate the shape of those families, but to stop employers discriminating against families and parents. All too often, that has been translated into straightforward discrimination against women. However, men now recognise that they are losing out as much as women have done. They are being deprived of their rights as fathers.
  I would like employers to recognise the benefits of embracing social change rather than retreating from it. That will be difficult because of the current "hire 'em and fire 'em" mentality that pervades many businesses, but, with the political leadership that the Government have shown, it should not be impossible. Half the battle has been won. Employers recognise that the most important investment is investment in human capital. Family friendly policies are part of that investment. Only the most churlish employer—or, perhaps, Opposition spokesperson—could fail to welcome the measures that the Government have already introduced to make the workplace more family friendly. From the look of
  638
  consternation on the faces of Opposition Front Benchers, perhaps they welcome those measures. Among them are the introduction of a 13-week period of parental leave, which is a vital step in enabling parents to take time off in the first five years of their child's life without worrying about losing their jobs.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, particularly as she drew attention to the expression on my face. If the Government believe that parental leave is the right policy, why have they not made it paid leave? As we have discussed, unpaid leave makes it a policy for the few, not the many. I hope that she will use her influence, because it is obviously much greater than mine, to persuade Ministers to do what they think is right and to be prepared to pay for that themselves, rather than expect other people to pick up the tab on their behalf.
  Ms King: Is the hon. Lady supporting paid parental leave?
  Mrs. Browning: We made our views on that very clear when the legislation went through Parliament, but the Government have created an unfair policy. She will know that, because she will be receiving the same post as I am from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others. It is not for the Opposition to clear up the mess of an ill-thought-through Government policy; it is up to them, as the legislators and the Executive in the House, to put fair and just policies on the statute book. That is their responsibility, but they have clearly failed to satisfy the hon. Lady and her friends that their policy is fair or just.
  Ms King: The policy that the Government have put on the statute book represents the first step taken by this country, or by any Government, to make family friendly policies pay at work and I welcome that, although I hope that they go further. I echo the comments of other Members who made that point, but it is impossible to deny the astonishing achievements that have been made so far.
  Mr. Pond: Taking account of the comments made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), is my hon. Friend aware that the Confederation of British Industry has described the introduction of parental leave as a seismic shift in favour of family friendly employment policies? Is there not some difference between what it believes to be important and what the hon. Lady appears to believe?
  Ms King: I was not aware of that, but it has been drawn to my attention that the CBI is eminently sensible and reasonable in its approach to many policies. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers might adopt such an approach at some point.
  Let me return to the steps that the Government have taken. People can have time off for family emergencies, the working time directive has been implemented, the statutory right to four weeks' annual paid leave has been extended and the national child care strategy, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, provides 1 million places. All those measures not only shore up the position of parents,

  639
  but encourage those parents outside the labour market to seek work safe in the knowledge that their children will not suffer as a result.
  The working families tax credit and the forthcoming child care tax credit will play a vital role in encouraging parents back to the workplace. Those are all ways of ensuring that the workplace is not hostile to people with young families. However, we must go past the point of neutralising hostility and actually achieve a welcoming environment. That will require a renewed commitment from the Government and a sea change in attitudes among many employers.
  The research that I mentioned earlier, commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, revealed two interesting points. Clearly, every child is different and has different needs, but the research showed that the prospects for a child's development may be improved if the mother has the choice of staying at home during the first year. I wish that I had that choice. Of course, if I were to have a child, I would not be able to stay at home for my child's first year. If we worry about future generations, we should give British mothers that choice.
  The research also showed that a child's development may be improved further, or at least not harmed, if the mother then goes out to work when her child is a year old. I urge the Government to consider the conclusions of the research so that it informs future Government policy.
  I have no hesitation in echoing the appeal made by my right hon. Friend first, to extend the right to return to work from six to 12 months and, secondly, to extend maternity pay so that low-paid mothers benefit. It simply is not fair if only middle-class parents benefit from changes.
  Looking to the future, I hope that mothers will be given the right to work part time after maternity leave. That suggestion was made by the Select Committee on Education and Employment and was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey). Mothers should be able to return to work part time, unless their employer can show that that would cause the business considerable harm.
  I also support paid parental leave. I believe that, in five or 10 years' time, it will be the norm in any civilised society. The case for paid parental leave was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly), for Rochdale and for Wentworth, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), among others. I congratulate the Social Security Committee on its report on that subject and urge the Government to consider their response to it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West pointed out that paid parental leave at a flat rate of £100 a week would cost the Treasury an estimated £285 million a year. I concur with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who said that he cannot imagine how that money could be better spent. We cannot afford not to spend the money in that way. Above all, it is what parents want. As the Government survey of 30,000 women showed, women do not want the Government to make choices for them; they want the Government to support them in the choices that they make.
  Mothers face enormous difficulties in trying to reconcile the work-life dichotomy. For example, one of the technical difficulties that they face is the administrative nightmare of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance.
  640
  A young mother, who recently visited my constituency surgery, is still waiting for her claim for statutory maternity pay to be paid more than two years after making it. That is not only because her former employer is being obstructive, but because of the lack of competence at the local Benefits Agency office. Opposition from employers and an inadequate administrative response from Benefits Agency offices combine to put new mothers in an intolerable position.
  I welcome with open arms the idea of replacing statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance and child care tax credits for babies in the first 12 months by something along the lines of a baby tax credit. That is a sensible idea, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that.
  We must break down not only the physical barriers to making work and parenting more compatible, but the mental attitudes in the workplace. Young women with babies often do not get the promotions that they deserve. I am delighted that the Government have shown that that is not case here by promoting my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). That was an exceptionally well-deserved promotion. She has a five-month-old baby, and is the youngest Minister in this Government. I hope that we shall put our own house in order, so that women in the home, in the House and in society at large have the rights and opportunities that they deserve.
  For that to happen, a key change is required. Time for children must become an important workplace issue. I had a conversation with—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she should address the Chair.
  Ms King: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never received guidance from anyone other than the Chair on what one should do, so I am grateful to you for that.
  I recall a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham. She told me that, 10 years ago, it was not acceptable for her to tell the Whips that she had a problem and had to see her child who needed her. I am sure that our Whips are no longer like that.
  Mr. Mike Hall: Not at all.
  Ms King: I am delighted to have that on the record. The Whip affirms that that is no longer a problem for women MPs. However, it is a problem in most workplaces. Most forward-thinking employers tell us—studies in this area confirm this—that employees who enjoy a good balance between work and family life are more productive, motivated and committed, and therefore more valuable than those who do not.
  I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who said that the work-life balance remains a pipe dream. I worked in the European Parliament with a young French women. She returned to France and I returned to Britain. She became a French civil servant and I became a British Member of Parliament. We regularly worked 80-hour weeks, and we used to say how amazing it would be if we lived in a world in which we were expected to work only 35 hours

  641
  a week. She now lives in a country whose Government have introduced a 35-hour week. I am certain that there will be many obstacles to that working effectively, but I have not yet noticed the French economy or the French Government falling apart as a result of introducing a 35-hour week. That woman is now a senior civil servant with 20 civil servants working under her, and she works a 35-hour week, but, as I have said, for those of us here, that remains a pipe dream. I hope we soon recognise that we must make more efforts in this regard if we are to have socially functioning families.
  At the beginning of the century, Labour campaigned, along with the trade unions, for the day to be divided into eight hours for work, eight hours for rest and eight hours for family and recreation. Today, a hundred years on, the eight-hour day is still as far away as an alien from outer space—for most Members of Parliament, certainly. I hope that we shall eventually evolve into a more civilised society.
  Let me return to the central point about time and money. This may seem a sweeping generalisation, but while, high-income parents have the money and low-income parents have the time, neither group enjoys the quality of life that we expect today. Indeed, many working women—many stressed-out working parents—consider that their position is worse than it would have been 50 years ago. Let us give parents choice, and work towards the creation of that more civilised society.
  12.57 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: It is a delight to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), whose speech proved that diverse families can give their children the opportunities and encouragement that will enable them to attain the highest office. She is known in the House for her enthusiasm and energy, as well as her optimism—although, in this respect, her optimism may be a little over-enthusiastic. I remind her that Henry Ford introduced a maximum working week of 48 hours in 1916, on the basis that that would increase productivity in his car plants. It has taken 85 years or more for such arrangements to be introduced in this country, under a Labour Government. I expect the pace of change to be somewhat faster from now on.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the research commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Along with many other Members, I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done over many years on family friendly policies. I can confirm that, nowadays, the Whips have a very understanding attitude to those who have family responsibilities and need to strike a balance between child care and work. I am not sure that an institution that normally begins its working day one hour before the schools close can yet describe itself as family friendly, but at least we are moving in the right direction.
  When preparing my speech, I recalled seeing, some time ago, a crowd of people jostling around a busker who was playing a violin. I thought it surprising that so many people were interested, because he was not a particularly good violinist. He was competent, but not that great. As I drew closer, I realised that the interest was prompted by the fact that he was standing on a rope stretched between
  642
  two trees. He was not a particularly good tightrope artist either. I wondered whether the crowd was there to admire his musical talents, to admire his abilities as a tightrope artist, or to see whether he fell off.
  Many working parents find themselves in a similar position to that busker. They desperately want to be the best parents that they can be, just as he probably wanted to be the best violinist that he could be. They desperately want to do the best that they can for their children, but, at the same time, to achieve whatever they can at work—to build a career, to use their energies and abilities and to ensure that they can use their contributions at work to build the best possible standard of living for their families and children. Most of all, they desperately do not want to fall off the tightrope.
  The job of Government and of society generally is to ensure that we support families with children, who are trying to balance work responsibilities with family responsibilities and who find it difficult to achieve that balance. As a society or Government, we should not metaphorically applaud when they fall off the tightrope, but try to ensure that the safety net is there.
  As I have said, I am not sure that the House is presenting itself yet as a family-friendly working institution, but it is important that we send the message to the country as a whole that we understand the pressures under which families find themselves—financial and emotional—in trying to square the circle between family life and work. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, the issue becomes all the more important given the Government's determination to do everything that they can to encourage people to enter the world of work and to give them the opportunity to do so and the support that they need to achieve that.
  Several Conservative Members have commented on the welfare to work strategy. It is worth putting it on the record that 500,000 more people are in employment now—that is the increase in the number of jobs created since the Government took office. Long-term unemployment has reduced by 50 per cent. over a relatively short time. Youth unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. over the same period.
  We heard some remarks that might be considered to be rather sneering—I am not sure whether that term is unparliamentary—about the new deal and its effects on young people. There was even a quote from the Greater Manchester low pay unit to suggest that it was sceptical about the effect of the new deal.
  As the chair and a trustee of the national Low Pay Unit—the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is also a trustee—I can confirm that that organisation certainly does not sneer at the new deal. It applauds the fact that the new deal is giving real opportunities to young people, people with disabilities and older unemployed people, and that it is intended to ensure that people make the best use of their abilities and can fulfil their aspirations. The Greater Manchester low pay unit is not part of that national organisation. It is a local organisation that has its own policies and I cannot speak for it.
  In trying to balance work and family, the difficulty for many parents was that the only jobs that they could feasibly take were part time. Often, those jobs were insecure or poorly paid, but were the only ones that could be taken by someone who had family responsibilities.

  643
  Inevitably, they faced the difficult, almost heart-breaking, trade-off between wanting to do whatever they could to ensure that they built a decent income and standard of living for their children, and giving their children enough of the care and attention that they needed to fulfil their aspirations.
  According to the CBI, we still have a situation, before the new legislation is in force, where some form of parental leave provision is available only to 28 per cent. of employees. The fact that regulations have been laid in Parliament this week giving parents, for the first time, the statutory right to parental leave of up to 13 weeks for the first five years of a child's life is especially welcome. I also welcome the fact that the Government have taken on board the representations that have been made on behalf of parents of children with disabilities. It will be possible for those parents to claim their right to parental leave for a longer period of the child's life.
  Although such measures are welcome to most people in the country and in this House, we have heard a rather puzzling presentation from the Conservative party. I hope that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) will tell us exactly what the Conservative position is. I am puzzled, because only a few days ago on the BBC Radio 4 programme "Westminster Hour", I heard the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, telling listeners:
  "There are other areas which the European Union is getting into, social legislation such as the length of time perhaps you might give for paternity leave, and we believe it's right that individual countries should be free to opt out of those measures if they want".
  Yet the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has said that her main concern is that such parental leave will not be paid. I am pleased to see that she is about to intervene; it would be terribly helpful if she can tell us whether her party's policy has changed since Sunday and is now in support of paid parental leave.
  Mrs. Browning: I have made this point on three occasions this morning, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed all three. We have raised the question of paid parental leave because all Members of Parliament, including Conservative Members, are being lobbied by the NSPCC and other bodies to encourage us to tell the relevant Ministers that the Government's policy on parental leave is seriously flawed. The Government's policy is unjust; it is for the few and not the many, and the only people who can take advantage of it are the well-off, not those on lower incomes.
  Labour Members must not believe that they can duck their responsibility, as members of the party in office. They cannot seek remedies to a badly thought-through, unfair, unjust policy by throwing the responsibility back on to the Conservative party. Conservative policies for the next election will decided by our Front-Bench team and made public when we are ready. That is exactly what the Labour party did when it was in opposition. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will commend that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an extremely long intervention.
  Mr. Pond: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may rule me out of order for referring to an issue such as
  644
  horticulture in this context, but there is a phrase about what to do when in a hole—stop digging. Those listening to this debate who also listened to the hon. Member for South Suffolk on Sunday will now be very puzzled, but there are those who understand, as I do, that the Conservative party is opposed to the principle of parental leave. A million parents will be putting a note behind the clock to remind themselves that, should there ever be another Conservative Government, they would lose the right to parental leave, paid or unpaid.
  Mrs. Browning: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not deliberately mean to mislead the House about the Conservative party's views. I have made our policies quite clear—we will come forward at the right time. It is misleading for him to say that we have made a policy statement on the matter. We have not. What people will be putting behind the clock is a little note to remind themselves that they cannot take advantage of his Government's policies—they are not well off enough to do so.
  Mr. Pond: Several hon. Members shook their heads when the hon. Lady said that she had made the policy clear. It is not clear to those present, and I am sure that it is not clear to those listening to our deliberations. I am afraid that confusion rules.
  Ms Harman: May I help my hon. Friend in seeking to clarify the situation? I take it that he is asking whether the Opposition favour what we are doing now and whether they think that leave should be paid now. They may be justified in not saying what will be in their next manifesto, but are we not entitled to know now whether they agree that parental leave should be introduced as a legal right and whether it should be paid? He has not yet managed to elicit that information.
  Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for clarifying the position. Until we get some clarification from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I think that the position is that some of the Opposition agree with the policy and some do not. As with so many areas of Opposition policy, they are not quite sure whether they agree but it is worth scoring a few political points if they can.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Can my hon. Friend help clarify a puzzling conundrum? One of the problems of poverty pay is being able to access unpaid leave, but the Opposition do not support the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit or any of our policies to stop poverty pay.
  Mr. Pond: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I shall develop a little. This is not the only family friendly policy on which the Opposition are confused. Some 1,800 of my constituents would like to know whether their policy is to withdraw from them the working families tax credit and the additional child care provision that goes with it. That would mean an average tax rise of £24 a week for every one of those working families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) said, some people would lose even more as a result of the Opposition's opposition to the credit, if they ever got the chance to scrap it. Some families would lose more than £100 a week. I see that the hon. Member

  645
  for Tiverton and Honiton is anxious to set the record straight. We may hear this time exactly what the Opposition's current policy is. Will they keep the working families tax credit or scrap it?
  Mrs. Browning: I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman. Unflattering as it is, his constituents, like mine, do want to know not what the Conservative policy is but what the Government's policy is. I refer him to the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has said:
  "It's not a case of if the Government will pay for parental leave but when."
  That is what our constituents and the NSPCC want to know. When will the Government decide whether they will support the policy with some money?
  Mr. Pond: We still do not know exactly what the hon. Lady's position is. People know exactly what the Government's position is on all those issues. We have stated it clearly on parental leave. My hon. Friend the Minister stated clearly the Government's commitment to family friendly policies and explained the ways in which they are being implemented. Several Labour Members listed them for the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. Our constituents know that the Government are committed to the working families tax credit because we have just introduced it. It will make a significant difference to the income of low-paid working families doing their best to balance their income needs with the time available.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) got himself into a bit of a muddle when he mentioned some recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures on tax burdens. I am glad that he has re-entered the Chamber. Pagers are a wonderful means of getting hon. Members back to respond.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman has only just walked back in. If he pauses for a few more moments, he will hear my point and then I will be happy to take an intervention.
  The hon. Gentleman was in a bit of a muddle because he used figures that are somewhat outdated and that refer to calendar rather than to financial years. Much of the increase in the so-called tax burden that he thinks that he has identified applied to the period when the previous Government were in office. Perhaps he would like to tell people why, under his Government, who promised that they would cut taxes, there was a significant increase in the tax burden. As a result of their mismanagement of the economy, the Conservative Government left us to deal with a major public debt problem. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give the House a justification for that, I shall willingly give way to him.
  Mr. Brady: First, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I was not paged to return the Chamber; I finished my cup of tea and came back to rejoin the debate.
  It is odd that the hon. Gentleman tries to discount all the findings of the OECD, on the basis that it uses calendar rather than financial years. Nearly three years
  646
  into the Labour Government, our tax burden is higher than Germany's for the first time in a generation, and it is the fastest rising in Europe. He cannot get away from that fact.
  Mr. Pond: That must be game, set and match.
  The OECD is an extremely efficient organisation. The Government give it great support. However, it is not so efficient that it can provide figures on tax burdens up to the latest 20 minutes. The hon. Gentleman refers to the figures for 1997, when the Conservative Government, whom he supported, were responsible for those matters, and those for part of 1998.
  Mr. Brady: If the hon. Gentleman wants further corroboration, I suggest that he looks at his Government's Red Book, where it is patently clear that the tax burden has increased, is increasing and will continue to increase under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Pond: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting ways in which we might cut back on some of the expenditure to which we have committed ourselves—on the health service, on education, on child care, on pensioners and on people with disabilities—perhaps he would tell the House which of those categories he would choose.
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Does my hon. Friend agree with this morning's reports that the OECD figures include the year in which the Labour Government levied the windfall tax to pay for the new deal? Does he agree that the figures run from January to January, and that we were dealing with the debts left by the previous Government? There was a blip, but there was no increasing trend in taxation—taxation is still on a downward spiral.
  Mr. Pond: That is precisely the point; I thank my hon. Friend for making it so clearly. The Labour Government have an enviable record—as the public understand—on their management of the public finances. That cannot be said for the previous Government—who are represented by Members on the Opposition Benches.
  As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has finished his cup of tea and returned to the Chamber, will he tell us whether, while he makes accusations about increases in the tax burden—we know that they are mythical and that the increase is largely attributable to the Governments whom he supported—he also supports the increases in taxation on low-income working families that would result from the abolition of the working families tax credit? Alternatively, as a member of the Employment Sub-Committee, does he support the working families tax credit?
  Mr. Brady: The taxes that the Government impose are being levied on low-paid as well as high-paid workers. The costs of running a car or of buying a house hit people with low incomes as well as those with middle and higher incomes. He cannot get away from the fact the Government are increasing taxes—they are hurting everybody.
  Mr. Pond: That does not answer my question. My constituents and, no doubt, those of the hon. Gentleman

  647
  will take the message that he would support the abolition of the working families tax credit, if he had the opportunity to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman repeated the question of whether the Government should support family structures through taxation. It is clear from the measures implemented by the Government, especially the working families tax credit, that we are doing precisely that. However, like previous Conservative Governments, we do not support a tax allowance for married couples that does not focus on the needs of families with children, because that is not the way to assist such families. The resources saved by phasing out the married couples tax allowance—a process which began under the Conservatives—have been concentrated by the Labour Government on the biggest-ever increase in child benefit and the working families tax credit, two measures that will help families to strike the balance between work and family needs.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Am I correct in believing that unmarried couples could be eligible for the married couples tax allowance, and that, depending on when they were divorced, some people received the allowance twice? Therefore, was not the allowance totally anomalous?
  Mr. Pond: That is indeed the reason the allowance was such an ineffective mechanism for helping families, especially those with children. It was especially ineffective in helping low income families. The notion entertained by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that the patter of tiny tax allowances is the way to ensure happiness in families is somewhat awry.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has said that the Social Security Committee has this week published its report on the social security implications of parental leave. During that investigation, the Committee received some powerful evidence. The evidence submitted by the business sector does not support the arguments deployed by Conservative Members that the introduction of parental leave and family friendly employment policies generally will inhibit business activity and efficiency.
  We have already heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth speak of the CBI's support for the policy. The CBI representative told the Select Committee that:
  "We welcome the introduction of the Parental Leave Directive. We welcome the intention behind it which is to ensure that there is a better balance created between the legitimate needs of employees to spend time with their young children and the needs of businesses to be able to run themselves in an efficient way."
  He told the Committee that the CBI would be
  "taking initiatives throughout the autumn and winter this year to try and persuade our members to make sure they have got proper policies in place to ensure that the family-friendly leave rights get off to a good start."
  That is a resounding welcome for the Labour Government's policies, which the Conservatives suggest are unfriendly to business.
  The evidence submitted to the Committee by, I believe, the representative of Federation of Small Businesses was that:
  "there are some obvious benefits to employers as well as some obvious costs. The benefits, as have already been discussed, relate to reductions in turnover of staff and to reductions in staff absenteeism. I would particularly point to the time off for domestic emergencies or family emergencies right … I think that is the one that will lead to the key reductions in absenteeism."
  648
  He added that there would inevitably be costs to businesses in dealing with employees being away for a period of time, but said:
  "I think businesses accept that cost and they recognise that it can be balanced by the potential benefits."
  The evidence from another business organisation, the Institute of Directors was, therefore, rather puzzling. It told us that 76 per cent. of its members were opposed to the introduction of parental leave and that half of its members would adjust their employment policies to take account of the introduction of parental leave. Every time that there has been some improvement in social conditions through legislation—the introduction of maternity pay or of equal pay—organisations such as the Institute of Directors have said that it would be the end of civilisation as we know it and that it would cause considerable unemployment.
  We are not unused to the fact that the Institute of Directors—which was so loved by the previous Government—is often out of line with other business organisations, such as the CBI. Nevertheless, the Select Committee was concerned to discover the basis of the rather powerful statement that three quarters of IOD members opposed the introduction of parental leave and family friendly employment policies. We asked an institute representative about the evidence on which that statement was based. It turned out that the institute had sent questionnaires to every one of its 50,000 members, of whom 2,500 had responded. That amounts to a non-response rate of 95 per cent. When Committee members suggested that that was a little disappointing, even for a postal survey, the Institute of Directors representative said that she considered it to be an "excellent" response rate.
  Hon. Members should recognise that, while 3.5 per cent. of IOD members oppose the introduction of parental leave and family friendly policies, the remainder either support those policies or did not think that the matter was sufficiently important to respond. Only 2.5 per cent. of members said that they would make a negative change to their practices if such policies were introduced.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting use of statistics. I presume that he derives no comfort from opinion poll evidence that is produced in the newspapers every week and which relies on pitifully small samples of the British public. The hon. Gentleman would undoubtedly deride the findings that 99.99 per cent. of the British people think that the Government are doing a lousy job.
  Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman obviously reads a very limited range of public opinion surveys. The majority of polls that I have seen suggest that the people are happy with the Government and their policies. They are certainly happier than they were under the previous Government—or would be if the Conservatives were to form a new Government.
  If opinion survey firms wished to maintain any integrity at all, they would not publish survey results based on a 95 per cent. non-response rate. One does not have to be a statistician to understand that basic point. Unfortunately, much of previous Government policy was driven by supposed "evidence" derived from those sorts of surveys.
  We face a considerable challenge. The Prime Minister has set the Government the challenge of eliminating child poverty over two decades. No other Government ever

  649
  made a commitment of that sort—in fact, no Government were prepared to acknowledge that child poverty existed. However, this Government not only acknowledge that the problem exists but will take the measures necessary to deal with it. The policies that we are discussing today are as important in tackling the problem of child poverty as increasing child benefit and introducing the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage.
  We must ensure that social policy is employment friendly. That is why the welfare to work approach is so important. We must make sure that people are active citizens who use their energies and abilities to build a better life for them and their families. We must ensure also that employment policy is family friendly. If we achieve both parts of the equation, we will advance society and do a great favour to those families who find it difficult to strike a balance at present.
  As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, the Social Security Committee studied the implications of introducing parental leave in its current form and considered whether there was a case for introducing it on a paid basis. Hon. Members will be aware that the Government have gone some way towards introducing payment for parental leave. We have given those on low incomes real access to that right. Support will be available to low-income families to use parental leave when they already qualify for working families tax credit, housing benefit or certain other benefits and to receive income support in the process. That is very welcome and it flies in the face of the accusation of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that the Government do not take seriously the need to ensure that the right is accessible to those on low incomes. As we have heard, it is expected that about 1,000 people a year will take advantage of the right at a modest cost of £1.5 million.
  The Government have said that they will monitor the take-up of parental leave across gender and income groups to see what more needs to be done. I hope that they will consider carefully, as I know that they will, the report of the Social Security Committee to see whether there is a case for introducing a flat-rate payment—that is the preferred option of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) and is included in the report—or whether we could use the system of tax credits. That proposal has been advocated effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham and is also favoured by the Low Pay Unit. We should consider whether the latter option could extend payment, at a modest cost, to low-income families.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West also mentioned the parenting deficit and the fact that we must find a way of ensuring that families on low incomes are able to make an investment in their children. Labour and Opposition Members have made it clear that society as a whole would reap considerable benefit from a relatively modest short-term investment in ensuring that working families with children are able to take up the new rights that the Government have introduced. I welcome the introduction of those rights, and I know that the Government will consider ways in which they can be developed further to make them even more effective.
  1.32 pm
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) pointed out that the Government have set a framework to allow their positive policies to be introduced. When I was a lay official in the fire service, I tried to negotiate appropriate child care arrangements for firefighters. Much like the people in this place, they do not work in the most family friendly environment, either when they are at the sharp end on operational duty or when they are in the workplace. The nature of their job requires shift work.
  It was a particularly difficult task to try to ensure that child care resources and financial support were made available to firefighters. We were very lucky in that we worked with predominantly Labour-controlled local authorities that were very progressive and friendly, so we pioneered some of the best child care arrangements at that time for workers in the emergency services. However, we received very little support from the then Government. I shall come back to the measures that have been introduced since then.
  This Government's most important family friendly employment policy—the one that marks us out as entirely different from the previous Administration—is that which tackles unemployment. The previous Government were happy to preside over more than 3 million people on the dole, with all the implications that that had for families—grinding poverty, tension, stress, higher suicide rates, family break-ups and repossessions. We name the problems; unemployment causes them. That policy was not incidental. Many people believe that it was a positive, deliberate act by the Conservative party to ensure that we had mass unemployment and a low-skill, low-wage economy. That was their economic strategy. We are reversing that—we have introduced the new deal.
  The OECD report on the tax burden has already been mentioned. One reason for the blip in the tax take for 1997–98 was the move to self-assessment, which was always going to create an anomalous surge in the amount of tax paid. The Conservatives opposed the new deal, which has brought hundreds of thousands of jobs, predominantly to young people. That is supporting families and ensuring that people can live in dignity and relative prosperity.
  Families are supported if Britain plc is prosperous, if we have a sound economy and if people have a fair system in which to work. Society maintains its cohesiveness best if people are settled and prosperous, living with dignity in decent homes and being paid decent wages. The alternative, as we saw when we had 3 million-plus unemployed, is social division, rioting and the rise of extremists, which was shown when the British National party won elections in the east end. It is not family friendly if people do not have work and there is no employment. We are creating a prosperous Britain with decent skills and wage levels. We are clearly the one-nation party.
  The Conservatives are in a mess. They opposed our extra expenditure for the public services, including £40 billion for health and education. They called that reckless, yet they recently said that they were prepared to spend an extra £11 billion, which works out at 6p on the basic rate of income tax. We are trying to make Britain

  651
  prosperous by supporting companies and providing employment opportunities. Corporation tax is down to 30 per cent. For smaller companies it will be cut to just 10 per cent. in due course.
  There is also the Small Business Service. Most people know that small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine room for employment in the UK. We have introduced new rights in the workplace through the Employment Relations Act 1999, which will create a better, more stable, friendlier workplace, helping to reduce absenteeism and stress. If people are not stressed at work, they do not take stress home with them. That can only help to maintain a better family environment.
  Some of the Government's recent policies to support the family have already been mentioned. Halving the income tax bill for 1.8 million people by introducing a new 10p rate will clearly assist families, as will the reduction of the basic rate of income tax to 22p. The pay rise that 2 million people received through the introduction of the statutory minimum wage can only be good for families. Parents having money in their pocket that they can spend on their family will help to keep families together. It is when pressures become intolerable that stress overtakes personal relationships.
  Mr. Healey: Does my hon. Friend agree that of all the family friendly measures that have been discussed this morning, the national minimum wage affects the largest number of families and family incomes, with 2 million people benefiting from its introduction on 1 April?
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The statutory minimum wage is our blunt instrument to help families, just as unemployment was the blunt instrument the Conservatives used to drive the economy. Allied to that, the working families tax credit will ensure that families at the lower end of the earnings league table will be given a better break in due course. We are also helping families with disabled children with £37 extra a week.
  The record rise in child benefit is also a major factor in helping parents and keeping families together. The introduction of the first-ever national child care strategy is another important part of addressing the pressures on working parents. The £540 million sure start programme to co-ordinate child care, nursery education, family learning and primary health initiatives is obviously an important commitment from the Government, showing that family friendly policies are at the centre of their programme.
  Mr. Healey: Will my hon. Friend use sure start as a way of confirming that the innovation that characterises all the Government's family friendly policies is co-operation between Departments? The Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment are working closely together on sure start in ways that have never been seen before. That is a signal of the concerted effort that the Government are making to support families, especially low-income families.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. "Joined-up government" may be a cliché, but sure start is a practical example of joined-up government working, supporting the Government in their determination to encourage and introduce more family friendly policies, especially in respect of employment.
  652
  Several colleagues have spoken at length on the last two subjects that I shall mention. The first is parental leave. It has been argued that the fact that such leave is unpaid might disadvantage those at the lower end of the income scale; but its introduction is, in itself, to the Government's credit, and shows that we are moving in the right direction.
  Mr. Healey: On the introduction of parental leave, will my hon. Friend pay tribute not only to the Government, but to both sides of industry in the United Kingdom and in Europe? As a result of the social partner dialogue that helped to develop the principles and details of this measure, they deserve as much credit for the introduction of parental leave as do the Government for their readiness to bring it into UK law.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because obviously it is very much to industry's credit, and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the role played by both sides of industry.
  The Confederation of British Industry has congratulated the Government on many of their policies. That is no surprise, because the people of this country think of the Labour party as the one-nation party. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) cast doubt on whether we should believe opinion polls. I am happy to believe the opinion poll results that were reported in this morning's Daily Telegraph, which puts the Government 27 points ahead of the Opposition. We are the one-nation party, while the Conservatives are sliding inexorably further into extremist policies. The CBI supports the Government, and I am sure that the British people support us, too.
  1.43 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I have just struck out my first sentence. I was going to say how honest and good-natured the debate had been, with really good speeches on what is always, for every working parent and every person who has dependants—who may be elderly—a very difficult area: balancing their work life with their family responsibilities. Until the last speech, all the speeches had added to our understanding, as parliamentarians, of that issue.
  I warmly welcome the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, who will reply to the debate. He will be given the opportunity to reinforce his credentials—I am under no illusion about his new responsibilities. I very much look forward to his speech, not least because he has given us hope and encouragement that he will seek clarification, especially from the Treasury, on many of the points that we have raised.
  I have a strong sense of the pot calling the kettle black in this place this morning. Parliament is not an institution that sets a good example of family friendly employment policies. The fact that it is my five-year-old's birthday party this afternoon, and that he will have to make do with a bought-in "Bug's Life" cake from the local supermarket, is an illustration of the endless compromise that is the practical reality of every working parent.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady accept our good wishes for her child's fifth birthday?
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Lady. That may compensate slightly for the fact that my son cannot have

  653
  his first wish, which was to have a bonfire cake, the recipe for which I shall be glad to share with her on a separate occasion.
  I wonder whether we can legislate for the good will in the workplace that would enable employees always to meet the family responsibilities that sometimes lies heavily on their hearts. In this place, the ability to be there when it matters for one's family depends on the understanding of the Whips Office. I place on record my appreciation to our Whips Office for the times that it has assisted me when I needed to be away for family reasons. That encourages a good attitude in the relations between the Whips Office and its charges.
  Mr. Leigh: Is our Whips Office equally fair to men who want to spend time with their children?
  Mrs. Spelman: I have great pleasure in telling my hon. Friend that, under the ethos that one good turn deserves another, when I was given the opportunity to go and hear a child performing in a school play, and I made that known, I made it possible on another day for one of my male colleagues to do the same. That is an example of the way in which attitudes are changing without the need for cast-iron legislation.
  For most people, a family friendly attitude at work depends on their employers knowing their circumstances, valuing them as human beings and being prepared to be flexible because they are good and valued employees. Sometimes we do not help ourselves when we hide our real motives for wanting a concession, out of pride, machismo or embarrassment. Learning to be more honest and to ask for what is needed to sustain family life would help to change the culture.
  Will forcing such a change through legislation bring about the same result, or will it reinforce a rights-based culture in which employee and employer insist rigidly on their rights, ignoring any difficulties that that might cause the other? Insisting on our rights as working parents may upset those without children or elderly dependants, who have to fill in during our absence.
  The loss of good will may be a retrograde step. I am reminded of how unsuccessful the Child Support Agency is at forcing through a sense of family responsibility where that has failed. Most hon. Members would acknowledge that an alarmingly large percentage of their surgery cases involve the bad experiences that parents have had in dealing with the CSA when the sense of family responsibility has broken down. Insistence on new rights may lead to an increasing number of tribunal cases where what is supposed to be statutory will be in dispute.
  Opposition should be constructive, and in the debate we heard various suggestions for making the new employment policies more family friendly. Several of the ideas could be helpful, but others need refining. The focus may be too easily directed towards the tensions between child rearing and working.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was at pains to point out, we forget older members of families—who can be adversely affected by modern working practice—at our peril. Greater job mobility and the increasing number of dual-career marriages often put elderly family members
  654
  in a disadvantaged position, whereas, in the past, grandparents often lived under the same roof as their children and grandchildren. Today, more of them live alone or in residential care. We face the prospect of VAT being charged on care services, which would add another burden. I urge the Minister to do as he has promised and seek clarification because the threat of a granny tax, or whatever we might like to call it, will cause families real concern.
  Trying to regulate the informal arrangements under which a grandparent may be on hand to look after grandchildren will heap even more pressure on an inter-generational relationship that is becoming increasingly scarce. In advocating the child care role for members of the family, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), said that
  "relatives, including grandparents, can register as child minders … Clearly, there must be a business relationship".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 February 1999; c. 83.]
  I find that difficult to understand and my mother-in-law, when asked to turn our informal arrangements for helping out with my children into a business relationship, would find it an extraordinary suggestion—one, I fear, unlikely to encourage her to carry out that role for me more often.
  Naturally, much of our focus has been on the working parent. The Government have to support the institution of the family, which is clearly under strain. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned a number of indices on which our country is sadly lagging far behind many comparable developed nations—it has the highest number of family breakdowns, divorces and teenage pregnancies in western Europe. That is nothing to be proud of, but something we urgently need to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) put a strong case for the great need to buttress the institution of marriage to help to sustain family life.
  The key factors are simplicity in legislation, flexibility and fairness, but how fair will the introduction of unpaid parental leave be? The highest paid will grab the opportunity for free time because they can afford to do so, but that luxury will not be available to the less well paid. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly)—who, for reasons we perfectly understand, has had to leave the debate early—is on record, in the Social Security Committee report, as arguing that
  "if unpaid, leave is unlikely to be taken up in sufficient quantities to make a real difference to people's lives and is highly unlikely to be taken up by single parents, the low-paid or fathers."
  My concern is that the Government's proposals will create a two-tier system, which is highly undesirable, and that that will produce resentment in the workplace.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Can the hon. Lady help me? We have been exploring several points across the Chamber. From her remarks and those of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), we get the impression that they recognise the need for parental leave, although they seem to think that the system will become two tier. Therefore, they appear to be arguing for paid parental leave. That is the only logic that my hon. Friends and I are able to detect. Will she clarify whether she supports paid parental leave?
  Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Lady has already had a chance to make a speech and has intervened a number of

  655
  times in the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The point at issue is that her party is in government and introduced the legislation. Labour Members are always keen to point out to the Opposition that they have every intention of being in government for a long time. It should therefore not surprise the hon. Lady that the electorate are far more interested in what the Government intend to do with their legislation and how it will directly affect them than in speculation about what a future Government of a different persuasion might do.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Spelman: We have had lengthy exchanges on this point and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, we are actively engaged in looking at how the directive is applied in other European countries. If the Government are reconsidering the unfair aspects of unpaid leave, I invite them to look closely at those other European models, as the interpretation of the directive varies considerably among member states.
  Mr. Pond: Will the hon. Lady give way on the subject of the models in other European countries?
  Mrs. Spelman: I am not in a position to explain in detail how the policies in other European countries work because we have only just started to examine them. The variation in the way in which other member states handle the issue is huge and it would be wholly inappropriate for an Opposition spokesman, who has not yet completed examination of the application of those policies in other countries, to judge the relative merits of what is done elsewhere.
  Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way again. We understand the difficulty of Opposition spokesmen. As she said, it is likely to be some time before they are in a position to make policy changes. However, the House wants to know their current view about paid parental leave. Do they support the principle of introducing it and the argument that it should be paid? That is all that we are asking. We accept that Conservative policy may change by the next election—from what I have heard today, it seems to have changed since Sunday. We simply want to know the position here and now.
  Mrs. Spelman: If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that that is what ordinary people are most concerned about, I invite him to my surgery in Chelmsley Wood tomorrow morning, when I shall see at least two constituents who are interested in what the Government will do because they are insufficiently well paid to take leave. Much as I should like them to be more interested in what my party is doing, the fact remains that they want to know what the Government are doing on that issue.
  We have made our position perfectly clear, and I shall reiterate it: we would prefer the directive to be applied voluntarily. We are examining how other countries deal with it, and all Conservative Members will share the information about how it works in other countries.
  I wish to deal with another two-tier aspect of the Government's decision. It is highly topical and arises from a decision yesterday by the Secretary of State to limit to four weeks the amount of parental leave that can be taken in one year by those who work for a small
  656
  business. Is not that simply recognition by the Government that voluntary agreements would have been much better? In practice, it means that a mother who works for a small, local firm will be penalised because she will be able to take only four weeks in one year, whereas her equivalent who commutes to the City and works for a large corporation will be able to take the full three months leave en bloc.
  Dr. Howells: The hon. Lady makes a good point, but does she realise that, if all employers were good employers, a voluntary system would work, and those four weeks would be topped up by every firm in the country. We must have a statutory requirement because far too many employers will not enter into any arrangement, let alone a voluntary one.
  Mrs. Spelman: We have heard plenty of evidence of good practice—Labour Members have given examples of voluntary agreements that have worked. If we analysed the logic of the Minister's argument, we might both agree that, if the law makes a distinction between a small and a large business, we may be making a rod for our own backs. When the threshold is established, there will be a cluster of cases just on the wrong side of that line. People will dispute a decision that they are not eligible for a benefit that a slightly larger firm can give them.
  We welcome the simplification of maternity leave. As the Institute of Directors has been quoted in this debate, it is only fair to put on record the fact that it has supported sensible measures to help women to cope with maternity. As it says, the extension of maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks
  "has the virtue of simplifying the existing maternity regulations."
  Many businesses have found the regulations difficult to operate. We have not heard much about the cost attached to these measures. It is important to note that, according to the IOD, the additional four weeks will cost business a further £16 million. None the less, it supports the measure, and it is important to get that across.
  My concern is a purely practical one. The reduction in the qualifying period for maternity leave may not enhance the attractiveness of taking on female employees. These days, many people change their jobs every few years. In the first year of their employment, they are inevitably a burden on the organisation while they learn the ropes and serve their apprenticeship. By the second year, they contribute fully to the organisation, and are able to pull their weight. It is only in the third year that they are able to innovate and add new dimensions to the job. If a women takes maternity leave in her first year, it may make her subsequent career progression difficult. Pregnancies may happen by accident, but it is important to encourage women to plan for their maternity as a sensible part of their career progression. Insisting on full maternity rights after one year will make employers a little more wary of engaging women of child-bearing age.
  Encouraging more women to work, and to come off welfare is not necessarily a family friendly policy unless there is adequate child care provision. Many women object to that policy because of the difficulty of finding an adequate substitute for their welcoming smile at the school gate. What happens in school holidays? Taking a job at the supermarket check-out, working from nine to five 48 weeks of the year, does not sit well with school

  657
  hours. I strongly urge the Government to undertake an audit of child care provision after school and in school holidays. The logical consequence of encouraging women to work when school is not in session is that they suffer considerable stress. As mothers and employees, they try to balance those tensions.
  During the most recent school holidays, a small survey of my constituents revealed that after-school provision was entirely inadequate. Although kids clubs operated during the school term, paradoxically there was no after-school care during the holidays. It is a chicken-and-egg situation: we are encouraging parents to return to work without making sufficient provision for their children at that difficult time.
  Mr. Healey: Earlier, I mentioned a report from the Department for Education and Employment, which was published last month. It refers to term-time working, and the business practices that have made that increasingly common. The hon. Lady may wish to acquire a copy: the reference number is RR136.
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful information. Strictly speaking, education policy is outside my brief, but I will look at the document with great interest.
  The provision of after-school child care and child care during school holidays has cost implications, but they must be weighed against what happens to children who are not catered for during the holidays, and who may be out on the streets. I know from observation, and from practical experience, that working women have real difficulty in finding cover at such times.
  The working families tax credit has an aspect that is certainly not family friendly. It penalises two-parent, single-earner families, and has a built-in incentive for parents not to care for their children at home. Combined with the abolition of the married couples tax allowance, it makes full-time motherhood a distinctly less attractive option. I do not think that any mother in the House would deny that full-time motherhood is more than a full-time job.
  Mr. Pond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: I have already given way a fair amount, and we have already had an extensive debate on the working families tax credit; but, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to refute my claim that two-parent, single-earner families are disadvantaged by his Government's proposals, I should like to hear what he has to say.
  Mr. Pond: The hon. Lady said that the working families tax credit discriminated against households in which both parents were working, and went on to say that she wished to encourage one parent to stay at home. Will she clarify that? I find it rather confusing.
  Mrs. Spelman: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. Two-parent families are disadvantaged when they contain a single earner.
  Mr. Healey rose—
  Mrs. Spelman: We have had a fair number of exchanges about the working families tax credit, and I do want to hear from the Minister.
  658
  Times have changed. Many more women now work and are rising to higher levels in the workplace. That has been brought about by equal educational opportunities and more enlightened attitudes on the part of employers. It is important to see this development as part of an historical continuum. Working women well recall the time when they had to leave work when they married. In this context, attitudes should not be defined in party political terms; these are simple historical facts about the changing culture of British society.
  The business culture is also changing. In today's increasingly competitive world, it is the quality of the human resource that makes the competitive difference. The globalisation of the marketplace will produce large international companies, often with common products. The difference will be down to the quality of the team. As the skills are more highly valued, employees will make more efforts to recruit—and, most important, to retain—their employees. That will necessarily entail accommodating their need, as well-rounded human beings, to meet their family responsibilities. I doubt whether we can force the change of culture by legislation, but the fact that success will depend on a balanced life style for the work force is beginning to be expressed in the marketplace. That, like educational opportunity in the past, is much more likely to be the engine of change. For all the talk about technology, which will undoubtedly be an enabler, the key differentiator will be how well a company treats its employees.
  The changes in employment policy are classic examples of legislation driven by ideology. The Government have not thought through the practical behaviour of people and how they respond to a strict, dare I say ungenerous, interpretation of the law. In business terms, the employment policy would be defined as an input policy. It fails to define the outcomes that it is intended to achieve. My prediction is that those employment policies will end up failing families because legislation, in itself, is insufficient to change behaviour.
  2.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). It is the first time that I have sat opposite her in a debate and heard her speak. She made a couple of important points. She made a good point about inadequate child care facilities during school holidays, which is a problem that many of us have been concerned with for quite a while. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is particularly concerned about it. I am sure that the hon. Lady has read of some of the initiatives that he has started, including reading clubs at football grounds, which are aimed at young boys. Holiday provision has been a difficult problem.
  I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would disagree with the hon. Member for Meriden: of course we need a cultural change. I am reminded of the old arguments about the Race Relations Act 1976 and equal opportunities. Opponents of the measures always said that we did not really need them; there were cultural changes that people would somehow evolve into at some stage. That is true, but I take the hon. Lady back to one of the

  659
  greatest politicians who ever graced the Chamber, Winston Churchill, who said in 1909 that, if we did not have a statutory floor,
  "the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad employer is undercut by the worst."
  That is the point that we are making.
  As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) knows, I have a lot of time for her, but she showed a disappointingly crabby approach to the measures, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) described brilliantly. He said that they try to facilitate the means by which individuals can play a constructive part in employment and in the most vital task that any of us can take on: raising children and helping them to develop into balanced, fulfilled adults. The importance of that truism was made clear by hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who gave us much to think about in his short but valuable contribution.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has a proper role to play. She is there to oppose the Government and long may she do so. She raised a number of issues. We could probably debate them all day, but I am particularly concerned about her point about the new deal for lone parents. I have managed to get hold of the latest statistics.
  A total of 18,260 lone parents had found employment to the end of July 1999—an increase of 2,150, or 13 per cent. in July alone. In addition to the job outcomes, 5,200 lone parents have taken up education and training opportunities while on the new deal. As a former Minister with responsibility for lifelong learning, that is music to my ears, and I know that the people who have taken up those opportunities will feel the same. We have not had a chance to talk much about lifelong learning and education. Many people are being offered a chance that they might not otherwise have had, and the results are very good.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) advised us to monitor take-up rates for parental leave. As I said, the Government will heed that advice and take careful note of what happens as these opportunities are made available.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security—made a thoughtful and constructive contribution. At one point, he described himself as being above the rough and tumble of politics. Hearing a Liberal Democrat Member say that is a bit like hearing Jonah Lomu declare that he does not enjoy trampling over English wingers, but he keeps finding he has no choice but to do it.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Not just the English.
  Dr. Howells: I forgot that the hon. Gentleman is Scottish. In any event, he raised a number of important issues. I should like to congratulate him, on behalf of us all, on the Select Committee's report—it is terrific. It will be a great quarry for us as we construct policies in the future. I hope that everybody will take the opportunity to read it, as it is one of the best Select Committee reports to be published in a long time, on this or any subject.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the problems faced by those on difficult council estates and difficult projects in Scotland, a subject that is close to my heart. I want the
  660
  hon. Gentleman to know that the Government are co-ordinating a family friendly employment campaign to promote good working practices. A number of Departments are involved, led by the Department for Education and Employment. We are considering how to promote policies according to the different needs of employers and employees. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those needs are very different.
  The family friendly employment policies will help reduce pressure on families, especially at critical times—when a child is born, for example. I hope that the policies will strengthen family life, along with the other support that we are giving to all families.
  As for supporting marriage, the Home Office is working on what it refers to as—I hate this expression—a marriage pack. I wish that someone had given me one in December 1967. Registrars will be able to give it to all couples getting married. It will include information about marriage support services, legal rights and marriage responsibilities. Perhaps we have taken too much for granted and assumed that people somehow know all that information. It is an interesting initiative.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also drew attention to the work-home balance in the national health service. Few sectoral focuses can be more important; we need the NHS badly. There is a great deal of potential out there, and we need more nurses in the health service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health launched "Working Together". It contains three strategic aims for the NHS—to have enough staff with the right skills in the right places, to improve staff's working lives and to develop the capacity and capability to deal more successfully with issues arising at home. Last month, Health Ministers announced a major campaign called "Improving Working Lives in the NHS". I think that due consideration has been given to this issue, and I hope that we can make some progress—there is a great deal of determination to do so.
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has also had to leave. As the hon. Member for Meriden said, Fridays are difficult. My hon. Friend gave us the benefit of his knowledge on the important and interesting research being done on small and medium-sized enterprises, and the balance between home and work. He gave us a valuable personal insight into the difficulties faced by single parents—in his case, male. As someone with three children, I find the thought of caring for eight, as he has, mind-boggling.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman had several wives, though.
  Dr. Howells: However many wives, it is mind-boggling. I appreciated the helpful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney.
  The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has also had to leave. He said that he initiated the first debates on family friendly policies back in 1978, 1981 and 1982. Churlishly, I was about to say that we had not made much progress until now, but I know that he cares passionately about these issues. He made some interesting points. He often has a different way of looking at these things from most of us, to say the least. However, his views are always interesting.
  The hon. Gentleman advocated the award of a lump sum to parents as a recognition that we have a new citizen among us when a child is born. He talked about £500 to

  661
  £1,000 being the right sum for the new citizen, but I was not sure whether he was saying that that should pay for time off to look after the new baby. Perhaps he could let us know later. He talked of the need for Parliament to view these matters with a life cycle perspective. He argued that we should not break up people's lives into segments that are convenient for us, but try to see them overall. He warned the Government not to be mean when money is needed most. I can remember us telling the previous Government that on I do not know how many occasions, but it is a good point. When we look back on our lives, there are times when we could have done with some extra money. Not all of us are fortunate enough to have had the salary of MPs. Any Government should examine that perspective carefully.
  The hon. Member for Worthing, West said that we must be careful to view such policies and initiatives in as long a perspective as we can manage. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) also stressed that perspective and reminded us that the great decisions taken in this Chamber must make sense to ordinary people in terms of how they affect their lives. She noted that that goes for our commercial enterprises as well, and that there is a hard economic cost to employers in not being family friendly. That was perhaps the most contentious issue, but I know how profligate employers in my area have been in taking on employees, male or female, making them into skilled productive workers and then sacking them for ludicrous reasons. The most shameful of them is sacking a female employee for having a child. Such employers are more profligate than the Government: someone learns a job and is moved on. It takes a long time to pick up such skills.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is doing very well.
  Dr. Howells: I do not think that I can have made much of an impact if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire can describe me as a Department for Education and Employment Minister. I must have visited his constituency in a former life.
  I fully endorse the importance of the long-term perspective. We are trying to work with the grain on this one. We have consulted, and taken advice from, the best firms, large and small, on how they have gone about best business practice. We must listen carefully as we take the initiatives forward.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale also said that we must be careful with deadlines, particularly the rules that will apply to children born or adopted on or after 15 December, in line with the directive. We are considering that point carefully. It will ensure that the demand for parental leave builds up slowly, and that employers' good will is maximised. We must be extremely careful about the matter. We want the good will of employers; we want to bring them along with us. We do not want to impose the type of regulatory burden that some hon. Members have highlighted.
  On that point, I turn to the contribution of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Incidentally, I was not sure whether there was a Sale, West—when I went to play rugby in Sale, it did not seem that big, but I suppose there must be a west and an east. The hon. Gentleman quite properly drew attention to the
  662
  possibility of additional regulatory burdens. That matter must be taken seriously, and the Government do take it seriously. I do not know what occurred under the previous Government, but a type of inquisition descends on every Department—the regulatory impact assessment. There is no legislation and no regulations that are not tested against that rigorous assessment—believe me.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) expressed the aims at the heart of family friendly employment policies. Interestingly, he reminded us that we should consider mounting a powerful publicity campaign to ensure that everybody knew about those policies. I could not agree more. I shall give that message, loud and clear, to the DTI and the DFEE. We already publish a range of booklets on employment legislation, updating and so on, but that is not enough; we must go much further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) made it crystal clear that there are no certainties in human relationships. Nothing could be truer than that—I know that from personal experience. My hon. Friend added something else. The hon. Member for Gainsborough made the same point—I said that it was a thoughtful observation—that we should be careful not to have a rose-tinted image of what life might have been like at some time in history. Hon. Members seem to be getting younger, but I dare say that some them—like me—are old enough to remember well generations of women whose talent was stunted by lack of opportunity. There was no escape; there was no key—either voluntary or statutory—and we must remember that. I certainly cannot remember a golden age. I remember a time when there were fewer divorces—perhaps that was good—but there were also more battered wives, and potential never had a chance to express itself. Let us remember that along with any rose-tinted memories that we might have.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) gave us the benefit of his great experience in these matters. He reinforced a point made by many other hon. Members in the debate: as social mores and patterns of employment change, so we, in government, have a duty to ensure that legislation is appropriate and relevant, and that it will benefit society.
  I do not want to add a sour note, but my hon. Friend highlighted the bankruptcy of the views of those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. We asked for answers—we received none. I hope that, for all our sakes, the Opposition will come up with some answers. We need an Opposition, and they are likely to get wiped out at the next election with that type of policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) properly highlighted the fact that families at the bottom of the earnings league will be helped by the national minimum wage, by the working families tax credit, by sure start and by all our other initiatives. He stressed the need—as did other hon. Members—to extend and encourage such examples of joined-up government. I make it clear to him and to all right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber that all Departments are working hard to ensure that we have a joined-up approach to this matter. We realise its importance and hope that all Members of the House—whether Tories, Liberal Democrats or anyone else—will do so too, so that we can go forward constructively together.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Essex Rivers Health Care Trust
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to draw the House's attention to the achievements of, and the threat to, the maternity services in the north Essex town of Halstead and the villages that run along the Colne river valley. That area is administered by the Essex Rivers health care trust.
  I am supported in this matter by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), who represents the area with me and whose duties as Deputy Speaker prevent him from speaking in the debate. Nevertheless, both the right hon. Gentleman and I attended and addressed a demonstration rally in Halstead, which was supported by hundreds of local people, predominantly those who have given birth to children in the local birthing unit or under the care of the local maternity service.
  I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), knows the area. I understand that her children were born in the W J Courtauld hospital, Braintree, which I also have the honour to represent.
  It is worth reflecting on the principles behind maternity care as set out in Baroness Cumberlege's 1993 report, "Changing Childbirth". The principles and criteria contained therein were accepted by the then Government and have been accepted by the current Government as setting the standard that should appertain to maternity services. The principles are that:
  "The woman must be the focus of maternity care. She should be able to feel that she is in control of what is happening to her and be able to make decisions about her care, based on her needs, having discussed matters fully with the professionals involved.
  Maternity services must be readily and easily accessible to all. They should be sensitive to the needs of the local population and based primarily in the community.
  Women should be involved in the monitoring and planning of services to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of a changing society. In addition care should be effective and resources used efficiently."
  There is serious concern about proposals emerging from the health care trust to change the method of delivering maternity services to mothers in Halstead and the neighbouring villages. Halstead is a small market town in north Essex; it is somewhat distant from the main town that serves its health needs, Colchester, and it has its own small hospital, which would once have been called a cottage hospital and which is greatly supported by local people. The Friends of Halstead Hospital has raised £52,000 to establish a birthing unit at the hospital and that is the focus of the current midwife-led maternity service.
  That service is known as the valley service, named after the Colne valley in Essex—not to be confused with the Yorkshire haunts of Victor Grayson. The service was set up three years ago to demonstrate that the principles of "Changing Childbirth" could be applied in small towns and rural areas. It has been a resounding success, but that success has, in some ways, laid a dangerous path for it.
  It might help the House if I outline the maternity services process followed in Halstead and the valley villages. When a woman believes she is pregnant, she
  664
  goes to see a local general practitioner; if the pregnancy is confirmed, the GP notifies Colchester general hospital. That hospital then sends the details of the expectant mother to the valley midwife team based at Halstead.
  Completely following "Changing Childbirth" criteria, the valley team allocate a named midwife who acts with her partner midwife so that someone is always on call. The named midwife contacts the expectant mother at her home, not at a clinic. She takes the mother's history and gives appropriate advice about maternity services and what she can expect, and carries out ante-natal checks. The expectant mother is then given the choice that every expectant mother should have of where her baby is to be born: at home, in the birthing centre at Halstead hospital or in the general hospital in Colchester. The course of ante-natal care will be directed to suit that choice.
  Ante-natal care is based on home visits, not clinic visits. The named midwife gives the expectant mother her telephone number, mobile phone number and pager number. Thus, the expectant mother can contact the named midwife or her partner any time, 24 hours a day.
  On going into labour, the expectant mother contacts her named midwife, whom she knows well by that time. The midwife goes to the expectant mother's home and makes an assessment of whether labour has progressed to the point where delivery may be expected. The purpose of the home visit and the early check is to avoid premature or false admissions to hospital. That has two advantages: it avoids unnecessary anxiety for the expectant mother and the cost of travelling sometimes long distances to the birthing unit or the hospital in a predominantly rural area.
  If labour has begun, the named midwife accompanies the expectant mother to Halstead or Colchester and is with her during birth and for the period afterwards. If the mother stays in the hospital, she passes into the care of the hospital staff; if she goes home, the named midwife goes with her and carries out the post-natal care for two or four weeks.
  I shall compare the valley scheme with the traditional scheme that operates in the other part of the health trust area in Colchester and the villages on the Colchester side of the district. The mother will go to her doctor, who will send her to the clinic at the Colchester hospital, where she will see the duty midwife. The mother is seen by the community nurse probably twice during her pregnancy. When she goes into labour, she will ring the labour ward of the hospital and be told to come in. If she goes to the hospital too soon, she will be sent home. If she is ready, she will be admitted and seen by whoever is available. The mother stays in the post-natal ward for two to three days. After she is discharged from hospital, post-natal visits are made for the same period as under the valley scheme but from a team of three or four midwives. To be fair, the same midwife would probably visit the mother after the birth, but that is not guaranteed in the same way as it is under the valley scheme.
  The local health trust have described the system as a two-tier service and claim that the service in Halstead and the valley villages is better than that in the rest of the district. The problem with the valley scheme is its initial set-up cost, which includes the provision of cars for the midwives, mobile phones and pagers. The health trust estimates the cost of applying the better scheme to the whole district as between £90,000 and £160,000, depending on the way in which the cost is calculated.

  665
  After the initial costs, it appears that the midwife-led, valley scheme is more cost effective. Figures from 1998 show that a birth under the valley scheme cost £722, while a birth under the traditional scheme cost £1,200 in Colchester and £1,700 in Harwich.
  I am told also that forceps delivery under the valley maternity scheme is half the rate of the traditional scheme and use of epidurals and pethidine is substantially lower. Some 20 per cent. of births take place at home or in the birthing unit, while the national figure for such births is nearer to 2 per cent. Locally, that figure has increased from 1 to 20 per cent. since the introduction of the valley scheme.
  The scheme is acknowledged to be an outstanding success, even by the health trust itself. That is the problem, however, because the scheme is clearly better than the traditional scheme operating elsewhere and complies much more fully with the principles of "Changing Childbirth". However, on 4 October the local health trust board decided that
  "the current two tier system was unsustainable",
  and went on to say that a new uniform service would be introduced at the end of March 2000.
  Councillor John Kotz, who is the leading health spokesman on Braintree district council, wrote to Mike Pollard, the chief executive of the health trust, about his concerns. I shall quote a relevant section from the chief executive's reply. He said:
  "As I observed, the Trust has been placed in a position of having two differing modes of service delivery—traditional and group practice. Without additional funding of between £90,000 and £160,000, depending on how costs are calculated, 'Changing Childbirth' cannot be 'rolled out'.
  The Trust therefore has a two tier service which is 'part fish and part fowl'. As the health services in North Essex are in serious financial deficit, I cannot foresee the circumstances when the 'Rolls Royce' service in the Valley can ever be extended across our entire catchment area".
  The expression "Rolls-Royce service" gives cause for concern. Valley mothers obviously take the view that they are about to be offered a Skoda in part-exchange for the Rolls-Royce. The expression "Rolls-Royce service" was used about Essex during the debate on "Taking the initiative", issued by the neighbouring health trust, when I brought these matters before the House in 1998. The trust claimed that Braintree and Maldon had a better, Rolls-Royce service than Chelmsford or Colchester. The whole point of "Changing Childbirth" is that every expectant mother should have a Rolls-Royce service. Corners should not be cut to ensure that everyone receives a uniform, but lower, standard of service.
  Mothers in Halstead and the valley villages are incensed by the plans. I mentioned a rally that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and I attended two or three weeks ago. Halstead is a very small town and the villages are even smaller. The rally was attended by hundreds of young mothers pushing prams. It was one of those autumn days when there is a deluge of rain, but I am pleased to say that, by the time that we reached the park and the petition was received, the sun had come out and feelings were much more hopeful than when we started out.
  In the debate about town and country it is said that, in many ways, country areas receive fewer services, sometimes because of their very nature and their distance
  666
  from towns. In this case, for once, a small town and small villages have a top-rate service. The mothers and children of Halstead and the valley villages would ask my hon. Friend the Minister to exert every possible influence to persuade the health trust that it has started well. It had high aspirations when it set up the scheme some three years ago. It must be congratulated on what it did then. It is a pity that, having marched us to the top of the hill, like the Duke of York, it has started to take us down again. I hope that it finds the necessary capital resources to ensure that everyone in the health district, including the constituents of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), enjoys the benefits that my constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden currently enjoy.
  2.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing a debate on maternity services. He has championed the cause for many years. He was right to say that I am very familiar with Halstead and the maternity services in his constituency. I have used them not once, but twice.
  I am particularly pleased to have an opportunity to reply to this debate because the maternity services in the national health service have been a success story. Huge advances have been made in the past few years in changing the experience of women during pregnancy and childbirth. It is now much safer to give birth, and women are more actively involved in making decisions about the maternity care that they receive. They no longer simply have to make do with what is decided for them by others.
  The overriding expectation of pregnant women, their partners, their families and those who care for them is a safe pregnancy and delivery and a healthy mother and baby. Fifty years ago, at the birth of the NHS, the maternal mortality rate was 170 per 100,000 pregnancies. A unit delivering 3,000 babies a year could expect to see five maternal deaths annually. Thankfully, that figure has been greatly reduced. A unit delivering 3,000 babies a year today might have only one maternal death every five years or so.
  There have been similar safety improvements for babies. The perinatal mortality rate, which is defined as stillbirth and death within seven days of birth, has dropped from 40 per 1,000 pregnancies in 1946 to 8.1 per 1,000 in 1998. The national health service, and particularly the maternity services, can take great pride in those figures.
  However, childbirth is about more than just safety. Maternity services exist to support the mother, her baby, her partner and her family. They are about helping women enjoy pregnancy and childbirth as a positive, life-enhancing experience. No one has a greater interest in a healthy baby and a happy outcome than the pregnant woman. Care must be planned and provided for her and, more importantly, in partnership with her.
  There has been a culture change in the national health service. The Government are determined to put the patient first. In maternity services, the ethos of putting the woman at the centre of service planning is now widely accepted.

  667
  The Government recognise the hard work, skill and commitment of all those involved in providing maternity services. There has been considerable progress in recent years in providing a more personal, woman-centred service that is tailored to meet the health needs of the local population. Maternity services have led the way in partnership working. Midwives have played a key role, working with women and other health professionals to ensure that the maternity service provided for women by the NHS is safe and satisfying.
  Since 1994, 38 development projects have been centrally funded as part of the implementation of the "Changing Childbirth" initiative. The implementation phase has ended, but the central principles enshrined in the report have become embedded in mainstream NHS maternity provision. Those principles are that care should meet the needs of the individual, should be accessible and as close to the woman's home as possible, and should be woman-focused, user-friendly and predominantly led by midwives and the women themselves.
  An Audit Commission report on maternity services was published in March 1997. It found that 90 per cent. of women surveyed were pleased or very pleased with the way that they were treated during pregnancy and childbirth. That is a very high satisfaction rate, which reflects the dedication and skill of all the professionals involved in maternity care.
  There is, of course, no room for complacency, and we have been building on the Audit Commission's recommendations in our wider initiatives to modernise the NHS to improve still further maternity services for women and their babies.
  In many respects, maternity services have led the way in the NHS. The principles of accessible, responsive, user-focused services, evidence-based care and user involvement, which were set out in "Changing Childbirth" some years ago, are all there in the White Paper, "The New NHS".
  "The New NHS" is very specific in its intention of making the health service more responsive and accountable to users. Maternity services are already leading the way with the patient-centred care that is at the heart of our plans for the national health service. Groups, such as maternity services liaison committees, which enable users to work with health professionals in developing appropriate, local services will, we hope, have a much larger part to play in future. The Department has financially supported the strengthening of maternity services liaison committees by funding a training project for user representative committee chairs. Furthermore, the Department has supported the proposal of the national perinatal epidemiology unit to set up a website for maternity services liaison committees, so that an increased interchange of information can take place.
  Another strand of our modernisation programme for the NHS is to improve the support and investment that we make in NHS staff. The recent pay increases, coupled with a new innovative recruitment campaign, provide a real demonstration that we care about the future of our nurses and midwives.
  Last year, £42.6 million was invested in nursing and midwifery training, and, by the end of this year, we shall
  668
  have spent £50.3 million. In addition, £50 million has been allocated to expand part-time nursing and midwifery training places.
  We are also attracting more people into midwifery and encouraging qualified staff back into the NHS by broadening career structures and improving the working life of staff. A £5 million nursing and midwifery recruitment campaign took place, which attracted more than 50,000 responses. A further £5 million has been allocated to support local "return to practice" initiatives. We are especially encouraged that, as a result of these campaigns, applications for midwifery courses have increased by 61 per cent. this year.
  I hope that what I have said has emphasised the Government's on-going commitment to the principles of good-quality, woman-centred maternity services. Of course things are still not perfect and, inevitably, in a climate of finite resources and competing demands, difficult decisions have to be taken. However, I firmly believe that we can build on the many examples of good practice that exist throughout the country. We will make further progress through the wider initiatives that we are taking to modernise the national health service and to improve public health.
  I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's concerns about the proposals from Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS trust, and I know that these concerns are shared by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).
  Mr. Hurst: I should have mentioned earlier that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) apologises for not being here today, but he has written to me and expressed his full support for the remarks that I was to make.
  Ms Stuart: I am grateful for that comment. I know that the MPs for the area have been united in their concerns on previous occasions. I always welcome and appreciate cross-party co-operation, and this is an example of true cross-party co-operation.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree will agree that we want to maintain high-quality maternity care not just for the women of Braintree, but throughout north Essex. We have a responsibility for all mothers in the area—the 80 per cent. who deliver in the large hospitals, which provide an excellent service, as well as those who deliver in smaller units or at home.
  Midwives working in teams are only one way of providing good quality services. Pilots such as those described by my hon. Friend are a key way of developing maternity services for the future, not a way of setting up exclusive services for the few. Pilots are a way of learning and drawing conclusions from the experience gained, which must be adjusted to local needs and applied locally.
  A further important step is local consultation, to feed in the views of everyone involved in using and providing local maternity services on the best way to spend the £3.9 million spent on the service in north-east Essex.
  My hon. Friend will agree that it is vital that plans for service development are determined democratically and

  669
  implemented sensitively and appropriately. I am aware that North East Essex community health council has previously expressed concern that North Essex health authority has not made progress in developing a strategy for maternity services.
  A north Essex strategy group has been set up to tackle some of the issues involved in achieving better quality and greater consistency in maternity services. The group is producing guidelines and protocols to determine how maternity services should work. The strategy group consists of professionals from each of the north Essex NHS trusts and the lay chairs of the three local maternity service liaison committees—MSLCs—in north Essex. The MSLCs are mixed groups of professionals and local women.
  The strategy group will not take decisions on future service delivery. Rather, it will be involved in developing protocols and standard frameworks for maternity services in north Essex. A draft strategy is expected from the group by the end of 1999 and consultation will begin in the new year.
  This inclusive approach recognises the important role of the newly formed primary care groups. The health authority will consult widely on its proposals. It is determined to ensure equality of access to high-quality care for all the women in the area. We expect the consultation to include not only the views of the local community. I expect that the health authority will examine successful maternity service provision in other parts of the country. There are many excellent examples of good practice that should be studied during the strategic planning process.
  If the community health council contests the proposals and agreement cannot be reached locally, the matter will be referred to Ministers, who will make a decision in the light of all the circumstances. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it would therefore be
  670
  inappropriate for me to express an opinion on the consultation process or the substantive issues at stake. I must and will keep an open mind.
  Mr. Hurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the health trusts concede that the Valleys scheme is the best, that should be the model for the rest of the district?
  Ms Stuart: The purpose of the consultation process is to examine maternity services, the financial position of the trusts and the services to all the other users. The right balance must be struck.
  I assure my hon. Friend that we remain fully committed to the provision of high-quality, up-to-date and responsive maternity services. We will uphold the health authority's proposals only if we are satisfied that they are in the best interests of local people.
  I know that my hon. Friend has previously expressed concern about the future provision of maternity services in north Essex. He has been successful in ensuring that discussions on future service provision in his area are driving the development of the health authority's strategy for maternity services not just for his constituency, but for the whole of north Essex.
  As a result of my hon. Friend's efforts, the lessons learned from the pilot schemes will be instrumental in developing options for consultation. That will ensure that services are developed equitably for all north Essex residents, recognising, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree, that plans for service development must be determined democratically to ensure sensitive and appropriate care of mothers, their babies and their families.
  My hon. Friend can be assured that there will be no changes to existing services in north-east Essex unless and until—
  The motion having been made at half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three o'clock.

WALES

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if there are any proposals to amend the Welsh Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000. [97785]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XIV, Vote 1 (the Welsh Office, the Wales Office and the National Assembly for Wales) the Welsh Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £124,972,000 from £7,092,517,000 to £7,217,489,000. The increase is the result of:

  i) Net transfers of £7,866,000 from other Government Departments as detailed from vi) to x);

  ii) A £14,700,000 increase in the provision for Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances;

  iii) Provision of £235,000 for the Auditor General for Wales;

  iv) An increase in provision of £4,300,000 as a result of the Dearing Review of Higher Education, and

  v) The take up of end-year flexibility entitlement of £97,871,000.

  There is also an increase in the provision for Welfare to Work of £923,000 as a result of the take up of end-year flexibility entitlement of £789,000. For further information relating to end-year flexibility see the answer given on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393. There is a further transfer of £134,000 from Class 1, Vote 3.

  The increase will be offset by transfers from:

  vi) Class II, Vote 1 (£7,487,000);

  vii) Class III, Votes 2 and 3 (£298,000);

  viii) Class VII, Vote 1 (£50,000);

  ix) Class XIII, Vote 1 (£-73,000); and

  x) Class X, Vote 1 (£104,000).

  The balance will be met by a charge on the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve for the take-up of the end-year flexibility entitlement, the increase in Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances and the Dearing moneys and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Solicitor-General what proposals there are to change the 1999–2000 Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limits for the work of the HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor. [97787]

  The Solicitor-General
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class V, Vote 6, the Departmental Expenditure Limit will 332
  increase by a net £264,000 from £7,175,000 to £7,439,000 whilst the Department's running cost limit will increase by £28,000 from £4,707,000 to £4,735,000.

  The increase in Departmental Expenditure Limit is partially due to an increase in capital expenditure (£236,000) which will be used to continue the expansion of IT systems within the Department. This will be met from end year flexibility provision as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393. A further increase in the Departmental Expenditure Limit (£28,000), which also increases the running cost limit, is due to additional costs associated with the extension of the Attorney-General's powers in referring unduly lenient sentences which fall on this vote. This will be offset by a transfer from the Home Office (Class IV, Vote 1).

  All this increase is offset by a transfer and not charged to the Reserve, it will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new enrolments there were in each of the past three years into each of the agricultural colleges; and if he will make a statement. [94441]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The new enrolments on full-time and part-time courses at DANI Colleges for the last two completed academic years and for the present academic year to mid-October were as follows:

  New full-time and part-time enrolments

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Enniskillen College of Agriculture

  180

  156

  1155

  Greenmount College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  368

  360

  1348

  Loughrey College—The Food Centre

  184

  161

  1204

  Total

  732

  677

  1707

  1 Enrolments to mid-October—further enrolments on part-time course still expected

  Many college courses are of 2, 3 and 4 years duration and the overall student enrolment would be much greater than that indicated above.

  In addition to the full-time and part-time courses, the DANI Colleges provide a wide range of short courses of between half a day and 10 days duration for people working in the agri-food industry. The overall enrolment on these courses across the three Colleges for the last three academic years was:

  Enrolments on Short Courses at DANI Colleges

  1997–98: 7,805

  1998–99: 13,031

  1999–2000: 10,559.

  Policing Review
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the directorships held by each member of the Patten Commission on the Review of Policing in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [94350]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he(a) has established and (b) published a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [94862]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In preparation for the new European Union Structural Funds Plan for Northern Ireland 2000–2006, an ex ante appraisal has established baseline data on equal opportunities for men and women. This will be published as part of the documentation for the Plan. In addition to their primary function in relation to the Structural Funds Plan, this data may also be used for future policy appraisal, including impact assessments in relation to the promotion of opportunity, as required by Section 75 and Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  CCTV (Portadown)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in installing closed circuit television cameras in Portadown town centre; and at which locations have these cameras been installed. [95353]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The Royal Ulster Constabulary have advised that, subject to the successful completion of the work, the CCTV scheme in Portadown will be in operation by January 2000. Nine sites have been identified for the installation of cameras. They are:

  1. West Street/Mandeville Street

  2. Shillington Street/Mandeville Street

  3. Woodhouse Street/Market Street

  4. Magowan Buildings Car Park

  5. William Street/Market Street

  6. Pleasure Gardens/Bridge Street

  7. Woodhouse Street

  8. Bottom of High Street

  9. Thomas Street/Market Street.

  RUC Guidelines
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidelines are issued to Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in respect of securing and sealing scenes of crime for the purposes of forensic examination where serious assaults have occurred in public places; and if he will place a copy of such guidelines in the Library. [95354]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The RUC provides guidance on the preservation and examination of scenes of crime by way of a Force Order. This is an operational police document and it would therefore be inappropriate to place a copy in the Library.

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest available crime clear-up rates, broken down by District Council area, in Northern Ireland. [95891]
  334
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: It is not possible to provide the information by District Council area but the following table shows offences recorded and cleared by the RUC as a force, by Region, Division and Sub-Division:

  Offences recorded and cleared 1998–99

  Crimes recorded

  Crimes cleared

  Clearance rate Percentage

  Table 1: Force

  76,644

  20,711

  27.0

  Table 2: Region

  Belfast

  41,495

  10,197

  24.6

  North

  18,692

  5,639

  30.2

  South

  16,457

  4,875

  29.6

  Table 3: Division

  A

  12,769

  3,492

  27.3

  B

  8,737

  2,062

  23.6

  D

  12,262

  2,872

  23.4

  E

  7,727

  1,771

  22.9

  L

  3,989

  1,176

  29.5

  N

  5,137

  1,525

  29.7

  O

  4,437

  1,378

  31.1

  P

  5,129

  1,560

  30.4

  G

  5,417

  1,440

  26.6

  H

  4,003

  1,178

  29.4

  J

  4,590

  1,419

  30.9

  K

  2,247

  838

  34.2

  Table 4: Sub-division

  Mountpottinger

  2,077

  532

  25.6

  Donegall Pass

  3,631

  783

  21.6

  Dunmurry

  3,441

  745

  21.7

  Musgrave Street

  3,620

  1,432

  139.6

  Grosvenor Road

  2,346

  567

  24.2

  Lisburn

  2,801

  836

  29.8

  Woodbourne

  3,590

  659

  18.4

  North Queen Street

  2,019

  457

  22.6

  Antrim Road

  1,840

  433

  23.5

  Antrim

  2,139

  450

  21.0

  Newtownabbey

  3,034

  656

  21.6

  Carrickfergus

  1,476

  412

  27.9

  Tennent Street

  1,754

  464

  26.5

  Bangor

  3,009

  714

  23.7

  Strandtown

  3,041

  641

  21.1

  Castlereagh

  1,677

  416

  24.8

  Enniskillen

  1,261

  417

  33.1

  Lisnaskea

  478

  175

  36.6

  Omagh

  2,250

  584

  26.0

  Strand Road

  2,727

  792

  29.0

  Strabane

  1,106

  337

  30.5

  Waterside

  1,304

  396

  30.4

  Coleraine

  2,654

  700

  26.4

  Limavady

  954

  385

  40.4

  Magherafelt

  829

  293

  35.3

  Ballymena

  2,802

  815

  29.1

  Ballymoney

  1,097

  339

  30.9

  Larne

  1,230

  406

  33.0

  Newtownards

  2,345

  614

  26.2

  Downpatrick

  1,812

  472

  26.0

  Newcastle

  1,260

  354

  28.1

  Armagh

  1,371

  391

  28.5

  Newry

  2,632

  787

  29.9

  Portadown

  1,333

  401

  30.1

  Lurgan

  2,244

  700

  31.2

  Banbridge

  1,013

  318

  31.4

  Cookstown

  942

  338

  35.9

  Dungannon

  1,505

  500

  33.2

  1 Includes Harbour Police

  Note:

  Figures shown are under 'old' Home Office counting rules

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Licensing
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason export licence application 6078 was not placed before the interdepartmental licensing committee on 12 October and 18 October; and if he will ensure that the application is processed as a matter of extreme urgency. [96481]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: Export Licence Application 6078 was placed before the relevant interdepartmental committee on 18 October 1999. This application is being considered on its merits under the normal process to allow proper consideration.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantities of spent fuel from Canada have been contracted for reprocessing at Sellafield; when the contracts were agreed; what arrangements exist for the repatriation of the reprocessed plutonium and radioactive waste; when the spent fuel arrived from Canada; and if it has been reprocessed yet. [96467]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The details and quantities of individual contracts, the timing of fuel deliveries and of reprocessing for specific customers as well as the detailed arrangements for returning plutonium and wastes to the country of origin are commercial and operational matters for BNFL and its customers. In understand from BNFL, however, that BNFL concluded a contract to reprocess a quantity of Canadian spent fuel in 1970 and that fuel covered by this contract has been delivered to Sellafield. Since 1976 all BNFL's contracts for reprocessing overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes to the country of origin. The Government's policy is that these options should be exercised. BNFL's overseas reprocessing contracts concluded prior to 1976 do not contain return of waste options.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of ECGD cover has been provided in relation to arms sales to Indonesia for each of the three most recent years for which there are records. [96586]

  Mr. Caborn
  From the latest statistics available the value of defence related export credits to Indonesia for each of the past three years is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  144

  1997–98

  17

  1998–99

  9

  These figures include all ECGD covered business with defence buyers, including sales of non-lethal equipment.

  Arms Sales
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what checks are made and controls imposed by 336
  his Department on arms manufacturers and arms brokers before they are granted permission to advertise on his Department's website. [97389]

  Mr. Caborn
  British Trade International brings together the joint work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry in support of UK trade and investment overseas and its TradeUK Internet website (www.tradeuk.com) has been created to help put UK suppliers in touch with overseas buyers. Over 57,000 firms are currently listed. The majority of UK firms' contact data is used under licence from a commercial database source but firms can also submit their own entries. Our current policy is to allow any firm in any sector involved in exporting for the UK to be listed, free of charge, on the TradeUK National Exporters Database. These firms are responsible for the information they supply and for its accuracy. It is clearly not in their interest to promote goods for which an export licence would not be granted. We are reviewing the guidance we provide to UK firms both in the TradeUK application form and on the website to make clear the need to comply with current export control legislation. We are also reviewing operational procedures with the TradeUK contractor.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about his plans for processing applications for regional selective assistance within the existing assisted areas map which is due to be replaced on 1 January 2000 in accordance with the EU Guidelines on Regional State Aid. [97784]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the European Commission's new regional aid guidelines all offers of Regional Selective Assistance under the existing Assisted Area map must be made by 31 December 1999. In order, therefore, to allow sufficient time for the processing of cases, no new applications for Regional Selective Assistance under the existing map will be accepted after 17.00 hours on 30 November 1999. This cut-off date will apply to applications across the whole of the GB map.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes will be made to the departmental expenditure limits and running cost limits for his Department, the Office for Telecommunications, the Office of Gas Supply and the Office of Electricity Regulation. [97781]

  Mr. Byers
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estate, the voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be increased by £53,901,000 from £3,127,781,000 to £3,181,682,000. This increase, which will be made to the net provision of Class IX Vote 1, results from:

  (i) the take up of End Year Flexibility entitlements of £42,192,000, comprising £2,966,000 for capital, £9,226,000 for running costs and £30,000,000 for current expenditure, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393;

  (ii) the take up of the Department Unallocated Provision of £5,000,000;

  337

  (iii) the provision of £8,000,000 from the Reserve for a payment to the Post Office for Horizon re-negotiation costs;

  (iv) the transfer of £250,000 in programme costs and £205,000 in running costs from the Home Office (Class IV Vote 1) as part of the Crime Reduction Programme; offset by:

  (v) the transfer of £1,096,000 to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class III Vote 1) to cover the administrative costs of the Regional Development Agencies;

  (vi) the transfer of £500,000 to Northern Ireland in respect of the SMART scheme;

  (vii) the transfer of £150,000 to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Class X Vote 2) for the enforcement of the National Minimum Wage in the agricultural sector.

  Within this total the gross running costs limit will be increased by £14,994,000 from £373,606,000 to £388,600,000, which will include £5,563,000 transferred from the capital computer budget in respect of the Elgar Private Finance Initiative project.

  The take up of the End Year Flexibility entitlements of £42,192,000 and the £8,000,000 for the payment to the Post Office will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Also, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department Expenditure Limit of Class IX Vote 8—the Office of Telecommunications—will be increased by £2,140,000 from £1,000 to £2,141,000 and the gross running costs limit will be increased by £635,000 from £11,661,000 to £12,296,000. These increases result from the take up of End Year Flexibility entitlements of £1,426,000, comprising £791,000 for capital, £635,000 for running costs, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393, and a reduction of £714,000 in appropriations in aid as a result of the adoption of the Telecommunications Licensing Directive, under which certain statutory responsibilities can no longer be met from licence fees. The increase in net provision will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Additionally, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for Class IX Vote—the Office of Gas Supply—will be increased by £1,000 from £1,000 to £2,000 and the gross running costs limit will be increased by £1,830,000 from £12,000,000 to £13,830,000. An increase in running costs provision of £2,370,000 is necessary to cover the Office of Gas Supply's administrative costs preparatory to the merger with the Office of Electricity Regulation. An increase in VAT refunds arising from the increase in the gross expenditure provision reduces the increase in the gross running costs limit to £1,830,000, of which £30,000 represents the take up of End Year Flexibility. The total increase in expenditure of £3,300,000 is offset by additional receipts of £3,299,000, of which £1,200,000 represents VAT refunds and a £1,800,000 payment from DTI. The increase in net provision will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  In addition, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for Class IX Vote—the Office of
  338
  Electricity Regulation—will be increased by £86,000 from £1,000 to £87,000 and the gross running costs limit will be increased by £1,800,000 from £28,200,000 to £30,000,000. An increase in running costs provision of £3,375,000 and in capital expenditure provision of £886,000 is necessary to cover the Office of Electricity Regulation's administrative costs preparatory to the merger with the Office of Gas Supply. An increase in VAT refunds arising from the increase in the gross expenditure provision reduces the increase in the gross running costs limit to £1,800,000 and the Office of Electricity Regulation will also take up End Year Flexibility entitlements of £86,000. Additional receipts of £4,175,000, of which £1,400,000 will come from VAT refunds and the balance from electricity licence fees, will not fully meet the increase in gross provision. The shortfall is due to the requirement to reduce electricity licence fees in 1999–2000 by the amount overrecovered in 1998–99 and the take up of End Year Flexibility. The increase in net provision will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Horizontal Questions Working Group
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those proposals examined by the Horizontal Questions Working Group over the past 12 months. [97147]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Horizontal Questions Working Group has discussed a wide range of topics concerning the Single Market over the past 12 months including:

  Joint Work Programme of the three Presidencies (October 1998 and June 1999),

  Single Market Action Plan and plans for a new Single Market Strategy;

  The Karolus Programme of personnel exchanges between member states;

  Better regulation issues such as the Euro Business Test Panel and SLIM (Simplification of Legislation in the Internal Market);

  Cardiff Economic Reform Process;

  Integration of environmental aspects in the Internal Market;

  The application of the principle of mutual recognition of one member state's rules, standards and qualifications by another.

  Distant Water Trawlermen
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department and MAFF have completed their joint report on compensation for distant water trawlermen. [96902]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: This matter remains under active consideration by Ministers.

  Packaging
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will estimate the cost to United Kingdom companies of increasing recovery targets from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. as contained in the European Union's Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste; [97474]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the European Commission draft review of the European Union Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste; and if he will make a statement. [97473]
  339
  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are assessing the possible overall costs and benefits of the European Commission's early suggestions for revising EC Directive 94/62 on Packaging and Packaging Waste, including the suggestion to increase the targets from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. At present, there is significant uncertainty about the possible costs and benefits. Both Departments are therefore consulting businesses and other interested parties in order to gather better information and data. This will enable the Government to prepare a Regulatory Impact Assessment to accompany the Explanatory Memorandum which will be submitted to Parliament when a European Commission proposal is published.

  US National Ignition Facility
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution the UK Government are making to the USA National Ignition Facility project at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in California. [96436]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's response on 5 July 1999, Official Report, columns 340–41, to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) to which I have nothing to add.

  Hush-kit Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about what discussions he has had with his US counterpart about the use of hush-kit aircraft in the UK. [96924]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Deputy Prime Minister met the US Secretary for Transport Rodney Slater on 20 April. Officials in my Department have maintained contacts since then. Discussions about the use of hush-kit aircraft in the EU are continuing in various forums.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to ensure that the Benefits Agency has publicised the consequences of changes to benefit and pension entitlements over the last 14 years. [97308]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefits Agency keeps its published information as up to date and accurate as possible. A specific review of all Benefits Agency leaflets, outstanding legislative changes and guidance to staff on decision making was undertaken earlier this year.

  Council Tax Bills
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, based on his Department's Family Resources Survey, for each of the last five financial years, the average level of(a) gross council tax bills and
  340
  (b) net council tax bills as a percentage of household income, for the whole population and separately for pensioner and non-pensioner households. [96676]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Average Council Tax Bill as a percentage of average gross household income, by household type and year

  Pensioner households

  Non-pensioner households

  All households

  gross

  net

  gross

  net

  gross

  net

  1994–95

  3.7

  3.1

  2.0

  1.8

  2.3

  2.1

  1995–96

  3.7

  3.1

  2.0

  1.8

  2.3

  2.1

  1996–97

  3.8

  3.3

  2.0

  1.9

  2.4

  2.1

  1997–98

  3.9

  3.4

  2.1

  1.9

  2.4

  2.2

  Notes:

  1. Gross Council Tax is taken to be net of Council Tax discount but prior to any deductions to the bill resulting from the receipt of Council Tax Benefit.

  2. Net Council Tax is taken to be Gross Council Tax as defined above, minus any Council Tax Benefit for which any member of the household is eligible.

  3. A pensioner household is a household that contains at least one adult of State Pension age or above.

  4. A non-pensioner household is one in which all adults are below State Pension age.

  5. Those households who do not pay Council Tax (such as students) have not been included in this analysis.

  6. The estimates are based on sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  7. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (Great Britain). The earliest and latest financial years for which data is available are 1994–95 and 1997–98 respectively.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all performance targets set for his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 [Cm 4181], stating in each case(a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94976]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: The Department has set out the key performance targets on which it will be judged in its PSA, and the measures of success it will use in the Output and Performance Analyses (OPA) published in March this year.

  In addition, the Secretary of State sets annual targets for the Department's agencies. These targets are announced to Parliament by means of a written Parliamentary Question. A full list of the targets and target dates for the Department's agencies can be found in the Next Steps Report and in individual agency Business Plans. Performance against targets is also reported in agencies' Annual Reports. Copies of these documents can be found in the Library.

  These high level targets are supported at operational level by numerous other internal targets, in order to ensure delivery by individual units. Listing these targets would be inappropriate and would incur disproportionate cost.

  Benefits (Annual Uprating)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the shortest possible time between announcement and implementation of the annual uprating of benefits. [97556]

  Angela Eagle
  The Benefits Agency has a well established uprating plan that is currently based on the uprating announcement being made by late November/ early December.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are any proposals to amend his Department's departmental expenditure limit and running cost limits for 1999–2000. [97786]

  Dr. Reid
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XIII, Vote I Scotland and Transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £314,030,000 from £13,809,474,000 to £14,123,504,000.

  The increase will be offset by transfers of £6,074,000 from Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class III), of £73,000 from Wales (Class XIV), a net transfer of £1,259,000 from the Department of Social Security (Class XII), £1,177,000 to the Department of Health (Class IV), of £5,067,000 to Home Office (Class IV), of £957,000 to Education and Employment (Class I), the take up of end year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393, of £314,245,000 and £150,000 for The Giving Age. In addition responsibility for the expenditure of £170,000 relating to the Scottish Parliamentary Boundary Commission will transfer from the Scottish Executive to the Scotland Office and will be shown in Section F of Class XIII, Vote 1.

  The running costs limit for the Scotland Office will be increased by £1,760,000 from £2,455,000 to £4,215,000 following a review of the administrative support required for the Secretary of State for Scotland. The increases will be offset by transfers and a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

DEFENCE

  Multi-role Armoured Vehicle
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle programme. [97922]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am pleased to announce that the UK and Germany today signed a contract with ARTEC GmbH, a consortium including Alvis Vehicles Ltd. from the UK, for the development of a family of armoured utility vehicles, known in the UK as the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV). The MRAV programme will provide the British Army with a modern and flexible family of 342
  armoured utility vehicles that can operate in both high intensity conflict and in rapid response peace support and humanitarian operations world-wide.

  The contract represents a major step forward in European co-operation in armoured vehicles, and will be procured through the quadrilateral Organisation for Joint Armaments Cooperation known as OCCAR. This contract will help secure up to 500 manufacturing jobs within the UK supplier base over the life of the programme, the majority of which will be in the Telford area.

  Landing Craft Utility Mk 10 Vessels
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the cost of the Landing Craft Utility Mk 10 programme; and if he will make a statement; [95799]

  (2) what are the delivery dates for the production series Landing Craft Utility Mk 10 vessels. [95798]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The current delivery dates for the production of Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Mk 10 vessels are:

  Delivery date

  Mk 10 vessel

  2001

  14 December

  LCU 03

  14 December

  LCU 04

  2002

  31 March

  LCU 05

  31 May

  LCU 06

  31 August

  LCU 07

  31 October

  LCU 08

  31 December

  LCU 09

  2003

  28 February

  LCU 10

  In addition to these vessels, two prototype vessels will have delivery dates of 25 November this year.

  The current cost of the LCU Mk 10 programme is £35 million.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the manufacture, purchase, deployment and export of(a) cluster bombs and (b) munitions containing depleted uranium; and if he will make a statement. [95677]

  Mr. Hoon
  Cluster bombs and depleted uranium (DU)-based ammunition are purchased for the UK armed forces because they are currently the most effective weapons available to satisfy the military requirements for which they are deployed. Cluster bombs are used against armoured and soft-skinned vehicles, artillery, surface to air missile sites, anti-aircraft artillery or forces on the ground. DU-based ammunition is used because of its unique capability as a kinetic penetrator. It offers a significant operational advantage over all currently available alternative materials.

  Any applications for a licence to export these equipments are considered against the criteria which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced to the House on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29, and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on whether uranium-tipped weapons were used in Kosovo. [95865]

  Mr. Hoon
  I can confirm that depleted uranium-based munitions were used by NATO forces during the Kosovo campaign.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to assist in the removal of undetonated land mines from Kosovo. [95973]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: Since KFOR deployed, the UK has undertaken a great deal of work to ensure that Kosovo is made safe from unexploded ordnance (UXO) including undetonated Serbian land mines. The British Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) teams in Kosovo have been closely involved in marking minefields and clearing unexploded ordnance where it presents an immediate threat to life. All such sites in the UK-led sector of Kosovo have now been marked. KFOR as a whole has now cleared over 4,400 Serbian anti-personnel mines and 2,300 anti-tank mines.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what existing WEU agreements with NATO will be incorporated into the EU. [96971]

  Mr. Hoon
  A decision on agreements with NATO that will allow the EU to assume its responsibilities in respect of a Common Security and Defence policy is not expected until the end of the 2000—the timeframe agreed at the European Council meeting in June this year.

  Arms Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed in his Department in examining arms export licence applications. [97059]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: Thirty people are currently employed full time in my Department examining export and promotion applications for military and dual-use items, and around a further fifty are involved on a regular basis as part of their duties. In addition, other staff may become involved as required.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the health and safety incidents which have occurred at AWE Aldermaston since 1 October. [96986]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: The data for October 1999 are still being compiled for inclusion in the fourth of AWE' s quarterly Environment, Safety and Health Reports for 1999, produced as part of their normal procedures for informing the Local Liaison Committee (LLC). I will place a copy of that report in the Library of the House as soon as it is available. I will also place a copy of the first quarter's report in the Library of the House along with copies of the second and third quarters' reports, due for release to the LLC on 10 November. as soon as they become available.

  Chinook Crash (Mull of Kintyre)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in the last 12 months on the RAF Chinook helicopter crash on Mull of Kintyre in 1994. [97235]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the past 12 months there have been 40 parliamentary questions, 63 parliamentary inquires, an Early Day Motion and a short debate in the House of Lords. Some of these made representations and some sought information, which my Department was pleased to provide.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  EU Directive (Mineral Extracting Industries)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if regulations required under EU Directive 92/104/EEC (O.J. No. L404, 31.12.92, p.10) regarding health and safety of workers in the mineral extracting industries have been published in all EU member states; and if he will list those regulations together with their proposed implementation dates. [96456]

  Mr. Meacher
  EU Directive 92/104/EEC has been implemented in the United Kingdom. Many of its provisions were covered in existing law. Those that were not, were implemented by:

  The Mines Miscellaneous Health and Safety Provisions Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 2005);

  The Mines Miscellaneous Health and Safety Provisions Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (SR 1995 No. 379);

  The Quarries Miscellaneous Health and Safety Provisions Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 2036);

  The Quarries Miscellaneous Health and Safety Provisions Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (SR 1995 No. 378);

  The Escape and Rescue from Mines Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 2870); and

  The Escape and Rescue from Mines Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 (SR 1999 No. 173).

  It is for the European Commission to monitor the transposition of EU Directives across the Community and take appropriate action as necessary. The Commission publishes information on which Directives have been transposed on its CELEX database. This can be accessed on the parliamentary intranet at the House of Commons Library.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to update existing legislation on SSSIs. [96524]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are committed to introducing legislation to improve the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. We will take action as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the penalties for those who breach the regulations governing SSSIs. [96592]
  345
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are examining the level of penalties for damaging an SSSI, and has proposed that the Court should be able to impose unlimited fines where this is appropriate. We will take action as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Regional Air Services Study
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) groups and (b) organisations will be consulted during the south east-and east of England Regional Air Services Study. [97478]

  Mr. Mullin
  The proposed Terms of Reference for the south-east and east of England Regional Air Services Study were published on 30 September 1999. Over 1,000 copies were distributed to interested individuals and organisations, all of whom were invited to comment. 250 have done so to date.

  An external reference Group has been set up to provide validation of the approach adopted by the study team and a source of expertise on a wide range of issues. Membership of the Group includes, among others, representatives from the aviation industry, local government organisations, environmental groups and business interests. A full list of participants is available if required.

  The south-east and east of England Regional Air Services Study is expected to take around two years to complete and will be followed by extensive public consultation on options arising from it.

  Gatwick Airport
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when BAA submitted the result of their feasibility study into a second runway at Gatwick to his Department; and if he will publish its findings. [97475]

  Mr. Mullin
  BAA did not complete their study, which the previous administration had asked them to undertake, of less environmentally damaging runway options, such as a close parallel runway at Gatwick. We announced on 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 372, that we had asked BAA to put this work on hold so that we could review the issue in light of the integrated transport White Paper.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been spent through the Single Regeneration Budget in each of the last five years(a) in England as a whole and (b) in rural England. [97238]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The total amount spent in England through the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) since the programme began in 1995–96 is given in the table. It is not possible to break down the national expenditure totals to show how much has been spent on schemes in rural areas. However, under Round 5 of the SRB (the first round in which Regional Development Agencies were involved) more than one billion pounds was awarded to SRB Partnerships over the next seven 346
  years, of which it is estimated some 7 per cent. will go to wholly rural schemes or the rural parts of mixed area schemes.

  Total SRB expenditure: England

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  136.4

  1996–97

  277.5

  1997–98

  458.8

  1998–99

  560.0

  1999–2000

  1714.1

  1 Estimated

  Pesticide Tax
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions his Department has had with trade representatives over the proposed pesticide tax. [97255]

  Mr. Mullin
  A consultants' report on the design of a tax or charge scheme for pesticides was put out to public consultation in March this year with an invitation to submit comments to the Treasury by June. Since then, I am not aware that my Department has held any meetings with trade representatives on this issue. Tax matters are of course the responsibility of the Chancellor.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there are any proposals to amend his departmental expenditure limits and running costs limits for 1999–2000. [97830]

  Mr. Prescott
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class III, Votes 1, 2, 6, 8 and 11, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' Departmental Expenditure Limits for 1999–2000 will change as follows. All references to the take-up of end year flexibility refer to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's announcement of 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 393.

  (i) The DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £542,447,000 from £9,692,857,000 to £10,235,305,000. This increase reflects the net impact of a take-up of end year flexibility of £400,755,000; transfers out of the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit of £11,278,000; and a call on the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve of £152,970,000. The changes are set out in greater detail below.

  (a) The changes for Class III, Vote 1 are as follows: £64,765,000 for expenditure in advance of EC receipts on European Regional Development Fund programmes incurred on behalf of this Department, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Culture, Media and Sports, and the Department for Education and Employment; take up of end year flexibility of £45,684,000 for programmes including the Major Repairs Initiative (£15,180,000), Single Regeneration Budget projects (£4,980,000), Regional Development Agencies (£4,111,000), initiatives in the UK construction industry following the Egan task force report and consultancies in Turkey (£3,750,000) and other smaller programmes (£17,663,000); a transfer of £7,500,000 from the non-Voted element of the DETR Main Programmes

  347
  Departmental Expenditure Limit due to an increase in demand for disabled facilities grants; a transfer of £1,096,000 from Class IX, Vote 1 (Department of Trade and Industry: programmes and administration) to cover ex-Department of Trade and Industry staff costs in Regional Development Agencies; and a reduction of £6,009,000 as a result of the cash limit breach on Class VI, Vote 4 in 1998–99. A transfer of £8,978,000 from the DETR Departmental Unallocated Provision will be made to cover the rationalisation of the inherited sub-regional office structure and costs associated with ex-Departmental staff in Regional Development Agencies. There will also be inter-vote transfers of £72,900,000 to Class III, Vote 6 (Transport industries) to provide additional funding for London Transport and to reflect the transfer of responsibility within the Department for the Docklands Light Railway.

  (b) The changes for Class III, Vote 2 are as follows: inter-vote transfers of £5,944,000 from Class III, Vote 8 (Highways Agency) for multi modal studies and road user charging research; £94,000 from Class III, Vote 3 (Environmental protection and water) for work on petrol and diesel emissions testing; and £9,000 from the non-Voted element of the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit for the National Travel Survey. There are also inter-vote transfers of £500,000 to Class III, Vote 3 (Environmental protection and water) for the Powershift project; £150,000 to Class III, Vote 6 (Transport industries) for a National Bus Summit, the Indian Transport seminar and a consultancy project; £200,000 to Class XIV, Vote 1 (Welsh Office, Secretary of State for Wales and payments to the National Assembly for Wales) for planning expenditure; £203,000 to Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scotland and transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund) for a Scottish travel awareness campaign; and £58,000 to Class IX, Vote 1 (Department of Trade and Industry: science) for a research project.

  (c) The changes for Class III, Vote 3 are as follows: a transfer of £4,425,000 to Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scotland and transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund) for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme; a transfer of £1,387,000 also to Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scotland and transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund) for the work of the Energy Saving Trust; transfers of £48,000 and £44,000 respectively to Class XIV, Vote 1 (Welsh Office, Secretary of State for Wales and payments to the National Assembly for Wales) and Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scotland and transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund) for Welsh and Scottish regional energy efficiency publicity work; and a transfer of £94,000 to Class III, Vote 2 (Planning, roads, local transport and vehicle safety) for work on petrol and diesel emission measurement by the Transport Research Laboratory. There are also inter-vote transfers from Class III, Vote 2 (Planning, roads, local transport and vehicle safety) of £500,000 to the Powershift project; £1,200,000 from Class III, Vote 8 (Highways Agency) for the Powershift project; and a transfer of £2,400,000 from the DETR Departmental Unallocated Provision to meet demand led pressures on the Pneumoconiosis compensation scheme.

  (d) The changes for Class III, Vote 6 are as follows: an agreed claim on the Reserve of £152,970,000 to provide for payment of compensation to the National Bus Company Pension Scheme fund; take-up of £290,306,000 of end year flexibility to provide additional funding
  348
  for London Transport, the Marchioness public inquiry, increased expenditure by the Marine Accident Investigation Board on Marine Environment High Risk Areas and the Docklands Light Railway. There will be inter-vote transfers of £150,000 from Class III, Vote 2 (Planning, roads, local transport and vehicle safety) for the National Bus Summit, the Indian Transport seminar and a consultancy project; £72,900,000 from Class III, Vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy and countryside and wildlife, England) representing additional funding for London Transport and a transfer of responsibility within the Department for the Docklands Light Railway; and a transfer of £1,000,000 to the non-Voted element of the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit for the re-introduction of Supplementary Credit Approvals for local authority ports.

  (e) The changes for Class III, Vote 8 are as follows: transfers of £5,944,000 to Class III, Vote 2 (Planning, roads, local transport and vehicle safety) for multi modal studies and road user charging research; a transfer of £1,200,000 to Class III, Vote 3 (Environmental protection and water) for the Powershift project; and an increase in provision of £1,000 to allow for additional Appropriations in Aid to be used.

  (f) Provision within the non-Voted element of the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be decreased by £17,887,000 from £1,734,692,000 to £1,716,805,000. This reflects a transfer of £7,500,000 to Class III, Vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy, and countryside and wildlife, England) due to an increase in demand for disabled facilities grants; and a transfer of £9,000 to Class III, Vote 2 (Planning, roads, local transport and vehicle safety) for the National Travel Survey. It also includes transfers from the DETR Departmental Unallocated Provision of £2,400,000 to Class III, Vote 3 (Environmental protection and water) to meet demand led pressures on the Pneumoconiosis compensation scheme; and of £8,978,000 to Class III, Vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy and countryside and wildlife, England) to cover the rationalisation of the inherited sub-regional office structure and costs associated with ex-Departmental staff in Regional Development Agencies. There is a transfer of £1,000,000 from Class III, Vote 6 (Transport industries) for the re-introduction of Supplementary Credit Approvals for local authority ports.

  The net increase in the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be offset by transfers to the Scotland Departmental Expenditure Limit; to the Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit; from the Department of Trade and Industry Departmental Expenditure Limit; and by a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  (ii) The Office of the Rail Regulator Departmental Expenditure Limit will increase by £1,133,000 from £1,000 to £1,134,000. This increase reflects the take-up of £1,133,000 running costs end year flexibility to meet increased in-year requirements associated with ongoing consultancy programmes and additional accommodation costs. The running cost limit will be increased by £1,133,000 from £8,900,000 to £10,033,000.
  349
  The increase in the Office of the Rail Regulator Departmental Expenditure Limit will be offset by a charge on the DEL Reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TREASURY

  Pesticide Tax
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions his Department has had with trade representatives over the proposed pesticide tax. [97256]

  Mr. Timms
  HM Treasury Ministers and officials have held a number of recent discussions with trade representatives on the possible tax on pesticides. I met representatives of the British Agrochemicals Association on 25 October. These discussions, and the responses to the recent consultation on the design of a tax or charge scheme for pesticides, will be taken into account in the Government's consideration of its options.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Customs and Excise departmental expenditure limit or running costs limit for 1999–2000. [97918]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently no plans to change the overall Departmental Expenditure Limit of HM Customs and Excise. However, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XVI, Vote 3 (HM Customs and Excise: administration) the Voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £14,270,000 from £897,293,000 to £911,563,000. The increase reflects changes arising from a barter deal transaction associated with the award of a PH contract for the provision of IT services. This increase will be offset by a matching reduction in the non-voted element.

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Office for National Statistics departmental expenditure limit/running cost limit for 1999–2000. [97920]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary Estimate for Class XVI, Vote 11 (Office for National Statistics) the DEL will be increased by £1,000,000 from £110,242,000 to £111,242,000 and the running cost limit by £4,437,000 from £102,208,000 to £106,645,000.

  The increase is the net effect of (a) the carry forward of £1,000,000 under the end year flexibility scheme as announced in the House of Commons by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393, and (b) the transfer of £3,437,000 from capital to Running costs due to the implementation of ESA 95 and the 2001 Census Open Options Procurement.

  The net increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  350
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Treasury's departmental expenditure limit and running costs limits for 1999–2000. [97921]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XVI, Vote 1 (HM Treasury), the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £6,328,000 from £140,875,000 to £147,203,000.

  The increase is the net effect of the take up of running costs EYF (£2,000,000) to meet the additional costs of the Treasury's planned programme of work; capital EYF (£2,328,000) mainly due to an increased requirement for the Debt Management Office's cash management project; and from the Capital Modernisation Fund (£2,000,000) for the costs of examining policy options in relation to the Partnerships UK and for work associated with the passage of the Bill which will establish this new body.

  The running costs limit for HM Treasury will accordingly be increased by £11,748,000 from £56,965,000 to £68,713,000. The increase is mainly for work leading to the creation of Partnerships UK and the Office of Government Commerce, a direct recruitment campaign, consultancy costs on the project to refurbish the Treasury Building, the costs of the Public Services Productivity Panel, and a small increase for the Debt Management Office.

  The increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the proceeds of the climate change levy will be used to encourage energy-saving measures. [96959]

  Mr. Timms
  In the March 1999 Budget it was announced that £50 million of the revenues from the £1.75 billion climate change levy would be used to provide direct additional support for energy efficiency measures and renewables, with the remaining £1.7 billion being recycled to business through a cut in employers' National Insurance Contributions. This additional support for energy efficiency measures represents a step change in the level of support provided by existing schemes.

HEALTH

  New Hospital (Edgware)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make a decision on the plan to build a new hospital at Edgware. [94424]

  Mr. Denham
  Progress is being made by Barnet Healthcare National Health Service Trust on the completion of a full business case for this important development which will be progressed in line with the normal NHS planning process. A decision will follow completion of the business case.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella immunisation
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions he has taken to achieve 95 per cent. population coverage for measles, mumps and rubella immunisation. [96257]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have set a national target of 95 per cent. coverage for the routine childhood immunisations (including MMR) by age 2. Adverse publicity about the safety of MMR vaccine led to uptake falling from an annual peak of 92 per cent. over the past 3 years. Recent quarterly data from the Public Health Laboratory Service show that this earlier fall appears to have stabilised. For the quarter April to June 1999, 88 per cent. of children at age 2 had received the vaccine (up to 0.4 percentage points on the previous quarter). Most encouragingly, the percentage of children immunised at age 16 months at August 1999 stood at 79.1 per cent., an increase of 3.5 percentage points on April 1999.

  Our recommendations on immunisation are based upon the advice of independent experts. All new evidence on the safety of MMR vaccine is carefully considered by independent groups of scientific and medical experts and subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as was given to the evidence on which the advice to parents on protecting their children through MMR immunisation is based. The views of these independent experts, as well as those of experts from around the world, including the World Health Organisation, remain unequivocal that there is no evidence of any link between MMR vaccine and inflammatory bowel disease or autism.

  We aim to make factually accurate scientific information freely and widely available. As new scientific data has become available—for example, the publication in June of a further two new studies supporting the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and showing no evidence of links to autistic spectrum disorders or bowel problems—this has been widely publicised. The Chief Medical Officer regularly provides health professionals with summaries of the relevant pieces of research emphasising the safety of the vaccine. Ministers have addressed the concerns of the constituents of hon. Members both formally in the House, through correspondence and also through a series of meetings.

  The information provided to the public seeks to address anxious parents' calls for factually accurate scientific information and to provide support for doctors dealing with them. In considering what public information to provide, the Department has taken account of research conducted through the Health Education Authority (HEA) on parental attitudes to immunisation and the data on uptake of vaccines provided by the PHLS. The Department's activities on the MMR vaccine reflect the views of parents consulted through this research. The Department has worked with the HEA to provide leaflets for parents, factsheets for professionals and posters for surgeries that have been widely distributed.

  Locally, immunisation co-ordinators have been supported with information and material for use in health authority-based campaigns to publicise the facts about MMR vaccine.
  352
  The Department will continue to respond promptly to any parental concerns about the vaccine and to make the facts available emphasising that MMR remains the safest way for parents to protect their children against these diseases.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methods of depreciation his Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [97038]

  Mr. Denham
  In the Department's resource accounts for the financial year 1999–2000, it is intended that fixed assets will be depreciated using the straight line method i.e. adjustments for changes in price aside, the same amount of depreciation will be charged each year over the life of an asset. This treatment is in line with HM Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual. The requirements in the Manual relating to depreciation methods will be underpinned by Financial Reporting Standard 15, "Tangible Fixed Assets", issued by the Accounting Standards Board.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days off work have been taken by NHS employees each year since 1990 owing to sickness; how much this time off has cost the NHS; how many days off work have been taken by NHS employees each year since 1990 owing to stress; how much this time off has cost the NHS; what assessment he has made of stress levels among staff in the NHS; what proposals he has to reduce stress levels among NHS staff; and if he will make a statement. [97116]

  Mr. Denham
  According to a survey conducted by the Department in 1998–99 the average sickness absence rate for staff directly employed by National Health Service trusts was 4.6 per cent. This is equivalent to approximately 8 million out of the 176 million days worked each year by National Health Service staff. Details of the survey can be found in Health Service Circular 1999/229: 'Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS' copies of which are available in the Library. Similar information for earlier years, and information about the overall cost and causes of sick leave, is not collected centrally, but may be held locally by individual National Health Service employers. We have agreed improvement targets for health authorities and NHS trusts to 'achieve year on year improvement in sickness absence rates' of 20 per cent. by 2001 and 30 per cent. by 2003.

  The management of sickness absence in the National Health Service is being monitored by the Department's Public Sector Productivity Panel. The aim is to identify the most efficient and effective ways to secure a successful approach to improving attendance in the NHS. The project will report in February 2000.

  The report of the Partnership for the Health of the National Health Service Workforce, chaired by the Nuffield Trust, identified that 10,000 working days are lost each year through medically certified mental illness, including stress related illness, in the NHS. The NHS

  353
  Executive has issued a range of guidance aimed at improving the quality of working life for staff, including tackling violence, the provision of counselling services, improved health and safety and access to occupational health services.

  NHS (Funding)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the correspondence between his predecessor and the former Chief Secretary during the last six months on the adequacy of the resources for the NHS. [97223]

  Mr. Hutton
  All correspondence between Cabinet Ministers is confidential, as is made clear in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mental Health Act
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England are receiving services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. [97289]

  Mr. Hutton
  27,100 people were formally admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 in 1998–99. Information on after-care services provided under section 117 of the Act is not held centrally. This is a matter for local and health authorities.

  Commercial Sponsorship
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to reject NICE recommendations for further commercially sponsored clinical trials in circumstances where his Department has already ruled out such trials as uneconomic. [97309]

  Mr. Denham
  The decision to fund, or not to fund a piece of research should continue to be taken case by case, but ultimately by the research funding body in question in accordance with their particular remit.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many food poisoning cases in each of the last five years have been attributed to cheese made from(a) pasteurised and (b) unpasteurised milk; and what proportion of the total number of cases they represent. [97310]

  Ms Stuart
  Most cases of food poisoning are sporadic and in such cases it is usually impossible to identify a source for the infection. Even in the case of outbreaks, it is sometimes not possible to identify the source. Details of cases of food poisoning and the likely sources of infection identified are collected by the Public Health Laboratory Service and published in CDR Weekly.

  The number of cases of food poisoning where the sole vehicle identified has been cheese made from pasteurised and unpasteurised milk (the latter representing less than 1 per cent. of all cheeses manufactured) is set out in the table. Since these figures are based on laboratory reports they cannot be related to food poisoning figures based on statutory notifications. Data for 1994 and 1995 are unavailable.
  354

  1996

  1997

  Cheese made with pasteurised milk identified as the source of infection

  91

  —

  Cheese made with unpasteurised milk identified as the source of infection

  —

  5

  Note:

  Figures for 1998 are not yet available

  Mental Health Spending
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's criteria for distributing the additional funds recently announced for increasing spending on mental health. [97257]

  Mr. Hutton
  Three main principles were used to guide the allocation of funds for the first tranche of new investment in 1999–2000:An assessment of need, assessed partly by the weighted population score for each health authority (based on population, size, deprivation indices and other factors)
  Evidence concerning the gaps in services gathered during a review of mental health services in 1996–97
  The vision for safe, sound and supportive services described in the Government's strategy "Modernising Mental Health Services".

  Criteria to be used for allocating funds in the next two years have yet to be decided.

  Patient Eligibility (Criteria)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria his Department uses to decide whether a patient is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and thus entitled to free treatment on the NHS. [97262]

  Mr. Denham
  Eligibility for free hospital treatment depends mainly on residence in the United Kingdom. With some exceptions, for example in accident and emergency departments, all new patients are asked if they have been living in the United Kingdom for the previous 12 months. Patients who have done so, with up to no more than three months absence during that time, will be eligible. Patients who have not lived in the United Kingdom for 12 months may still be eligible if either they are exempt from charges by virtue of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 or, following a House of Lords ruling, if they can demonstrate that they are lawfully in the United Kingdom for a settled, identifiable purpose. It is unlikely that anyone intending to stay for less than six months would fulfil this criteria.

  General practitioners are encouraged to consider residency before accepting a patient for National Health Service treatment but are not bound by the same regulations. Under the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 a GP does not have to accept any patient for NHS treatment unless specifically allocated by a health authority. The GP's decision does not automatically exempt the patient from charges for hospital treatment they may subsequently need.

  Departmental Assets
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the assets sold by his Department together with
  355
  their values in each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99; and if he will estimate the value of assets planned to be sold in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [96274]

  Mr. Denham
  Although information on individual sales of assets disposed of by the Department is not held centrally, the following information is available and relates to assets owned directly by the department:

  (a) The total income from disposal of NHS assets between 1991–92 and 1998–99 is in the table.

  Capital receipts—NHS assets

  Year

  £ million

  1991–92

  169

  1992–93

  115

  1993–94

  213

  1994–95

  208

  1995–96

  282

  1996–97

  393

  1997–98

  471

  1998–99

  500

  (b) Current forecast income from the disposal of NHS assets for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 and is in the table.

  Current forecast income from disposal of NHS assets

  Year

  £ million

  1999–2000

  337

  2000–01

  363

  Note:

  In this period, there were, and are expected to be, no significant disposals of non-National Health Service assets and information on minor or routine disposals could be ascertained only at disproportionate cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals there are to amend the departmental expenditure limit and running costs limit for 1999–2000. [97923]

  Mr. Lock
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class V, Vote 1 the Lord Chancellor's Department Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £100,000 from £2,421,144,000 to £2,421,244,000. The increase is the effect of a transfer for £100,000 from the Home Office, relating to legal aid costs in respect of reducing volatile substance abuse—gas lighter refills.

  The running costs limit for the Lord Chancellor's Department will be increased by £5,386,000 from £496,817,000 to £502,203,000. The increase is in respect of funding for PFI projects in the civil courts and tribunals. This overall increase includes a reduction of £667,000 to gross running costs, with a matching reduction to running costs receipts in respect of a penalty for the running cost breach which occurred in 1998–99.

  The increases will be offset by a transfer from the Home Office Departmental Expenditure Limit, as well as receipts arising from asset disposals and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Field
  To ask the President of the Council from what date hon. Members have been expected to pay for Audit Commission reports. [97142]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Hon. Members can obtain copies of Audit Commission reports, free of charge, from the Vote Office, through the usual procedures.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet in Scotland. [97586]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No decisions have been taken about possible sittings of the Grand Committees next session.

  The Grand Committee is a useful mechanism for Scottish MPs to highlight UK-wide policies which have an impact in Scotland. As the hon. Member may be aware, in the Government's response to the Procedure Committee's Fourth report on Procedural Consequences of Devolution, it recognised that the role and procedure of the Grand Committees would have to be adapted in the light of experience with devolution. Decisions on future meetings will be taken in the light of this.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the President of the Council if there are any proposals to amend the Privy Council Office Departmental Expenditure Limit/running costs limit for 1999–2000. [97831]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Subject to approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for Class XVII, Vote 5 will be decreased by £296,000 from £2,166,000 and the running cost limit will be decreased by £296,000 from £2,502,000 to £2,206,000.

  The reduction in DEL and running cost limit is the net effect of increases to cover the salary and associated costs of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office; and to meet the costs arising from my roles as cross Government spokesperson and as Leader of the House, offset by a payment to the Cabinet Office, Class XVII, Vote 1 of £480,000, reflecting the transfer of responsibility for the Lord Privy Seal's Office.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if there are any proposals to amend the Departmental Expenditure Limit and gross running costs limit for 1999–2000. [97783]

  Mr. Wills
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class I, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) and Vote 3 (the Employment Service), the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for 1999–2000 (excluding Welfare to Work) will be increased by £120,664,000 from £15,671,526,000 to £15,792,190,000.
  357
  This overall increase is made up of DEL increases on Votes 1 and 3 of £122,047,000 and £28,617,000 respectively and a decrease of £30,000,000 in non-voted expenditure. As a result, the Voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit (excluding Welfare to Work) will be increased by £150,664,000 from £14,396,974,000 to £14,547,638,000 and the non-Voted element will he reduced by £30,000,000 from £1,274,552,000 to £1,244,552,000.

  The changes in Vote 1 are the result of the take up of £73,800,000 of the end-year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393; transfers of £1,425,000 from Class II, Vote 2 (Department of Health) as their contribution to the Healthy Schools programme, of £4,800,000 from Class II, Vote 1 (Department of Health) for the Tomlinson merger of Kings College and the United Medical and Dental School, of £957,000 from the Students Awards Agency for Scotland for changes in the funding of Oxbridge colleges, of £2,122,000 from Class XVII, Vote 1 (Property Advisers to the Civil Estate) relating to Qualifications and Curriculum Authority premises, and of £8,943,000 from Class I, Vote 3 (the Employment Service) for Key Stage 2 revision classes, National trainees and Employment Zones; and the draw down of £30,000,000 from the Department's non-Voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) for Adult Basic Skills and Excellence in Cities.

  The Employment Service provision has been increased by the take up of £18,022,000 under the capital, £11,300,000 under the running costs and £1,000,000 under the other current end-year flexibility schemes as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393; the transfer of £6,631,000 from Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security: administration) in respect of work undertaken on behalf of the Benefit Agency and the transfer of £607,000 from Class XVII, Vote 1 (Cabinet Office: administration) to cover the transfer of the lease for 102, New Street, Birmingham; offset by the transfer of £8,943,000 to Vote 1.

  The Departmental running costs limit (excluding Welfare to Work) will be increased by £18,538,000 from £1,042,210,000 to £1,060,748,000 as a result of the take up of £11,300,000 of end-year flexibility and the transfers of £6,631,000 from the Department of Social Security and £607,000 from the Cabinet Office. The Supplementary estimates also include a transfer of £128,000 of running costs from Vote 3 to Vote 1 which does not affect the running costs limit.

  The Department's Welfare to Work provision is being increased by £38,557,000 from £1,349,816,000 to £1,388,373,000. The increase is made up of changes on Votes 1 and 3 of £39,987,000 and -£1,430,000 respectively. The change on Vote 1 is as the result of the take up of £38,654,000 of end-year flexibility, and transfers of £1,351,000 from Vote 3 and of £18,000 to Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security: administration) to cover the salary costs of staff supporting the New Deal project. The change on Vote 3 is made up of the transfer of £1,351,000 to Vote 1 and transfers of £134,000 to Class XIV, Vote 1 (Welsh Office) to cover costs of monitoring New Deal training in Wales
  358
  and of £55,000 from Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security: administration) for work on the New Deal for the Disabled Innovative Scheme.

  The Departmental Welfare to Work running costs limit will be decreased by £378,000 from £162,699,000 to £162,321,000 as a result of the transfer from Vote 1 of £18,000 to the Department of Social Security and the transfers from Vote 3 of £281,000 to Vote 1 for Inspection of New Deal Providers, of £134,000 to the Welsh Office and of £55,000 from the Department of Social Security. The Supplementary estimates also include a transfer of £1,070,000 of Welfare to Work running costs from Vote 3 to Vote 1 which does not affect the running costs limit.

  The increases are the result of transfers or will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will undertake a review of funding for people with learning difficulties. [97258]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are committed to providing high quality learning opportunities for people with learning difficulties. We will be publishing a consultation document on the Learning and Skills Council's funding system at the end of the year. It will seek views on the arrangements for funding across the range of the Learning and Skills Council's responsibilities, including the funding arrangements for people with learning difficulties.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make the University for Industry learning hubs co-terminus with regional development agency or sub-regional local learning and skills/small business service boundaries; and if he will make a statement. [97056]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: It is Ufl Ltd.'s intention that as far as possible the boundaries of the Ufl hubs will be co-terminus with either sub-regional Learning and Skills Council and Small Business Service boundaries or with local Learning Partnership boundaries. It may not be possible to map this in every case but Ufl Regional Staff are working closely with Ufl hubs to ensure that a high level of coherence is achieved.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he is collecting data on the number of people who leave the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds for employment but subsequently return to jobseeker's allowance after 13 weeks but within(a) 26 weeks and (b) 52 weeks. [95538]

  Ms Jowell
  Yes, data are collected on the number of clients who leave the New Deal for 18-to-24 year olds for employment and reclaim jobseeker's allowance both after 13 weeks but before 26 weeks and after 13 weeks but before 52 weeks.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Botswana
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what current proposals she has to assist Botswana. [95737]

  Clare Short
  We expect to spend around £3 million this year to support national development strategies which focus on helping to ensure an equitable distribution of the nation's wealth.

  Main current projects include improvements in sustainable livelihoods by providing better access to, and the use of, natural resources; improvement of the management of resources for primary education; development of distance learning materials, support for the electoral process and development of community policing. Botswana is also a partner in a regional initiative to tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS through increased awareness and improved treatment and prevention systems.

  Botswana also benefits through its membership of the South African Development Committee (SADC) from programmes to improve regional integration especially in the areas of HIV/AIDS, trade and customs reform, and improvements in the electoral process.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if there are any proposals to amend the departmental expenditure limit for 1999–2000. [97872]

  Clare Short
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class VIII Vote 1, the Department for International Development's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be decreased by £12,000,000 from £1,804,764,000 to £1,792,764,000. The decrease is the net effect of transferring the Chevening Scholarship Scheme from the Department for International Development to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Democracy Initiatives
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department has spent in each of the past five years in supporting initiatives to build democracy in other countries. [95752]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  All FCO programme spending is justified in terms of the FCO's objectives. This includes commitment to spreading the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy, the rule of law and good governance.

  Human Rights Project Fund (HRPF) is the FCO's dedicated fund for human rights projects around the world. Since the inception of HRPF in April 1998 the fund has allocated some £9.7 million to support over 300 projects (£5.05 million in financial year 1998–99 and
  360
  £4.69 million so far in 1999–2000). Before the HRPF was established there was no comparable funding arrangement for the support of human rights.

  The FCO also provides support for democracy building in the form of grant in aid to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which exists to promote democratic development world-wide. In each of the past five years the department has contributed:

  Year

  £

  1999–2000

  4,000,000

  1998–99

  3,000,000

  1997–98

  2,713,650

  1996–97

  2,500,000

  1995–96

  2,500,000

  Projects under a number of other FCO programmes and budgets contribute to a combination of objectives including, but not exclusively, the promotion of democracy.

  Arms Embargoes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the EU has lifted sanctions against Libya while retaining the arms embargo; if the UN has retained an arms embargo; and if he will make a statement on Government policy on such sanctions and embargoes. [97145]

  Mr. Hain
  UN Sanctions against Libya, including the arms embargo, were suspended on 5 April 1999, following the UN Secretary-General's report to the Council that Libya had complied with the requirements of Security Council resolution 1192 and the Lockerbie accused had arrived in the Netherlands for the purpose of trial.

  On 16 April 1999 the EU suspended its measures implementing the UN sanctions. But it left in place EU measures, including an arms embargo, imposed in 1986 in response to Libya's general implication in terrorism. These measures, with the exception of the arms embargo, were lifted on 13 September 1999, in the light of the UN Secretary-General's report of 30 June 1999, in which he cited several elements suggesting that recent acts by the Libyan authorities were indicative of the Libyan Government's renunciation of terrorism. EU member states will keep the question of the arms embargo under review.

  The conclusions of a Government review of sanctions were announced to Parliament on 15 March 1999. The review found that sanctions, including arms embargoes, had an important role to play in responding to challenges to international peace and security, and should be tailored to fit the circumstances.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current human rights situation in Kashmir; and what representations he has made to the Indian Government. [97581]
  361
  Mr. Hain
  We are concerned about the abuses of human rights which bring suffering to the population of Kashmir, and have urged an improvement. We also call for an end to all external support for violence in Kashmir. The late Derek Fatchett raised the human rights issue with the Indian Home Minister during his visit to India in November last year. Senior officials have raised the issue at various levels.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any proposals to amend the departmental expenditure limit/running costs limit for 1999–2000. [97871]

  Mr. Hain
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class VII Vote 1 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Expenditure limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £59,218,000 from £1,112,022,000 to £1,171,240,000 and the running costs limit has been decreased by £1,000,000 from £531,968,000 to £530,968,000. The increase is the net effect of:

  (i) additional provision of £36,702,000 on Section B for UK contributions to United Nations Missions in the former Yugoslavia (includes UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) and the former Soviet Union, United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission, United Nations Mission for the Referendum on Western Sahara, United Nations Police Mission in Haiti, United Nations Mission in East Timor, United Nations Observe Mission in Angola, United Nations Peacekeeping Operation in Central African Republic, United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Community Monitoring Mission and Western European Union Police Mission in Albania. This is partially offset by a reduction of £1,000,000 in Section A;

  (ii) an increase in provision of £3,000,000 to support an independent media in Serbia, civil society in Serbia and to continue the provision of forensic teams to the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia;

  (iii) a transfer of £12,000,000 to Section A from DOD (Class VIII, Vote 1), in respect of Chevening Scholarship;

  (iv) take up of end year flexibility of £8,516,000 for assistance to Sierra Leone as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to House of Commons on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393.

  The increase will be offset by a transfer from another Departmental Expenditure Limit (DfID) and a change on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Regional Museums
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has 362
  had with the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the funding of regional museums. [95135]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: I have not had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the funding of regional museums. However, funding from DCMS is available indirectly through the Area Museums Councils (which received a total of £4 million in 1998–99, most of which was given to individual museums and galleries). Through the Museums and Galleries Commission, the Department provides funds for the PRISM Fund (71 grants worth £292,567 in 1998–99) and the V&A Purchase Grant Fund (227 grants worth £1 million) which assist regional museums in acquiring objects for their collections. For the first time, this Government have been able to provide £15 million over three years (1999–2002) to pre-eminent regional collections through the Designated Museums Challenge Fund.

  In addition, the Heritage Lottery Fund supports regional museums through the Capital Grants Programme and the Museums and Galleries Access Fund (£7 million).

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about his powers and responsibilities in relation to regional museums. [95137]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: Apart from the museums sponsored by my Department, Ministers do not have specific powers and responsibilities in relation to regional museums (some of which are independently run, while others are administered by local authorities). The Department's responsibility is to play a strategic role in championing the interests of the museum sector as a whole.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if there are any proposals to amend his Department's expenditure limit and running costs limit for 1999–2000. [97782]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XI, Vote 1, the DCMS Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for 1999–2000 will be increased by £2,821,000 from £993,137,000 to £995,958,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £902,000 from £32,972,000 to £33,874,000.

  This is to provide £2,023,000 for minor increases in provision for various sectors of the Vote taking up the DEL end year flexibility on programme expenditure as announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393; a transfer of £104,000 to the National Assembly for Wales (Class XIV, Vote 1) in respect of annual grant formerly paid by the Crafts Council to the Arts Council for Wales towards their craft programme; a payment of £281,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry (Class IX, Vote 1) for Sector Challenge funding of tourist projects; a payment of £887,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry (Class IX, Vote 1) for Sector Challenge funding of media projects; and to provide £902,000 for increased expenditure on DCMS running costs in line with the DEL

  363
  end year flexibility on running costs expenditure as announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393.

  The increases will be offset by transfers, savings or a charge on the DEL Reserve, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in what way the Millennium Commission is promoting its activities around the country. [97212]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will reply to my hon. Friend in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the methods of depreciation his Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [96922]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In accordance with the Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual and with Financial Reporting Standard 15: Tangible Fixed Assets, issued by the Accounting Standards Board, my Department has adopted the following methods of depreciation.

  Depreciation is applied at rates calculated to write off the value of freehold buildings and other tangible fixed assets by equal instalments over their estimated useful lives. Lives are in the following ranges:

  Buildings—up to 75 years

  Leasehold Improvements—the term of the lease

  Equipment and Computers—3–10 years

  Fixtures and Fittings—3–20 years

  Intangible Assets—1 year.

  Freehold land is not depreciated.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals there are to change the 1999–2000 Departmental Expenditure Limit or running costs limits for the Cabinet Office. [97833]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for the Cabinet office will be increased by £16,881,000 from £301,820,000 to £318,701,000 and the running costs limit has been increased by £5,122,000 to £115,018,000.

  The increase is mainly to take account of the following:

  (a) A transfer payment has been received from the Privy Council (Class XVII, Vote 5) (£480,000) for responsibility of Lord Privy Seal and from the Department of Social Security (Class XII, Vote 3) (£1,670,000) to provide for the Women's Unit and Women's National
  364
  Commission. Provision for ownership of properties (£2,729,000) has transferred from the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate to Department for Education and Employment (Class I, Vote 1 and Class I, Vote 3).

  (b) The Cabinet Office has taken end year flexibility (£12,000,000) as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393, and remaining Departmental Unallocated provision (£340,000). This is to meet increased anticipated spend on disposing of the vacant Civil Estate and modernisation of government programme, including E-Envoy and Central Internet Strategy Unit.

  (c) Increased provision (£5,000,000) for the autumn campaign raising awareness about Year 2000 millennium bug.

  (d) Unanticipated expenditure (£120,000) in connection with NATO alliance in Kosovo.

  The increase will be offset by transfer or charged to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1999–2000 departmental expenditure limits and running cost limits within his responsibility. [97832]

  Mr. Straw
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £11,319,000 from £7,752,125,000 to £7,763,444,000. The running cost limit will be increased by £1,561,000 from £2,136,392,000 to £2,137,953,000. A separate running cost limit of £163,000 will be established for expenditure on Welfare to Work.

  The changes in Class IV, Vote 1 are the net effect of the following transfers: £455,000 to the Department of Trade and Industry (Class IX, Vote 1), £50,000 to the Welsh Assembly (Class XIV, Vote 1), £1,499,000 to Prison Service (Class IV, Vote 2) in respect of the Crime Reduction Programme; £100,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V, Vote 1) in respect of a new offence to reduce volatile substance abuse; £28,000 to the Treasury Solicitors (Class V, Vote VI) in relation to extending the Attorney-General's powers on unduly lenient sentences; £700,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of a contribution to the Active Community Initiative; £10,000 to Department of Health (Class II, Vote II) as contribution towards a research programme; Neutral payment of £3,000,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V, Vote 1) in respect of the Confiscated Assets Fund; £15,000 to the Prison Service (Class IV, Vote II) in respect of secondment costs; £5,067,000 from the Scottish Office (Class XIII, Vote 5) in respect of the balance due following a reduction in the level of contribution by the Scottish Office (Class XIII, Vote 5) in respect of the balance due following a reduction in the level of contribution by the Scottish Office towards Criminal Injuries administration and compensation costs from 13 per cent. to 11 per cent.; £7,000,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of

  365
  administration costs for the Asylum Seekers Directorate; £305,000 to the Department of Health (Class II, Vote II) in respect of drugs related research; Neutral payments of £100,000 from the Department of Health, £100,000 from the Department for Education and Employment, £100,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department and £36,000 from the Welsh Assembly in respect of a contribution towards grant in aid for the National Family and Parenting Institute; Neutral payment of £12,000 from the Cabinet Office in respect of contribution towards grant in aid for Youth Net.

  The changes in Class IV, Vote 2 are the net effect of the following transfers: £500,000 to the Department of Health (Class II, Vote 2) for the running costs of the Prison Health Policy Unit and the Prison Health Task Force; £1,499,000 from the Home Office (Class IV, Vote 1) in respect of the Crime Reduction Programme; and £15,000 from the Home Office (Class IV, Vote 1) to cover a secondment to the Mental Health Unit. In addition, the Supplementary Estimate gives effect to the take up of £173,000 for Welfare to Work DEL under the end year flexibility scheme entitlements announced by my right hon. Friend the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence).

  The increase in the Department's running costs limit is the net effect of the following transfers: £500,000 to the Department of Health for the running costs of the Prison Health Policy Unit and the Prison Health Task Force; £205,000 to the Department of Trade and Industry and £50,000 to the Welsh Assembly in respect of the Crime Reduction Programme; £28,000 to the Treasury Solicitors in relation to extending the Attorney General's powers on unduly lenient sentences; £10,000 to the Department of Health as contribution towards a research programme; £3,000,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of administration costs for the Asylum Seekers Directorate; transfer of £646,000 from the Departmental Unallocated Provision to other current expenditure to meet the cost of upgrading the Emergency Communications Network.

  These increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of expenditure.

  Immigration and Asylum Bill
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the cost of additional staff for the Support Agency described in point 368 of the Explanatory Notes to the Immigration and Asylum Bill was included in point 359; and what the estimated staff costs for the Support Agency are. [97139]

  Mrs. Roche
  The question refers to paragraphs in the Explanatory Notes, published on 9 February 1999. A further set of Explanatory Notes were published on 18 June 1999 to accompany the introduction of the Immigration and Asylum Bill into the House of Lords.

  Paragraph 368 of the Explanatory Memorandum suggested that the Asylum Seekers Support Agency would require between 100–200 additional staff. Since then, further work has been done to identify the appropriate size of the body to administer the new support arrangements. We have also taken account of revised forecasts for
  366
  applications for asylum. Our latest estimates are that the new body to administer the support arrangements will need 512 full-time equivalent staff.

  The costs of the staff were not included in the support costs listed in paragraph 359 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It is now expected that the staff costs will be of the order of £11.5 million per year.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the estimates in point 359 of the Explanatory Notes to the Immigration and Asylum Bill were determined; and what assumptions were made underlying those calculations. [97138]

  Mrs. Roche
  The question refers to a paragraph in the Explanatory Notes which were published on 9 February. A further set of Explanatory Notes were published on 18 June when the Immigration and Asylum Bill was introduced into the House of Lords.

  A budget of £350 million for 1999–2000, £300 million for 2000–01, and £250 million for 2001–02 was provisionally allocated for asylum support costs in the Comprehensive Spending Review in July 1998. These figures were determined from the Asylum Costs model which calculates support costs on the basis of a number of assumptions including the number of asylum applications. Details of this model including its assumptions were set out in the document "Asylum Seeker Support—estimates of public expenditure" which was published on 22 March.

  State Visits
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested in connection with activities related to each State Visit in the last three years. [97263]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Within the Metropolitan Police Area, no-one was arrested in connection with activities related to the State Visits by the President of Israel (February 1997), the President of Brazil (December 1997), the Emperor of Japan (May 1998), the President of Germany (December 1998), or the President of Hungary (June 1999), and 15 people were arrested in connection with activities related to last month's State Visit by the President of China. Of these, five were released by the arresting officer without any further proceedings. Information for other police force areas is not collected centrally.

  HMP Liverpool
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who was appointed to investigate recent allegations of bullying in relation to nursing staff at HMP Liverpool and on whose authority; who set the terms of reference for the inquiry; what guidance was given on the conduct of the inquiry and the compilation of the report; and to whom he intends the report will be made available in its entirety. [97281]

  Mr. Boateng
  The area manager for Merseyside and Manchester appointed Mr. R. S. McColm, then deputy governor grade at Manchester prison and now deputy governor at Wymott prison, and a trained senior investigating officer, to conduct the investigation. The area manager did so on his own authority, but he had discussed the matter with the operational director and the
  367
  then Director General. The area manager set the terms of reference for the inquiry. The terms of reference directed Mr. McColm to conduct the investigation in accordance with Prison Service Instruction to governors 37/1994, a copy of which is available in the Library, and to take account of the Prison Service guidance on "Combating harassment and discrimination".

  On the question of disclosure, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I have her on 27 October 1999, Official Report, column 878. However, my hon. Friend has also asked to meet me to discuss the matter and I shall arrange to do so shortly.

  Law and Order
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to begin the national implementation of the framework for final warning schemes, reparation orders, action plan order, child safety orders, parenting orders, and youth offending teams; and if he will make a statement on the piloting of these schemes. [97307]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Pilots of the final warning scheme, reparation order, action plan order, child safety order, parenting order and youth offending teams under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 began in 10 areas in September 1998 and will run for 18 months. Subject to the experience of the pilots, the Government expect to implement nationally the provisions in the 1998 Act for youth offending teams in April 2000 and for the final warning scheme and new court orders in 2000–01. The pilots are being evaluated by a team led by Sheffield University. The Government expect to receive an interim report on the progress of the pilots shortly and this will be published in due course.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the local authorities which have used(a) local child curfew schemes, (b) anti-social behaviour orders and (c) court-ordered secure demands. [97306]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Applying to establish a local child curfew scheme is optional for local authorities, to be considered in the light of the wider crime and disorder reduction strategy developed under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and of the outcome of local consultation. No applications have yet been received.

  Information on the number of anti-social behaviour orders made is not held centrally, but we are aware of seven orders made since 1 April 1999. Two were applied for by Liverpool City Council, one by North Somerset District Council and one by the London Borough of Camden. In addition, two were applied for by Derbyshire Constabulary and one by West Mercia Police.

  Remands direct to local authority secure accommodation are made by the courts without an application from a local authority. Information on the use of court-ordered secure remands since 1 June 1999 is being collected from local authorities. I will write to my right hon. Friend as soon as it has been assembled.

  Racism and Xenophobia (Draft Directive)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the European Commission to publish a draft directive on racism and xenophobia. [97286]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This matter is due to be discussed by the College of Commissioners on 10 November. However, I understand that there is a full agenda and it is possible that this item may not be reached, in which case it will be deferred to their next meeting on 16 November.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of asylum seekers who are currently(a) supported by local authorities and (b) in receipt of social security benefits. [97584]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest information estimates that in August 1999, local authorities in London were supporting approximately 52,000 asylum seekers, including dependants. Figures for asylum seekers not supported by London boroughs are not available at present.

  The latest information from the Department of Social Security (DSS) shows the estimated number of asylum seekers/other urgent case payment cases currently in receipt of Income Support or Jobseeker's allowance as at May 1999, is 47,000 (excluding dependants).

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the state of millennium compliance in(a) the Passport Agency and (b) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [97287]

  Mrs. Roche
  All business critical systems within the United Kingdom Passport Agency have been prepared for millennium compliance. No risks of material disruption to the infrastructure process as a result of millennium date change have been identified.

  The three business critical systems within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have been prepared for millennium compliance. Business continuity plans have been prepared and tested in event of failure of the systems or supporting infrastructure.

  Police
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he had made, at the time of his announcement of 16,000 police recruits on 30 September, of the number of officers who would leave the service over the next three years. [97234]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 4 November 1999]: It is not possible to make such a projection. This is because of the uncertainty surrounding the number of officers who take early retirement on medical grounds or who leave the service before normal retirement age for other reasons. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given

  369
  by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 29 October 1999, Official Report, column 1023.

  Electoral Reform
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the submissions made to the Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures by the two main consumer credit reference agencies; and if he will make a statement. [97431]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. But the hon. Member may wish to ask the agencies concerned if they would agree to his doing so.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates his Department has made of the effect the proposals by the Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures on commercial access to the electoral register would have on(a) costs to and employment in the direct marketing and mail order industry and (b) fund raising by charities; and if he will make a statement. [97432]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  An extract of estimates by some businesses and charities of the costs that would result to them from a complete withdrawal of commercial access to the electoral register was attached as Annexe M of the Working Party's report, published on 19 October. The Working Party took note of these estimates in concluding that, in the wider economic interests of the United Kingdom, it would be wrong wholly to withdraw electoral registration data from commercial use. In the light of the recommendations in the report, further submissions with revised and detailed costings are being prepared by businesses, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take these into account when considering the way forward on this issue.

  Tampere Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the nature of the Tampere discussions pertaining to Corpus Juris. [96574]

  Motoring offences resulting in a curfew order under section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991—July 1995 to June 1997

  Offence

  July to December 1995

  January to June 1996

  July to December 1996

  January to June 1997

  Total (July 1995 to June 1997)

  Driving whilst disqualified

  3

  9

  19

  34

  65

  Driving with excess alcohol

  —

  2

  7

  8

  17

  Driving whilst unfit through drugs

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Failure to provide a specimen

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Taking a vehicle without consent (TWOC)

  1

  1

  6

  6

  14

  Aggravated TWOC

  —

  —

  2

  7

  9

  Allowing oneself to be carried in a TWOC vehicle

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Aggravated allowing self to be carried in a TWOC vehicle

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Vehicle interference

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  Dangerous driving

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Traffic offences

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  All motoring offences

  4

  13

  35

  64

  116

  Note:

  These figures do not include theft of, or from, a vehicle.
  370
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House in his statement on 19 October 1999,Official Report, columns 253–65, "Corpus Juris" was not a topic for discussion at the Tampere European Council, nor did the European Council endorse any of the specific proposals in "Corpus Juris" such as creating a European penal code or a European public prosecutor. There was a brief discussion on whether to examine one Corpus Juris proposal, the idea of creating a European Public Prosecutor, concerned only with protecting the financial interests of the Community, but this was not pursued. The conclusions of the European Council were aimed at achieving
  "better compatibility and more convergence between the legal systems of member states".

  In particular, the European Council concluded that the principle of mutual recognition, put forward by the United Kingdom, should become
  "the cornerstone of judicial co-operation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union".

  The European Council also agreed to create an intergovernmental unit, 'Eurojust', to work in liaison with Europol and the European Judicial Network to help to facilitate
  "the proper co-ordination of national prosecuting authorities', and support national criminal investigations in cases of serious organised crime".

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which motoring offences curfew orders and vehicle forfeiture can be used; and how often these court disposals have been used for motoring offences in each of the last three years for which data are available. [96637]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Curfew orders under section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are available for any offence for which a community penalty is appropriate. This provision has been piloted from July 1995 in seven areas, and will be made available throughout England and Wales from 1 December. The available data on the use of these provisions relate to the period July 1995 to June 1997.
  371
  Curfew orders are also available under sections 35, 37 and 43 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 for fine defaulters, persistent petty offenders and children aged 10 to 15 years, respectively, in specified circumstances. These provisions are also currently being piloted. The pilots began in January 1998. Available information as to their use for motoring offences in the pilot areas is as follows:

  Use of curfews for offenders with summary motoring offences as the most serious offences

  Number of orders

  1998

  1999 (January-June)

  Fine defaulters

  35

  22

  Persistent petty offenders

  32

  37

  Children 10-15

  6

  3

  Note:

  1999 figures are provisional.

  The courts' powers of forfeiture under section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 are available for certain motoring offences (broadly those which are punishable by imprisonment). Unfortunately, no separate statistics are kept for the use of vehicle forfeiture.

  Departmental Assets
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the assets sold by his Department and their value, item by item, in each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99 and estimate the value of asset sales planned to be made in 1999–00 and 2000–01. [96018]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The following information is available:

  £

  Year

  Land and property

  Plant and machinery

  Vehicles

  Total

  1991–92

  18,920,000

  3,305,000

  389,000

  22,614,000

  1992–93

  10,316,000

  4,858,000

  363,000

  15,537,000

  1993–94

  8,540,000

  —

  1,027,000

  9,567,000

  1994–95

  7,233,000

  98,000

  115,000

  7,446,000

  1995–96

  4,614,000

  189,000

  400,000

  5,203,000

  1996–97

  1,451,000

  2,818,000

  121,000

  4,390,000

  1997–98

  8,285,000

  150,000

  —

  8,435,000

  I regret that it is not possible to give an item by item listing of these sales due to their large number and the disproportionate cost of compiling this information.

  The unaudited figures for 1998–99 indicate that the value of asset sales is likely to amount to around £17 million. Our projections for future asset sales were published in our Departmental Investment Strategy, in March 1999; for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 sales are estimated at £6,228,000 per year.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what methods of depreciation his Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [97044]

  Mr. Straw
  The straight line method of depreciation, whereby the cost of the asset is spread evenly over its useful life, is used in the Home Office for most of its 372
  assets. In accordance with the Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual and accepted accounting standards, the following are not depreciated: land (which does not have a finite life); fixed assets in the course of construction; inventory items; and property held for disposal.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pig Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the introduction of financial support for pig farming. [96704]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on 4 November 1999,Official Report, column 330.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed to the Departmental Expenditure Limit for his Department for 1999–2000. [97834]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be reduced by £42,504,000 from £1,267,812,000 to £1,225,308,000. The reduction is the net effect of an Intervention Board (IB) running cost End Year-Flexibility (EYF) take up of £2,310,000; a £150,000 transfer from DTI; a £264,000 net increase in receipts for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; and a transfer of £44,700,000 to the territorial departments for Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance (HLCA) payments.

  Within the DEL there will be transfers from IB to MAFF of the following:

  (i) an additional £22,000,000 for enforcement of Specified Risk Material (SRM) controls;

  (ii) a reduction of £8,000,000 in SRM receipts by the Meat Hygiene Service;

  (iii) an increase of £15,300,000 for HLCAs;

  (iv) £1,000,000 for a business support measure; and

  (v) a reduction of £9,000,000 in receipts from charging for cattle passports.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the assets sold by his Ministry and their values, broken down by item, for each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99; and if he will estimate the value of assets sales planned to be made in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [96224]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The information is as follows:

  Disposal of Fixed Assets

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 15 February 1999, Official Report, columns 574–75. The following additional information is available.
  373
  Property Assets

  A list of all properties sold since 1991, together with the income received, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Non Property Assets

  The Ministry owns a high volume of relatively low value fixed assets, where fixed assets are defined as items costing in excess of £2,000 with a useful life in excess of one year.

  A continuing programme of investment means items such as vehicles and IT equipment are renewed every 4 to 6 years. As a result, a number of life expired assets will be sold each year as new assets are purchased to replace them. Extracting information on these sales could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, information for the 1998–99 financial year is given in the following table:

  Group

  Number items retired

  Cash received £

  IT equipment

  58

  0

  Vehicles

  67

  195,731

  Office equipment

  24

  528

  IT equipment and office equipment, by its nature, will have minimal value at the end of its life. Vehicles in the Private Use Car scheme are replaced every 4 years and are sold by auction.

  Estimated Sales for 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  Planned property sales over the next two years include the continued disposal of buffer depots and stores, together with the sale of redundant office space. A total of £20 million is expected in 1999–2000, of which £12 million has already been received. Sales revenue of £12 million is planned for 2000–01. These figures exclude the proposed sale of New Covent Garden as it is not yet possible to determine what the proceeds from this sale might be.

  Non-property assets are expected to continue to turn over at a similar rate to the figures presented for 1998–99.

  Sheep Imports
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep were imported(a) live and (b) in carcase form into the United Kingdom from continental Europe and Ireland, broken down by country of origin, in each of the last five years and in 1999 to date. [95814]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The number of live sheep imported into Great Britain from other member states since 1994 is given in the following table. These figures are derived from the information messages which European law requires exporting countries to send to the importing country to inform them of the number of animals certified for export in a given consignment.

  Figures are not available for Northern Ireland at this time.
  374

  Country

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Belgium

  535

  206

  165

  272

  230

  486

  Germany

  0

  22

  4

  0

  8

  0

  Denmark

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Spain

  1,750

  0

  0

  0

  51

  0

  France

  29

  46

  370

  12

  61

  6

  Republic of Ireland

  2,055

  46

  1,956

  983

  6,117

  624

  Netherlands

  122

  544

  79

  519

  234

  272

  Portugal

  0

  0

  0

  524

  0

  0

  Total

  4,491

  864

  2,574

  2,310

  6,704

  1,388

  Note:

  These figures are provisional and subject to validation.

  The product weight (in tonnes) of sheep in carcase form imported into the United Kingdom from other member states as recorded on the Official Overseas Trade Statistics is given in the following table. The number of sheep that this represents is not known.

  Country

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Belgium

  1,467

  1,821

  736

  443

  482

  5

  Germany

  133

  195

  2,554

  1,672

  817

  214

  Denmark

  22

  31

  653

  50

  11

  135

  Spain

  466

  343

  1,946

  2,482

  1,920

  816

  France

  920

  1,330

  1,854

  1,209

  1,208

  945

  Republic of Ireland

  2,672

  2,918

  3,784

  3,313

  1,775

  1,061

  Netherlands

  3,856

  4,487

  5,613

  6,418

  5,097

  2,647

  Italy

  0

  0

  202

  68

  150

  1

  Austria

  0

  0

  17

  16

  0

  0

  Greece

  29

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sweden

  0

  0

  28

  0

  0

  0

  Finland

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  0

  Total

  9,565

  11,125

  17,387

  15,684

  11,460

  5.824

  1 To October 1999

  Note:

  Please note that these data are subject to a degree of statistical error; care is needed when interpreting this data.

  Animal Feedstuffs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received about the French response to the European Commission report exposing instances of the use of sewage sludge in feed for French livestock; and if he will publish them. [97229]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 4 November 1999]: No written reports have been directly received on the French response. However, at the September Agricultural Council, the French Agriculture Minister provided verbal assurances that the shortcomings identified in the Commission's inspection report had been firmly addressed. There has been no suggestion of widespread use in animal feed of human sewage. The Commission's report focused on the recovery of animal material from waste water treatment systems in rendering plants.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he can take to prevent the import of food and food products known or believed to have been produced using illegal methods. [97230]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 4 November 1999]: Detailed rules are in place under European Community law and in national legislation in member states making it

  375
  an offence to export food and food products which might compromise the health and life of humans, animals or plants. Similar controls apply to imports into the Community from third countries under EC and domestic legislation. Under World Trade Organisation rules, imports from countries outside the EU can be restricted in order to protect human, animal or plant life and health, provided such measures are based on sound science.
  376
  Member states may take unilateral safeguard measures to restrict specific imports on an ad hoc basis where they believe health risks exist which are not adequately provided for under EC legislation. Such supplementary measures, details of which must be notified to the European Commission for their agreement, must be proportionate to and consistent with any harmonised Community rules in the area concerned.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Alliance and Leicester plc (Group Reorganisation) formerly Girobank plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered; and that the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Tuesday 9th November;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session; That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

United Reformed Church Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered; and that the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Tuesday 9th November;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a
1102
declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Electricity from Renewables: ECC Report
11.6 a.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I, and I am sure the whole House, greatly look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Cathcart. I know a little of what my noble friend is going through because, by chance, I opened my account in this House almost exactly 24 years ago on the subject of an energy report from the European Communities Select Committee. In my remarks, nervous though I was, I concentrated entirely on what was then called "alternative energy". There is a certain amount of déjà vu this morning.
The report, and I hope the debate, is not an exercise in nostalgia. The development of renewable energy is of vital present and, even more importantly, future interest. The report being debated today resulted from the inquiry carried out by Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Having had the honour of chairing that committee, I wish genuinely to thank all its members, both present and past. I am particularly pleased to see six members on the list to speak today. I want also to thank and pay tribute to our specialist adviser, Mr David Milborrow, and to not one but two clerks who assisted us sequentially, Miss Kate Ball and Mr Roger Morgan.
The report was prompted by a projected draft EC directive to set a framework for expanding renewable energy with targets for member states. The only slight dilemma we had was that the draft never appeared! We found it on the Internet. It was then withdrawn, but I shall deal with that in a moment. We took evidence during the period January to March this year and published our report in July. The Government responded in the middle of last month in—and I say now, and I shall say again—somewhat discouraging terms.
It proved to be a very large and complex subject. We had 19 sessions of oral evidence, including John Battle MP, the then Energy Minister at the DTI, and Richard Caborn MP, the then Planning Minister at the DETR.

1103
We visited renewable energy installations in the north east of England and in Denmark. In addition to our oral evidence, we received 31 written submissions of evidence. Even then, we realised that we had not done full justice to the subject.
The December 1997 Kyoto protocol set firm targets for the reduction in pollution caused by the heavy reliance on fossil fuels and the resultant consequences for climate change. In our opinion, three complementary actions are required to meet those binding Kyoto targets: reduce energy consumption; improve the efficiency in both generation and use; and increase the proportion of energy from renewable sources.
Our inquiry focused on only the last. But our report emphasises—and I want to re-emphasise it this morning—that if we are ever to come close to meeting the Kyoto targets, the development of renewables must be accompanied by action in the other two fields. For instance, this country's medium-term emissions target to 2005 is equivalent to shifting all electricity generation to the renewables. Clearly, that is totally unrealistic. However, I hope that it gives your Lordships an idea of the magnitude of the problem.
Our inquiry also focused on progress to 2010. The climate change agenda seems bound to require further action over future years; for instance—and I am sure other speakers will take up the points—nuclear capacity will need to be decommissioned in due course. That is not far away. Fossil fuels will not last for ever. That has been said again and again, but it is a truism; they will not. However, we do not know when commercially they will run out.
In our inquiry, we defined renewable energy as that derived from non-fossil fuel sources: wind, waste and other biomass, hydro, wave, tidal, solar and geothermal. We specifically excluded nuclear power. Some have taken issue with us on that point, but we did so in order to contain the magnitude of the inquiry on which we were embarking.
We examined each of those non-fossil fuel sources in sufficient depth, we hope, to make informed comment. Of course, fuller study would have been possible, and perhaps should have been carried out, or could perhaps be carried out at a later date. We acknowledged in particular some important environmental issues in anticipation of the contribution from my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, but noted that we were able to touch on those issues only lightly. There are greater environmental issues than those specified in the report.
I turn now to the targets. The UK has pledged to derive 5 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2005, and 10 per cent by 2010. Those targets are very much in line with those proposed by the EC. The Government say that existing contracts and arrangements will deliver the 5 per cent target by 2005, and that the new arrangements will shortly be in place to secure the 10 per cent target by 2010.
1104
In our report, the committee agrees that such targets are technically feasible, but we cannot share the Government's confidence that either of those targets will be delivered. I shall discuss first the 2005 target of 5 per cent. The Government imply that the UK is on track towards meeting that target because renewable generation grew from 2 to 2½ per cent of electricity supplies between 1997 and 1998. That was, in the words of the government response,
"due both to a recovery in output from large hydro plant and to further NFFO projects coming onstream".
NFFO is the dreadful acronym for Non Fossil Fuel Obligations.
The proposed EC directive would, in itself, have excluded large hydro. The Government are in a way—dare I say—massaging the figures, because not comparing like with like gives them a 1.3 per cent start. Even so, will the Government tell the House how much of that half a percentage point increase—between 2 and 2½ per cent—from 1997 to 1998 was due to NFFO projects coming on stream, and how much was due to
"recovery in output from large hydro plant"?
Is enough capacity really set to flow from NFFO projects to meet the 2005 target?
The Government accept that that will not happen unless the integrity of existing NFFO contracts is maintained during the upheavals of the present electricity market reforms. That is another major problem area, which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will address in his response. When will the steps that the Government are committed to taking actually take place? Will they be on time to meet those targets?
I turn now to the more long-term target of 10 per cent. Our inquiry found that to achieve the 10 per cent target by 2010 would require a seven-fold increase in the average rate of the installation of renewable energy. We checked that figure extremely carefully because it was so alarming. It is a staggering figure and we are nowhere near meeting it. The Government agree that to do so will require a new suite of policies, but in their response to our report, they do not say what those will be, nor when they might be in place.
To meet the targets, all available renewable energy sources will need to be expanded at the maximum practical rate. We came to the conclusion that the main hope must rest on wind power, particularly from offshore sites. Having said that, there will be important contributions from waste combustion and landfill gas. The development of small hydro plants will be useful, but not significant in the overall situation. We did not see a significant input from energy crops. The Government in their response take issue with us on that score.
Photovoltaics harness the sun's energy indirectly, rather than using direct solar power. We considered them unlikely to be a major source of power, certainly in northern Europe, but we saw that there were important implications in photovoltaics for British industry. In the longer term, we saw useful contributions from offshore wave tidal streams and barrages, but not within the timescale up to 2010.

1105
A key new policy is the financial support mechanism. The effective and well-regarded non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) arrangements will clearly not work in the newly re-structured industry. A decision was urgently needed in that context at the time of our report in July. That decision has still not been made. The Government say that they intend,
"to take the broad powers to establish a new support mechanism in the Utilities Bill which they hope to announce this autumn".
It is now November, and we still have not heard about it. What is that new mechanism to be? Will the Government at least say when those key details are to be announced and give the target date for their implementation?
On the report's publication, I commented that,
"the right words are said, but we found too little sign of these delivering the necessary action".
The dispiriting dead bat of the Government's response invites the same comment, dare I say it, even more strongly. I could illustrate that point, but I shall not waste your Lordships' time. I am sure that noble Lords will have seen the Government's response. I use perhaps a slightly strong word in saying that it is woolly. It does not get to grips with any of the problems that we tried to highlight in our report. There was no mention of action—it was all words.
On the question of unit price, our report was clear that for as long as the price of electricity generated from fossil fuels ignores the external costs of pollution, renewables are being set an unfair target. That is a very important point that is continually skirted over. Again, it is not a like-for-like comparison at the moment. In their reply, the Government acknowledged that the "polluter pays" principle holds. However, they then go on to say that account must be taken of other considerations. Yes, my Lords. But where should the balance be struck? Are they content to hinder the development of renewables by retaining that price inequity?
I make one more point on the financial aspects. In our report we use some quite strong language in saying that we considered it absurd that the climate change levy might be applied to renewable energy. Others have made the same point. I hope that we may hear from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that there is some movement on the Government's part in this respect. It seems absolutely crazy to levy a climate change tax or levy on the very type of fuel which is trying to achieve the objective of a climate change to improve the climate. That is a contradiction in terms.
We were extremely concerned about the whole planning situation, particularly in this country. The Government's response seems to us to indicate that they are far too confident that the planning regime will not frustrate the necessary massive development of renewables. There is one particular remark that I should like to quote from the Government's response that will sum up this point:
"It will ensure that Regional Planning Guidance and development plans play a key role in fostering a strategic approach to renewable energy provision".
1106
That did not fill us with great confidence. Our recommendations for improving the planning regime and for stimulating local interest in renewable energy schemes remain just as valid today as they were when we produced our report. I particularly draw your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 216 and 225 of the report, which I shall not repeat.
At the very least, can we be assured that there will be no more—I give this merely as an illustration—public inquiries into, say, wind farm proposals, where the inspectors simply repeat often misleading statements by objectors without qualification or comment? Many people have written to me saying that their heads are becoming very sore from knocking against an extremely heavy reinforced wall. It seems desperately difficult to get the message across that the planning regime should be proactive rather than immediately giving the easy answer—"no".
This whole problem is not about modest incremental change. The climate change imperative requires some dramatic action. New means must be found for achieving the necessary ends. I give a small illustration regarding the Ministry of Defence. We particularly included a comment about the, again, dead hand of the MoD. The Government say that work is in hand to codify measures to mitigate the impact of wind farms on radar reception. Phew! When will that be finalised? It has gone on for years and there is just a blockage. When will the MoD look seriously at this problem in order to try to help the development of renewable energy, not hinder it?
On embedded generation, we recommended in our report that work should be done to establish the relatively high limits of embedded generation with which the National Grid could cope. The Government agreed that that was an important issue which "needs to be addressed". But when, and how will it be taken forward?
We recommended what is known in the trade as "net metering". Some of your Lordships may not be aware that at the moment an extraordinary system exists which affects those who are doing their best. I think particularly of a house just outside Oxford, which was built specifically for photovoltaic power. Taking account of the different levels of demand for electricity within that house, there are occasions when the owner exports electricity to the grid and occasions when the owner imports electricity from the grid. That is fine. The problem is that presently the owner is paid 3p for the electricity going to the grid and has to pay 7p for the electricity coming from the grid. There is something wrong there. We strongly advocate net metering so that there is an equality in electricity going both in and out of the grid.
At the end of our report, we invited the Government to,
"declare unequivocally that the 'target is to achieve 10% of the UK's electricity supply from renewables by 2010'—and their determination to reach that target".
In response, the Government restate the formula we criticised. They say that they have the,
"intention of working towards the aim of achieving 10%".

1107
with only the hope of achieving that by 2010. That is not good enough. We have gone past the stage of words. We must have action. Can the Government today be firmer on the date and strip out at least one of those temporising words in their reply?
As so often happens with reports in your Lordships' House, we acknowledge that the debate concentrated mainly on this country, rather than on the European dimension, because of the pure practical fact that witnesses tend to be local. However, we were conscious of the European dimension. The intended EC directive that inspired the inquiry was, as I have said, withdrawn after pressure from some member states. However, we have just heard that a revised directive is about to be published. We hope that the Government will do their utmost to ensure that the momentum is maintained at EU level.
Few things of such long-term importance as the climate change agenda are before us. The development of renewable energy is an integral part of that. The Government acknowledge that achievement of the targets will require coherent policy action and a sustained drive and leadership. They say they intend to provide that drive and leadership. However, I make no apologies for repeating that action is needed now. We have gone past the time of words. The Government may say that they are doing their best. However, I end by reminding them and your Lordships of Winston Churchill's wartime saying:
"It is not enough to do one's best. Sometimes one has to do what is necessary".
I commend this report to the House.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Electricity from Renewables (12th Report, HL Paper 78).—(Lord Geddes.)
11.28 a.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for introducing with the greatest clarity the report of his committee. First, I have to declare an interest as a vice-president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, known as CPRW.
I noted that the three members of the committee also declared an interest. What worried me slightly was that the specialist adviser, who was praised so fulsomely both in the report and by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, is himself technical consultant to Windpower Monthly. I am not saying that he behaved with any impropriety, but that perhaps explains the central flaw in the report, which is that it is too bullish about onshore wind power.
I also regret that the submission which was made by CPRW, both by e-mail and hard copy to the Clerk of the committee, was not apparently read by the committee. It certainly is not recorded in the report and it was not even acknowledged. As Wales is part of one of the most contentious areas for onshore wind power, I believe that it would have been good if the CPRW submission had been read. Had the committee
1108
in fact gone to Wales, members would have benefited from seeing some of the developments there and I believe they might have been a little less emphatic in their belief that it is a vocal minority which is opposing wind power schemes in Wales; and I believe they might have been less emphatic in their view that visual intrusiveness is on the decline or is overstated.
On some of the substantive issues, I agree very much with what the committee said. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said about energy efficiency. It is vitally important to make sure that the cake does not grow larger and larger simply because people burn too much fuel, too much electricity.
I also agree with the tenor of the remarks of the noble Lord, and certainly the remark of Professor Fells in his evidence to the committee, that to reach the target set by the Government—5 per cent from renewables by 2003 and 10 per cent by 2010—requires action on an "heroic scale". That is what Professor Fells said and I believe that is what the noble Lord was saying today. Unless such action is taken, the targets are simply pie-in-the-sky; they will not be met.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister in his reply will take up this point and explain what the Government propose to do now to meet these targets. In particular, can he explain what, in the Government's response, is meant by protecting the "integrity of existing contracts"? I thought contracts were meant to have integrity anyway. We did not get much enlightenment from the Government on that; nor indeed from the committee.
On the various forms of renewable energy, I found the arguments that the committee produced against the Severn barrage to be rather less than convincing. The base load for the grid, of course, is nuclear. The flexible load is fossil fuel generating stations, which can be brought in and brought out of use as required. The tide is predictable, so a tidal barrage, like the Severn barrage, will produce electricity at a given and predictable time. That means that fossil fuel stations can be phased in or phased out, or reduce their output as the tidal barrage comes in.
Like all renewables, the problem is connection to the grid. It is extremely expensive to connect any type of large producer of electricity to the grid, but those costs just have to be faced. I accept that there is a financial problem with the Severn barrage. The return on investment is unlikely to be very high. Nevertheless, if we do nothing about climate change the return on investment will be even worse. I believe that is the sort of action on a heroic scale about which Professor Fells was talking.
I also believe that there is much more potential for photovoltaics than the committee and the noble Lord indicated. I was rather disappointed by their treatment of photovoltaics. There are only two paragraphs on

1109
solar energy. The problem is that the technology in that area is difficult. Although the technology is developing and developing quite fast, as the October issue of Electricity UK states:
"It comes down to a classic chicken and egg problem. As long as demand is small, production of solar energy will remain small scale and expensive, and as long as production is small scale and expensive, the price will remain high and demand small. Catch 22".
I believe that at some point one has to break through that.
I turn to wind power. The technology for offshore wind power is not entirely proven. It is developing quite fast, but again the problem is the economics. The connection of large offshore wind power stations to the grid is very difficult and very expensive, but, again, it will have to be done.
Of course, onshore wind does not replace nuclear or fossil fuel generated power. It only displaces it when the wind happens to be blowing at approximately 11 mph, which is the cut-in speed, and lower than 55 mph, which is the cut-out speed. That, of course, is unreliable. So we have to keep fossil fuel stations going as back-up. Wind power will not replace fossil fuel power stations.
I understand that Denmark is well advanced in onshore wind power. I understand that 5 per cent of the electricity output of Denmark is produced by 4,700 turbines. The population of Denmark is 5.5 million; the population of the United Kingdom is 58 million. So arithmetically, if we want to achieve the same proportion of our electricity output by onshore wind power as the Danes, we would need some 45,000 wind turbines in this country. I really do not believe that that would be acceptable to public opinion. If all the wind farms in the whole world were put on to the South Downs, they would generate only 5 per cent of the total demand for electricity in the United Kingdom. Of course, we are not going to put them on the South Downs.
If the Government's figures are right—here I concede a point to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes—it means an enormous increase in the production of renewables and in their output. But this is a local problem. I am sorry that the committee did not visit Wales to see what the problem is. In Wales the most attractive places for wind farms—if one can call them "farms"—are the tops of hills. The most visually intrusive places for putting wind farms are the tops of hills. So the planning process is absolutely vital to make sure that we do not destroy our beautiful countryside in Wales.
I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, that the planning process is working very well as it is. Local people can give their views; councillors can give their views; people can get elected, or deselected on that basis. That is the way you have to proceed because you cannot force these things down people's throats, as sooner or later they will rebel. I applaud the Government's response in not changing PPG22.
There is one point on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. If the Government are serious, action needs to be taken now, but action needs to be
1110
taken on a very wide front. It is not just a question of one type of renewable; it is not just a question of two or three types; it is a question of getting to grips with energy efficiency and all the other things that the noble Lord spoke about, and of developing at speed the technologies which are environmentally friendly. Personally I believe that the Government should start the Severn barrage now. That would be an indication of how seriously they take this matter.
Again, Professor Fells said—I come back to where I started—that action is needed on an "heroic scale" if the Government's target is to be met. In my view, the committee has highlighted the problem, but has not produced a satisfactory solution.
11.38 a.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for introducing the debate. It was a most fascinating inquiry and one that is highly relevant at this time. The noble Lord has been a most able chairman of our sub-committee and it has been a real pleasure to work with him during the time that I have served on the sub-committee.
The subject of our inquiry was limited to the generation of electricity from renewable sources. The technologies involved will be even more relevant to future generations. It is perhaps interesting to remember that our forebears, before the introduction of the steam engine, were perfectly familiar with and totally dependent on the use of renewable energy and its technology in the form of windmills and watermills.
One point that was specifically excluded from our inquiry, though mentioned in passing, was energy conservation. I felt that was a pity because electricity from renewables and energy conservation go hand in hand. Indeed, when we were in Copenhagen we were shown a graph which indicated that the Danes were expecting to reduce their energy consumption by 10 to 15 per cent by 2050. If we consider the likely demise of our nuclear power plants, the need to conserve energy becomes even more paramount. It may need to be achieved by long-term changes in our working lifestyle by such things as telecommuting with only occasional visits to the office. I do not usually use the M4, but the other day I got stuck in a traffic jam there. I was appalled to see that virtually every car alongside us had just one person in it. That is the type of energy conservation that needs to be emphasised at all times.
I was disappointed in the Government's response to our report. They need to get their act together if there is to be any hope of meeting their targets for the provision of electricity from renewables. The public have to be brought round to see the benefit of locally sponsored wind farms, from which they themselves will derive benefit, and thus defuse the NIMBY attitude which is so prevalent. I accept the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in relation to Wales. I have seen wind farms only in Cornwall. I live in Derbyshire and we have many sites there too which could be useful as wind farms, though I do not believe there are any at present.

1111
It is crazy when we have probably the best environment in Europe for wind generation, both onshore and offshore, that we have such a poor success rate in the installation of wind farms. The planning regime has a significant part to play in our failure to install them and there need to be changes to ensure that a greater success rate is achieved. Success in this field could lead to significant industry in manufacturing wind turbines, creating tens of thousands of jobs and export opportunities. The same can be said for photovoltaic. We saw an active system in the University of Northumbria which was effective even when there are overcast skies, as there were when we were there.
Mass production can bring dramatic cost reductions, as we have seen in the personal computer industry. Again, there are vast overseas market opportunities. But for PV in this country we need to solve the net metering financial hurdle, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, where electricity is bought and sold at vastly different figures. There are also certain technical problems to be overcome, such as "islanding", when a house is isolated in a small area and we try to feed all the neighbours rather than their obtaining their electricity from a distribution company.
I want to comment briefly on biomass. We saw examples of this both at a straw-burning plant in Denmark and in Northumberland where they were growing and using willow. Both installations were out of action when we visited due to corrosion problems, and there is obviously a lot of development necessary before they become realistic and practical installations. But with that development work, success should be achieved. However, we must remember that we have to move the biomass to the plant and we must be careful to ensure that the energy costs of transportation do not exceed the benefits of the electricity. In Denmark huge straw bales were being taken over significant distances to the plant.
I should like to comment on system distribution problems. Due to the intermittent nature of many renewable energy sources, the technology used in the generator and the often remote locations of generation sites, the operators of the grid transmission system and local distribution companies have serious anxieties with regard to system stability and frequency control. Problems may occur when the intermittent sources of supply begin to become a significant portion—say, 25 to 30 per cent—of the supply total. I understand the Danes have already experienced problems at times of low demand.
In committee we considered the Severn barrage for some time. The general opinion was that it was one of those projects that was always being put back because it was too expensive. But if it had been put in place 20 years ago it would by now be cost-effective and the initial amounts would have been written off. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, overestimates the problem of connecting to the grid system. There are
1112
large, 400 kilovolt power lines which cross that area and I should be surprised if integration with the grid system was any problem at all.
Finally, the Government have to do much more to meet the targets which have been set and more joined-up thinking is required in these matters. I commend the report to the House.
11.45 a.m.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be addressing your Lordships' House in its current form. Indeed, I may well be the last hereditary Peer to make a maiden speech in your Lordships' Chamber. My maiden speech will be an easy day for me to remember as it falls on the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot; but let me assure your Lordships that my speech will contain no fireworks, though wind maybe.
I too offer my congratulations to the Select Committee, in particular to my noble friend Lord Geddes, on its excellent report which I found informative and easy to comprehend. I live and farm in Norfolk. I am a district councillor on Breckland council. I am a member of the planning and development committee and the environment scrutiny panel, and I recently co-wrote a policy paper on the environment.
The whole subject of renewable energy should be viewed as an important part of the drive for sustainability which has been adopted wholeheartedly by government, both present and past. The Select Committee identified various features of the government and regulatory systems in this country which impact on this subject, and I have chosen to concentrate on just one or two of those.
First, I want to comment on the difficulties in obtaining planning permission. It is not the planning system that is obstructive to the development of renewables, but those who determine the planning process. Local difficulties exist when specific applications are considered. After all, all installations have an environmental impact. In Breckland, my local authority, we have a policy which positively encourages such development. The results are there to be seen in the electricity generation from poultry litter at Fibro-Thetford and the new wind turbine at Swaffham, both the largest of their kind in Britain.
Breckland has taken the view that we must contribute to global issues. Our policy is one of encouragement rather than obstruction. Sadly, not all councils take that view. Some authorities have policies which seemingly support renewables, but in practice create insurmountable obstacles to development. For example, one council encourages wind turbines—provided they are at least five kilometres from any built-up area. Just by looking at a map one can see that that becomes very restrictive, if not impossible.
As we have heard already, the report mentions the defect of planning inspectors' reports running counter to government planning policy guidelines—a clear case of a lack of joined-up thinking. So I submit that it is not the planning system which is obstructive, but the attitudes of those who determine the planning

1113
process. This report advocates more action to raise awareness of the need for renewable energy and I fully concur with that.
As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, a key feature which is impossible to disentangle from that of energy generation is energy conservation by that, I mean its frugal and responsible use in industry, public and domestic settings. Are we doing enough to reduce our energy consumption? I think not. Do we offer incentives which make a real difference? Again, I think not.
The many tried and tested ways of reducing energy use could make a significant contribution to the reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions. If these were adopted, the need for more power-generating capacity would be removed. Estimates range from 5 per cent to over 20 per cent of our energy consumption being removed by the adoption of better conservation practices. Let us compare this to the target of 10 per cent of generating capacity from renewables.
At the beginning of my remarks, I said that this subject is a sustainability issue. The thrust of sustainability is to ensure that decisions are no longer taken in isolation. The Government have described this process using the term "joined-up thinking". But the report concludes that as far as electricity from renewables goes, there is a decided lack of joined-up thinking. Indeed, many witnesses testified to their feeling of frustration at the fragmentation in the UK Government's policies.
The report recommends the establishment of a renewable energy agency, with real teeth. This is crucial if we are to have a co-ordinated approach to this whole subject and any chance at all of delivering our target, a target, agreed by the Government, that 10 per cent of the UK's energy requirement will be met by renewable energy by the year 2010.
It is this aspect of the report that I found most disappointing and indeed depressing. I did not have to read far, for on the first page of the report it states that although these targets are "technically feasible", the committee did not see them being delivered under present government policies.
But why not? Why are these targets not going to be met? There appears to be a lack of resolve on the part of the Government, whereas in other areas of planning targets have been set and the necessary procedures put in place to ensure that they are met. In particular, I am thinking of the Government's desire to have 4.4 million new houses built by 2010 (coincidentally, the same date as the renewable target). Each county was given its quota, which was then allocated to each district within the county.
In Breckland, our allocation was 10,000 new houses, and we are on target to achieve this. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man, or government, to apply a similar determined approach to renewable energy. If it can be done with housing, why can it not be done with energy?
If a renewable energy agency is to be formed, it can allocate targets to regions, as recommended in the report, via the regional development agencies. They, in
1114
turn, can then allocate to counties, and then on to districts. This would have the effect of making councils clearly accountable for the progress towards their target.
I would suggest that targets should be expressed in terms of the number of megawatts generated, rather than be too specific. This flexibility would allow each region and, indeed, each district to construct generators most applicable to its area. The UK's target by 2010 is technically achievable. What is lacking as the co-ordination and the resolve to do so. I do hope that this Government will have the courage to react positively to this report.
11.54 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me, on behalf of your Lordships, to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, on his notable maiden speech; indeed, a truly excellent speech, full of wisdom and interest and based on his first-hand experience in Breckland. I was particularly impressed by what the noble Earl said about the need for the conservation of energy and interested by his brief reference to the combustion of poultry litter, about which I should like to have heard more. I served my curacy in Breckland, so I can envisage those places where people are working so hard for energy conservation and renewable energy.
I warmly welcome the Select Committee's report on this immensely important matter. I have enjoyed reading it and I agree with much of it wholeheartedly. But I must first declare an interest on two counts. First, I am joint patron of Country Guardian, the organisation which opposes the large-scale development of wind turbines in sensitive landscape areas (though, I should add, not in a dogmatic or irrational way). Country Guardian is keen to see appropriate small-scale use of wind power in inconspicuous places. Secondly, I am county president for Herefordshire of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and, therefore, have another role in seeking to safeguard beautiful and precious rural areas.
I do not underestimate the very great seriousness of the problems caused by climate change and the urgency of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is imperative, as the committee says, that we develop a clear, coherent, long-term energy policy, including the proper part to be played by renewable sources of power. I am glad to see in the report the rather chilling phrase:
"We have hardly begun to appreciate the difficulties that the future may bring".
The overriding need is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that should be the overriding objective of government policy. In seeking to meet our Kyoto commitments, and, I am sure, the very much more demanding targets which are bound to follow in the next century, the greatest emphasis must be on energy efficiency, on a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and on a complete transformation of our cavalier and self-indulgent use of road and air transport. The electricity industry is doing its bit in this regard, as is clear from

1115
the fact that, despite an increase in electricity consumption of 13 per cent between 1990 and 1997, overall emissions from electricity generation decreased by over 25 per cent in that same period—thanks to a greater emphasis on gas and nuclear as generating fuels, and much higher efficiency. If those improvements had been accompanied by a reduction in demand for power rather than an increase (and that could in fact have been achieved if we had been serious about energy conservation) emissions would have fallen even more dramatically.
So I want to set my comments on this report on renewables firmly in the context of the need for a coherent energy policy, for a proper emphasis on conservation and efficiency (and that implies, among other things, a radical change to the absurd policy of charging VAT at 17.5 per cent on insulation materials) and a serious attempt at reducing CO2 emissions from road and air traffic.
Within that context, what part have renewables to play, in what timescale and in what proportion as between the various sources of renewable energy? These are serious and urgent questions, and I am grateful to the committee for having addressed them with such care and thoughtfulness. But I am sorry that the committee seems to have been driven to an unacceptable degree, in coming to its conclusions, by the target of achieving 10 per cent of electricity from renewables by the year 2010. That is, frankly, an arbitrary target. We have already heard that the consultation document has not yet been published. It is a target which has been plucked out of the air in order to show that we are serious about renewables and prepared to play our part properly in a European energy strategy.
The trouble with the 10 per cent by 2010 target is that it has inevitably led the committee, despite its scepticism as to whether the target is attainable, to place disproportionate emphasis on those renewable technologies which are at present most highly developed and able to deliver electricity at something very close to the market price—that is to say, wind power and energy from waste. I agree that if we were seriously to try to achieve the 10 per cent by 2010 target we would have to rely considerably on those two sources, despite their high environment cost. But I want to suggest that the environmental cost of straining every muscle to reach that target is too high. I wish that the committee had recognised that and concluded that the right way forward is to concentrate very much greater investment on research and development into the environmentally more benign forms of renewables—at present our research and development budget is preposterously small, despite the recent modest increase—so that by, say, the year 2030 there would be a good chance of a huge increase in the contribution from renewables, even as much as 30 per cent. of our by then reduced demand for power.
The long-term possibilities which look really promising in terms of generating power to feed into the grid are tidal, stream and marine current energy, more efficient and pollution free energy from waste, and
1116
possibly offshore wind, although by that I mean really offshore, over-the-horizon offshore wind, for otherwise we merely transfer the awful visual consequences of wind turbines from landscape to seascape sites.
The second hopeful approach is to reduce the degree of our dependency on the grid—although we shall of course still have to maintain it essentially as a national system; that is quite clear—by encouraging many more small-scale, local uses of renewable energy, so that many more people need the grid only as a fallback source of supply. Small-scale wind turbines in remote communities, much more domestic use of solar and photovoltaic power, much more local exploitation of energy crops, all these can make a significant contribution, in each individual case small but in aggregate of real value. I am sorry that that point was not made more powerfully in the report, though I recognise that it does recommend support of community-based energy proposals.
I comment briefly on one or two particular issues. I warmly welcome the suggestion that we should press forward with an integrated policy to encourage waste combustion, together with the exploitation of landfill gas. But I recognise the need for some convincing reassurance for the public over safety issues, for great sensitivity in the siting of waste combustion projects and, of course, for an even more vigorous policy of recycling to reduce the need for landfill sites in the first place.
I am sorry about the rather negative tone of the report in its treatment of energy crops. I am glad to see the robust response by the Government. The possibilities are, I believe, considerable, from coppiced wood in particular. There is a splendid example of this not far from Hereford in the large village of Webley, where two schools, a secondary school and a primary school, share an energy efficient and environmentally benign heating system fuelled by locally grown coppiced wood. This has provided local employment and a sense of pride and achievement in the community and has led to real environmental benefits with fuel "miles" down to a maximum of four or five as the coppiced wood is brought in from local woodlands behind a tractor.
I have already mentioned tidal power and I hope to see a much more enthusiastic government response on this. It is truly shameful that this area is not being properly funded in terms of research. I share the doubts expressed in the report about the practical difficulties and the serious environmental consequences of tidal barrages, despite their enormous potential in terms of power generation. Here I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I know that the noble Lord knows the Welsh highlands well but he does not live on the Severn Estuary. The environmental consequences of tidal barrages are serious indeed.
Finally, I turn to wind power where I declare my particular interest. I am deeply concerned by the committee's criticisms of the planning process in relation to the development of new wind turbine

1117
installations—I shall not call them farms—and by the decisions of some planning inspectors. I am appalled by the suggestion that there should be,
"a presumption in favour of wind farm proposals".

I am pleased to note the Government's robust and absolutely correct rejection of these criticisms in paragraphs 12 and 22 of their response. I warm to the vigour with which the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford—I am sorry to see that he is not present today—described the lamentable environmental damage inflicted on central Wales and Cornwall when he stated,
"Visually these things are quite horrific, and are widely complained about, and I think rightly so".
There are places where even quite considerable numbers of wind turbines might be sited without undue environmental damage. Blyth Harbour, which is mentioned in the report, is a case in point. Even the installations in Anglesey are not intolerably intrusive in a fairly flat and already quite developed landscape. But to contemplate the ruination of any more of our lonely and so far unspoilt hill country or coastline simply in order to meet this 10 per cent by 2000 target would be environmental vandalism of a disgraceful kind which we would live to regret.
As the committee observes,
"no method of energy generation is totally benign".
There have to be compromises, but they must be sensible ones, not driven by panic or by an unrealistic timescale. I very much prefer the DTI's cautious and considered statement that,
"the Government intend to work towards the aim of achieving 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity supply from renewables",
to the rather strident demands in the committee report for an unequivocal commitment to the target and determination to reach it by the implementation of "all necessary policies"—those are sinister words.
I am glad that the Government are playing a "dead bat". If it is a woolly dead bat, I know that it will not score many runs. But I hope that the woolly dead bat may be concealing a time for proper reflection and eventually the production of wise policies which will not be panic driven. By all means let us pursue a coherent, long-term energy policy and see the long-term potential of renewables, which is enormous. However, I am fearful of the prospect of what the committee calls for; namely,
"a renewable energy authority with real teeth".
That might be a dangerous animal, especially if it sought to dismantle or override existing planning processes. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, will be able to reassure us of the Government's strong commitment to well targeted research into renewables and of their continuation of their tough line on planning which is so encouragingly taken in their response to the committee report.
12.6 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. I am chairman of Caparo Group, a company involved in manufacturing industry and, as such, a
1118
user of energy. I also wish to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the sub-committee on which I had the pleasure to serve, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for his excellent leadership. Because of the rules governing committees, we shall lose our chairman at the end of the Session. However, as a result of the elections of last week, the House will continue to benefit from the noble Lord's presence. I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, on his excellent maiden speech. I am sorry that we shall lose the noble Earl but we enjoyed his speech.
It is abundantly clear that one of the major issues of the coming century will concern the uses of energy. For most of the 20th century humankind has consumed energy with reckless profligacy and wanton disregard for the environment. Unfortunately the consequences of the past now demand a price and the circumstances in which we have to pay it are not the most favourable. In short, we have to find ways rapidly to reduce our use of fossil fuels, reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and increase our use of sustainable sources of energy.
In any circumstances this is a heavy task. But we have to do it at a time when global population is both increasing and increasing its use of energy. That means questions of entitlements, social justice and all the other debates and demands that currently define the global energy-equity discussion. That larger context gives our deliberations today a certain urgency. As members of the European Union and in our sovereign capacity, we have undertaken commitments to conform with the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.
In conventional perception, the Kyoto Protocol may be just another international agreement—a set of guidelines produced by conference diplomacy. To my mind, however, it is much more. It concerns the future of Planet Earth and symbolises our participation in a covenant to sustain human life. Perhaps your Lordships may feel that I overstate the significance of Kyoto, but anything to do with the preservation and improvement of the quality of human life is surely of transcendent importance.
That is why the report of the Select Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, is deeply disturbing. The report makes it evident that, with business as usual, we simply cannot meet our commitments to the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. Those targets are not exceptionally excessive. With appropriate action, they are well within our capability. If we fail to meet them, that will tell us something disquieting about our own society; our commitment to the human prospect; our ability or inability to mobilise ourselves for tasks of high purpose; and our willingness to keep our sovereign obligations. In many ways, our response to Kyoto is more significant than Kyoto itself.
The report makes several recommendations that will enable fulfilment of our undertakings, which will get us from here to there. On balance, the proposals are not radical, but they do require that we urgently advance the development of several known sources of renewable energy—perhaps green energy is a more descriptive term.

1119
Britain's target is to have 10 per cent of our electricity from renewables by the year 2010. To reach that figure will require accelerating the average recent rate of installing renewable electricity generation by a factor of about seven. On the surface, extrapolating current trends, that may seem difficult—but with policy changes and vigorous implementation, it should be well within our reach. I say that because of two intangible imperatives that are not easy to quantify but which will certainly have an impact—the velocity of technology and Britain's unequalled ability to mobilise in a crisis. That was how this country won the Second World War. We now have to understand that the challenge of energy and the environment is part of the challenge of sustaining life and ultimately is as critical as winning that war.
The Government's response to the report is encouraging, to the extent that it is almost in complete concurrence with the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee—with only one serious difference. I hope that concurrence will translate into vigorous implementation. Generally, I am not a very ardent proponent of greater government intervention—yet in matters such as these, only the momentum of government-supported efforts can provide the required co-ordination, incentives and public mobilisation. Naturally, there will be some policy and political pitfalls along the way.
Questions, such as how much the polluter should pay and what special treatment, if any, renewables should get are controversial. But we are a society that has come to realise that environmental relationships imply a balance between current costs and future benefits. What alternative have we, other than to move ahead?
Both the report and the Government's response mentioned the need for enthusing the public, which is essential. No policies and programmes in this area can work effectively without public endorsement. I am convinced that if we have the political will to proceed with resolution and despatch, we can secure that endorsement. Moreover, I see green energy and emission reduction as a category where private and public investment can engage in joint enterprise, underwritten by community involvement. It is an opportunity for an environmental compact that can be a model for sustainable development.
The report reminds us that we will not be alone in that effort. Many other responsible nations will be engaged in meeting their own targets. If those nations and our own are successful, this will be an environmentally safer world. That is surely a goal worth striving for.
12.16 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, the Select Committee is to be congratulated on producing an excellent report. The requirement for the reduction in polluting emissions is long overdue. It is encouraging that the Committee is convinced that the United Kingdom can fulfil its obligation of 10 per cent energy from
1120
renewable sources by the year 2010. However, I agree with the statement in the report that reminds us—as did the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, in his introduction—that there is a long way to go to increase the use of renewable energy by seven times to approach that figure.
The summary to the report gives guidance, so I will not touch on that aspect further except to endorse the Committee's comments at paragraph 394, concerning the agencies that will have to co-ordinate and co-operate.
Several years ago, I conducted extensive research into the gasification of wood chips and other biomass for industrial use as steam. At that time the fuel was not competitive against hydrocarbon fuels because they were much cheaper and considerably easier to handle. Biomass has the disadvantage that the higher the moisture content, the more energy is used in the gasification of the biomass to expel the moisture and still produce a relevant energy output. The second big disadvantage is the large volume of low-density material that has to be moved from the forest or field to the factory. That increases the cost in direct relation to the distance of haul. At that time there was no Kyoto Summit and no environmental price was put on emission pollution from hydrocarbons.
The report investigates all currently feasible forms of renewable energy. I am encouraged that there is a perceived use for most of the by-products of our wasteful life. It will be a considerable improvement if, by reusing some of that material to generate electricity, we will be left with a negative CO2 gain. It shows a good example of planning, if we can combine landfill sites with electricity generation—perhaps fuelling the generation by combustible rubbish and using the domestic waste to generate methane in a dual-fuel furnace.
If such waste processing schemes are to work, the important parts will be planning and public relations in regard to the environmental impact that the plants will have. Scare stories and rumours, particularly about dioxins and heavy metals, can cause serious delays in the development of power systems.
While wind generation is seen as an immediate opportunity, I am disappointed that the outlook for energy crops is not so encouraging. In line with the European reorganisation of the CAP, this would have been the perfect opportunity to encourage fuel crops on surplus agricultural land.
Forestry timber in Scotland has suffered a drop in market sales of 37 per cent over the past two years, due partly to the strong pound, but also to the mass import of cheaply produced timber from eastern Europe. There is a tremendous resource of timber and timber residues that could be converted to fuel for regional power plants; making use of the report's suggested assistance from the Government to start the system off.
The report implies that energy crops are more expensive than others, such as landfill and wind power. However, with sympathetic planning that could be improved. First, much of the cost for energy costs lies

1121
in the transport distance the material has to be taken by road to a power plant. If the exemption on tax which is currently applied to agricultural diesel was extended to renewable energy supplies and restricted to specified vehicles on the road, the price would be dramatically reduced. Secondly, if a 0.6 pence per kilowatt climate change levy were to be removed, the price would be further reduced. The report suggests several ways in which this can be achieved through community incentives. I do not wish to go into them any further at this stage.
Wind turbines have recently been one of the most controversial forms of renewable energy. Without doubt, wind farms are extremely unattractive because the only place they are remotely efficient is on the top of hills. It is of relatively little relevance that they have become quieter with recent development. There is a further unknown impact on the populations of bird life which live in the vicinity of these farms.
However, I agree that offshore wind farms should be developed. The only doubt I have is that these sea-borne units will hot be sufficiently high above the surface to make efficient use of the wind flows. I suspect that, from an environmental aspect, anything involving the sea or tidal flows will prove too controversial, too expensive and too complicated in the short term.
The report is very interesting. It gives great encouragement to getting under way some environmentally beneficial power generation. On the continent—especially in Scandinavia—localised power generation has been actively encouraged for many years. I hope that the Government will be able to facilitate the development of renewable energy in line with the report's recommendations.
12.22 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in the past few days, many noble Lords may have seen in the press quite a lot of discussion about the Kyoto targets. I recall reading that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister was slightly critical of the United States for not doing more to play its part in reducing the targets. There has been a big debate between the developed world, developed nations, and the third world as to who should set the example. This provides an opportunity for the member states of the European Union to set an example. We may be wobbling a bit in our targets—to which I shall come later—but we are doing quite well. It is terribly important that the United States plays its part as a demonstration to the rest of the world. There is total agreement that the targets have to be met or bettered.
I have the honour to be a member of the committee. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on chairing it fairly, with humour, on keeping us moving and on stopping us from developing our own pet projects—some of which will probably emerge during the debate. But that is what these debates are about.
My feeling about the subject is that we do not need to be so cautious; the technology is there for many of the systems, as we have heard this morning. We can
1122
argue about which technologies, but, taken in the round, they are all there or can be developed quite quickly in a process which will reduce their price. We have heard an awful lot about technologies which are good or which are bad. We could move towards the stage where we say that all these technologies are fine—we want the electricity—but we do not want it generated in our backyard because our backyard is nice. It could be on the end of a jetty in Blyth; not many people live there and it does not matter so much. It could be out at sea, provided we do not see it.
When I was much younger I worked briefly on the Severn Barrage. I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said about that. There are, equally, environmental pressures and problems for the bird and marine life connected with that scheme.
We must not forget that there are environmental pressures with regard to greenhouse gases—which is where we started. If we do not want to have any electricity generators, that is fine, but we have to balance these matters. One could call the reasons for global warming "environmental vandalism", as the right reverend Prelate said. We have to balance all these matters—but it is a question of how we do so.
I believe that wind technology is proven. The committee saw it in operation in Denmark; it is quiet. I believe that there is a place for it, but I accept that it should not be on the tops of beautiful mountains. I see also a role for wind generators— if that is what we like to call them—on some of the structures that litter the Thames estuary, which the people who live there probably see. Many are relics from previous oil or gas explorations or from wartime defences. They do not look particularly nice and one could probably build on them.
Offshore technology for wind generation is exactly the same as that for onshore generation, except that the wind probably blows more constantly offshore and there may be more problems with connecting to the grid. But the technology is there and should be looked at. We have talked about tidal power. A lot could be done also with the photovoltaic in the longer term. I shall return to that matter shortly.
My general conclusion is that renewables can achieve the target. The question is which ones—it is probably several—and how. The report went into whether the target could be achieved with a number of small projects developed locally. I hope that the Government will pick this up; their response was not quite clear. Again, we saw this in Denmark. It is not a question of which project but of local communities having ownership of whatever is the plant or facility. That ownership can be financial ownership, community ownership or a kind of technical ownership. The community gets something out of it—which may be reduced costs for electricity, pride in what they have achieved or a benefit to the environment, whatever it is.
There needs to be a mechanism to encourage this practice. The Government have said they will do so through the regional development agencies. Whether

1123
targets are the right solution—as the noble Lord, Lord Cathcart, said in his excellent maiden speech—should also be looked at.
Let me now turn briefly to the photovoltaic question. It was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, in his opening remarks. I believe that the technology is proven. The noble Lord spoke about the house in Oxford which some of us visited. I know of another project which, sadly, illustrates a similar problem.
Greenpeace sponsored a demonstration in three houses on the Peabody Estate in Silvertown, east London. A very small installation of slightly more than a kilowatt was situated on top of each roof at a cost of approximately £6,000. The objective was that the tenants should save £60 a year in electricity costs. In that kind of estate, £60 a year is quite a saving. It is more than half of the cold weather payment that we were debating recently. The problem was that they met the same obstruction—I use the word advisedly—from the electricity board as happened in Oxford. It took a year to negotiate the contract. The board sold at 8p and bought at 2.9p—which are figures similar to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. The board required the tenants to hire a special new meter; they could not buy it. In Oxford, the board reserved the right to read the meter every 30 minutes while the exporting was going on, and it was going to charge £26 for every reading. In both cases this would have resulted in the tenants paying the electricity board for the privilege of exporting power. The board came up with many technical reasons to hide behind what I believe are straight bullying tactics.
Net or revenue reverse metering, as the report said, is feasible for quite high levels of inputs, and is applicable to photovoltaic, small wind powers and small hydro powers. I believe that the public, investors and developers are hungry to participate in using renewables of whatever kind. However, they need a policy and incentives. They also need to feel that they are being fairly treated. Projects like the photovoltaic cells used in Silvertown, if installed widely in affordable housing, could greatly assist in reducing social exclusion at a very low cost. However, they must be able to sell back the electricity.
I must say that I was very unimpressed with the evidence presented to the committee from the regulators. They did not seem to believe that net metering or helping small-scale installations had anything to do with them. They felt that it comprised a great number of little people who were trying to dribble back into the grid and that the big boys would not like it. But lots of dribbles make a river and that river could significantly contribute to the 10 per cent target. For that reason, I hope that the Government will provide instructions to the regulators to change their policy on the matter.
Perhaps I may say a few words on jobs. Power for the New Millennium: Benefiting from Tomorrow's Renewable Energy Markets is an interesting report produced for Greenpeace by Forum for the Future. It points out that five to 10 times more jobs would be
1124
created in the construction and operation of renewables than are available today with gas-powered stations. My message to the Minister is that I do not see a downside in opting for renewable energy sources. It is a win-win situation. I hope that the Government will have the courage, in the best sense of the word, to move a little faster on the issue.
12.31 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, like other speakers, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Geddes and his committee on producing a powerful report. I also welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Cathcart. It was a thoughtful and profound contribution in many ways.
Not only is it Guy Fawkes Day today, as has been drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley; it has been the week during which we had the fifth meeting of the parties to the Convention of Climate Change. In preparation for that, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research prepared an updated paper for the conference of parties. The paper has been available on the Web for a little time, and has been published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the title Climate Change and its Impacts. The foreword written by the Deputy Prime Minister must be one the gloomiest that has ever been written over the name of a Secretary of State for the Environment. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate has left the Chamber because the Deputy Prime Minister says here that:
"without action to curb emissions [of greenhouse gases], many parts of the world will suffer severely from the effects of climate change in the lifetime of many people alive today … even stabilising carbon dioxide at twice pre-industrial levels, which is the EU objective—and which represents a considerable challenge—will nevertheless entail significant damage".
He goes on to list the severe damage that may occur in many parts of the world under the latest Hadley predictions. The only totally bizarre point here is that the right honourable gentleman Mr John Prescott has chosen one of his "chubby cherub" photographs to head the piece. I strongly advise his public relations team to acquire a much more set-jawed, determined and resolute image to accompany such serious and gloomy messages. This is a very real and serious issue.
In paragraphs 248 and 249 of the report my noble friend Lord Geddes makes it clear that "renewables" in the terms of the committee's report and under the terms of the United Kingdom targets do include municipal wastes. At the same time as Sub-Committee B of my noble friend Lord Geddes was conducting this inquiry, Sub-Committee C, which I chair, was examining the proposal for a Council Directive on Incineration of Wastes, COM(98)588 final. Our report was ordered to be published a fortnight earlier than that for my noble friend Lord Geddes—we just beat him to the post—but the Government have been much more laggardly in their reply, which we received only on 29th October. However, I have given notice that today I shall be speaking on matters of cross-interest between the two reports.

1125
As has been indicated in the Government's reply to the report on the incineration of wastes, progress on the waste incineration directive has been diverted by action in the European Parliament, by decisions taken at the June 1999 Environmental Council and by the publication of an amended waste incineration proposal by the European Commission. Furthermore, the whole issue is now under review by the new European Parliament. For that reason, my intervention today does not preclude a much fuller debate at a later date when a clearer picture emerges on the question of incineration processes. However, particular attention will need to be paid to wider aspects, including the position of incineration in an overall strategy for wastes management, emission standards and public health issues. However, it is appropriate for me to thank our specialist adviser, Professor Judith Petts, who is now deputy director of the Centre for Environmental Research and Training at the University of Birmingham. Furthermore, I thank the witnesses who assisted us and my fellow members of the committee who took part in the inquiry.
Wastes are substances that must be destroyed or disposed of under safe conditions. One disposal route that can be taken is incineration under controlled conditions. In whatever form it re-emerges, the revised wastes incineration directive will surely contain the requirement that best endeavours must be made to utilise the resultant energy. For that reason, the key point for today's debate is that wastes can substitute primary fuels in thermal processes for the production of energy. In that way, the incineration of wastes can lessen the overall production of carbon dioxide, which is the most abundant of the greenhouse gases to threaten the world's climate.
The debate today is focused on electricity generation, but it is actually far more efficient to make direct use of the heat of combustion. The members of Sub-Committee C were impressed by the extent to which cement kilns in particular can directly use the heat from burning certain wastes with or without pre-treatment. That process is known by the general name of co-incineration. The committee firmly recommended that so long as it is possible to comply with emission standards, all opportunities should be seized for the increased use of co-incineration. Co-incinerated wastes include treated liquid wastes which are marketed as secondary liquid fuels. In paragraph 85 of its report, the committee recommended that no barriers should be put in the way of continued use of secondary liquid fuels except those that can be justified on health and environmental grounds.
Our attitude was the same towards co-incinerated solid wastes; for example, arisals from carpet manufacture and so forth. In Belgium, I have seen problematic wastes successfully co-incinerated in cement kilns; for instance, sewage sludge mixed with sawdust from furniture manufacturers.
1126
I therefore welcome the Government's positive response to the committee's set of recommendations on co-incineration—and I shall quote from the government response to the report from Sub-Committee C—
"properly regulated, this technology can recover significant value from wastes, displace the use of fossil fuels and help to reduce fuel costs for businesses".
In their response the Government added their views on the treatment of used tyres for incinerated waste. The European Union directive will ban whole tyres from landfill by 2003 and shredded tyres by 2006. That will create a very considerable problem for the disposal of useless and worn tyres. In their response the Government have stated that they,
"consider that recovery in properly controlled cement kilns will have a key and increasing role to play".
In that context, I presume that "recovery" means energy recovery. I hope that when he replies the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will assure us that there will now be a strong government effort to promote such disposal routes through co-incineration with the direct recovery of energy.
The Government's response also supports the conclusion of both committees that in a system of sustainable waste management there will be a need for modern municipal waste incinerators with tight emission controls to protect the environment and public health. Furthermore, it may provide combined heat and power where practicable. In this area the government response is somewhat defensive. It attempts to defend the UK record for combined heat and power from waste. However, the figures speak for themselves. There are only two schemes in Sheffield and Nottingham. What should be the flagship scheme, the south-east London SELCHP scheme, is a misnomer because of failure to agree by the local authorities involved which it would serve. There is no combined heat and power being provided by SELCHP.
Sustainable waste management will give proper emphasis to the waste hierarchy. The prior objectives, as the right reverend Prelate said, must always be for waste reduction, recovery and recycling. The key question posed by Sub-Committee C is: what additional capacity will be needed? In this country only 10 waste incinerators are currently in operation, disposing of about 7 per cent of national waste arisings. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred to a déjà vu experience. I, too, have a déjà vu experience. In 1989 I chaired the precursor of Sub-Committee C on the issue of incinerators. At that time we warned against the loss of existing incineration facilities. They were lost and difficulties are now being encountered in restoring them.
When we took evidence from the Minister, the right honourable Michael Meacher, the departmental estimate was that between 28 and 165 new incinerators would be needed in the United Kingdom to meet the

1127
targets of the landfill directive. As a committee, we were astonished at the imprecision of those predictions and we commented:
"We have been offered no indication where these plants might be sited, or their capacity".
The answer, in the Government's response of 29th October, when one finds it, is quite simple. The Government state that:
"it will never be possible for the Government to suggest an exact number of facilities".
Sub-Committee C also said:
"We find it inconceivable that, without direct government intervention, as many as 165 plants would ever receive planning permission".
The role of the planning system has been a prominent feature of the debate so far. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, deals in some detail with the difficulties that are encountered in planning permission for renewable energy installations and recommends that the national policy for renewable energy should be an integral part of planning guidelines. What happens at present? As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, indicated, there is considerable opposition to, for instance, wind farms. I notice that the Council for National Parks, which is an organisation I support, listed as one of its three main achievements of the past year successful opposition to a proposed wind farm fought against through a long and expensive public inquiry. In another context, some other local action group or NGO may well be boasting of its achievement in beating off a CHP incinerator for municipal waste.
Denmark has been widely quoted. Denmark has a high level of municipal incineration providing combined heat and power. When we visited West Jutland recently on another committee visit we found that some 10 per cent of the power supply is already provided by wind generation and there is a target there of 50 per cent, apparently with full public consent.
So the United Kingdom has fallen behind. Whatever one may say about our planning system, one has to face up to the fact that it is incurably adversarial. A solution must be found to shorten the process and to eliminate the resentment and the reaction that inevitably arise after huge contested inquiries where one party always feels aggrieved and resentful.
I agree with the Government in rejecting the solution put forward by Sub-Committee B that there should be a general planning presumption in favour either of wind farms or waste incinerators. There are important planning conditions in both cases. But the Government's response to the report is dead bat and is woolly. There are seven paragraphs of total obfuscation and obscure jargon ending up with the rather extraordinary sentence that this process will,
"encourage regional planning bodies to set targets in RPG, where sensible to do so, for the structure plan and UDP areas within the region consistent with the regional target provided by the regional framework. Advice on this will be in the final version of PPG11, due to be issued later this year".
1128
We must wait for that with bated breath. In Wales there is separate planning policy guidance and in Scotland we are told that the promotion of renewables is devolved to the Scottish Executive and is an issue of considerable interest to the Scottish Parliament. The only catch phrase I do not see is "world class benchmarks".
The response to the committee's report is weak and temporising. Something has gone wrong. When these targets are achievable, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, and when there is a great variety of ways in which renewable energy can be obtained, why cannot we get our act together? I believe that one of the problems is the mixed and uneven devolved constitutional structure that has been put in place. That lacks the defining federal centre with the obligations and the powers to take a lead on critically important global and national issues. It seems to me that the United Kingdom Government, which we have to distinguish quite frequently from the administration of England—although it is the same people at different levels—have abdicated entirely the role of national government in an important area. We are left with a system which is so devolved that it lacks the ability to come together in a coherent way.
The solution proposed by the committee for the establishment of a dedicated agency has been rejected by the Government but I am pleased to see that the Government have accepted the committee's recommendation that they should undertake an authoritative public attitude survey. But I think that much more than that is needed. What I should like the Minister to say is that he will commit the Government immediately to a national consensus conference sponsored by the Government and clearly led by central government but without preconditions and involving, if I may use the jargon, all the stakeholders, including the NGOs, the energy producers and the vast range of people who have a special interest in different renewable processes. We need an immediate focus because the problem is urgent. We need to determine what renewable facilities are needed, including wind farms and waste incinerators with CHP, and where they will be placed. Let us predict in advance where these will be needed and where they will be acceptable so that the process can march on with the speed that is necessary.
It has already been said in the debate that action is needed on an heroic scale. The Government cannot opt out of the national duty of governance that will be sorely needed with regard to the global disasters that are predicted by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Deputy Prime Minister in his foreword to the Hadley Centre report. Those disasters can only be alleviated because, as the report makes clear, many of them can no longer be averted.
12.46 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, as a member of the European Communities Committee, I pay tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for the excellent leadership which he gave us

1129
throughout this complex inquiry. I express gratitude, too, to our specialist adviser, David Milborrow, and our clerk, Roger Morgan, for helping us to produce a wide-ranging but coherent and constructive report on this important topic. I should also like to thank the many witnesses who gave evidence to us. I hope they feel that their efforts were worth while. I should like to thank the Government for responding to our report. We had a quite lengthy response from them. Notwithstanding the length, I have to join previous speakers in expressing a shade of disappointment with what they have had to say. I rather suspect that many of those who gave evidence will share those feelings.
Why do I say that? I sense that as time has passed there appears to have been some weakening of the Government's manifesto commitment to a new and strong drive to develop renewable sources of energy; specifically, achieving 10 per cent of UK electricity requirements from renewables by 2010. Further qualifications of this target seem to appear every time another review or statement on renewables is made. The statement to us in October reads:
"Development of renewable energy, along with the promotion of improved energy efficiency and CHP, is an essential component of any cost-effective climate change strategy".
We have no problem with that. It continues:
"A combination of all these factors will be needed".
We have no problem with that in the committee. The statement goes on:
"The Government has announced its intention of working towards the aim of achieving 10% of the UK's electricity supply from renewable sources".
That was quoted by my noble friend Lord Geddes. However, he missed something out. The statement went on to say,
"as soon as possible".
So in fact a further qualification has been added to that.
That hardly sounds like a firm and ringing recommitment to the 2010 target for renewables or indeed to the 2003 target. Moreover, our confidence in that has been further undermined by the Government's announcement that another statement on renewables will come some time next year after a new draft climate change programme has been published around the turn of the year. The latter, we are, told will recommit the Government to ensuring that the UK meets its climate change targets. That is good news, as is the subsequent distribution of the Kyoto target in the European Union. The Government state that there will only be moves towards meeting the more challenging domestic goals for renewables. As I understand it, that represents a shift in policy position since the Government first talked to us on the matter 12 months ago. I should be grateful if my noble friend would tell me whether I am right or wrong. I must say that I should prefer to be wrong.
Will my noble friend tell the House when the renewables statement is likely to be made? Will it be a programme with targets, and if not, why not? Is he aware that doubts are beginning to arise, and also
1130
within the renewables industry, about the Government's ability to deliver their target of 5 per cent of electricity from renewable energy sources from 2003? That is worrying. While the 2010 target has always been stretching, so far there has not been the same amount of questioning about delivery of the 5 per cent target for 2003. That depends significantly on presently developing, and existing, contracts for electricity from renewables being maintained. As regards contracts reached on the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) arrangements, with the restructuring of the electricity industry the NFFO support mechanisms are likely to go. So there are understandable fears that renewable contracts could be at risk. In turn, the 2003 target could be at risk. Like other speakers, I ask my noble friend the Minister to endeavour to assuage the fears, particularly in the industry, and at least recommit the Government firmly to the 5 per cent target for 2003.
The Government have already said that that is,
"critically dependent on maintaining the integrity of the existing contracts through the reform process currently under way in the electricity market".
Will my noble friend indicate how they intend to achieve that? Does he foresee the plans being acceptable to existing contractors? If not, will my noble friend listen to their concerns and meet with them?
I apologise for rather labouring these points and concentrating almost exclusively on the issue of targets—I was pleased to note that the right reverend Prelate took up the same point; indeed, he voiced criticism—but unless there is a firm commitment in relation to those targets, the many statements that we have made in the report and the recommendations in other areas are worth nothing. We really must stick with the attempt to obtain firm commitments from the Government.
On the positive side, I welcome the lead role that the Government adopted at Kyoto. The UK accepted that urgent action is required on global warming and climate change. As we heard today, the Hadley Report re-emphasises the fact that there are even greater problems ahead, that there is no time to be wasted and that we must move quickly. I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister has taken the matter on board promptly.
The UK adopted more onerous greenhouse gas obligations than most of our European partners, and we set internal targets that go well beyond even those savings. The committee believes, as I do personally, that we should stick to them. This is a global issue. There is no escape from the consequences of our failure, or that of others, to act. We must use our influence with other countries within the EU, and especially with the USA, to encourage an adequate level of commitment and a sense or urgency— and in China also. The best approach is to set a good example by doing it ourselves. Our report sets out a way forward based on that example. I commend it to the House.
12.54 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the production of this excellent and timely report. I, uniquely among speakers so far, remain a sceptic about global warming. If we manage to double the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, my judgment is that, with luck, it will postpone the onset of the next Ice Age by 200 years, and I am in favour of that. In the meantime, it will help my garden grow, and I am also in favour of that. If anyone is listening, we could do with a bit of global warming in the Chamber at the moment. I do not know whether there is a tap that can be turned, but I have been getting very cold sitting on these Benches.
Regardless of matters of timing, and however relevant or irrelevant the quota for Kyoto, it is clear that the fossil fuels that we are using will run out and that there will be a need to develop other means of supplying energy. In the process of fossil fuels running out, we shall at one time or another encounter some pretty severe shocks in regard to supply and price, which, if we have not prepared for them by putting in place a good quantity of renewable energy, will be much more damaging for this country than they need be.
We face a future that is unpredictable in the long term. The Government and successive governments must approach the matter with determination and consistency. The first thing that a government must do—more so than the present Government are doing—is to provide for research. That is a long-term area, and one where there are a number of possible solutions, none of which yet seems likely to be "the one". We cannot see where that is likely to happen. It is essential to keep research going on a broad range of activities, and not be put off by my noble friend's pessimism about the possibility of agriculture providing some of the sources of energy. We must look broadly and widely, and make sure that we do not attempt to back individual horses at this stage.
The Government must also develop the technologies that are beginning to look promising, and must support their early commercial development. Too many technologies have had their birth in this country but have gone on to be developed elsewhere because we have not allowed them to begin their commercialisation here. When we come to technologies such as photovoltaic, in which we have a major company as a world leader, it is essential that we continue to provide opportunities in this country for that technology to be used.
One crucial thing that the Government can do in that connection is attempt to remove some of the distortions that are present in the system. Net metering has been referred to by many speakers and it is mentioned in my noble friend's report. It is an enormous disincentive to people trying out small projects on a local basis. At present, the grid can clearly afford inputs from such sources without incurring any great costs or distortions. It is essential that we should allow those types of projects to go forward on the most profitable and commercially
1132
sensible basis by offering net metering and not imposing on them the extraordinary costs that the generators seem to want to impose.
We must also concentrate on storage. I have not seen that mentioned in the report. I declare an interest. Local schemes, particularly those that rely on intermittent sources of energy, require methods of storing that energy so that it can be dispensed over the period in which it is likely to be used locally; otherwise, we need to rely on a National Grid into which the energy can be fed. One of the principal contenders in that area, although it is not the only technology by any means, is the use of fuel cells to produce a hydrogen-based economy. Intermittent power is used to produce hydrogen, and the hydrogen is converted into power as required. That kind of avenue and that type of technology should come within this area. We are some way away from major commercial possibilities; however, the Government should not neglect that method when considering renewables. Sources of energy produced locally have many advantages. They can use local types of fuel, initiative and labour that are not available on a larger scale. If ways can be found to use those energy sources locally rather than transport them long distances, it is more likely that they will be commercially viable.
This report comes at a time when it appears that the Government are flagging in their resolve. Although I do not share the great fear of global warming that appears to motivate so many people in this area, I believe that it is something on which the Government must press ahead. They must make clear their planning policies and support for small-scale renewable energy initiatives so that they do not run into difficulties of the kind which mean that in the end we lose out on this technology.
1 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, at the outset I must declare an interest. Apart from my membership of various environmental organisations, I am an honorary vice-president of the Council for National Parks and serve on the north west regional committee of the National Trust. I am also fortunate to live in a national park. Tribute should be paid to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, supported by the members of the committee, for this interesting report. If it is in order, tributes should also be paid to others, such as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, under whose distinguished chairmanship I have been privileged to serve on Sub-Committee C, for all that they have done on kindred committees.
Sometimes I feel that committees of this House which deal with environmental concerns haplessly struggle to contain the consequences of a situation that is out of our control and that we are fiddling with detail while a potentially terminal environmental crisis gathers momentum. Whether it be waste management, biodiversity or power, we could yet be damned by history for masking the symptoms of a fatal social disease; namely, that our present style of materialist growth simply cannot be sustained. If we do not look out we shall bury ourselves in our own waste,

1133
irreparably harm the globe's ecological systems, destroy biodiversity and eliminate the space and aesthetic balance, not least the beauty of our countryside, without which the wellbeing of our species will undoubtedly be damaged, perhaps fatally.
Remember, all the warning signs are there, not least on global warming and its devastating consequences. While a mere 25 per cent of the world's population continues to consume 80 per cent of the world's resources, God knows what will happen as the excluded demand their fair share. We simply must reduce the waste that we produce, limit the energy that we consume, protect the open spaces—the lungs of humanity—stop talking about agricultural policy with certain environmental responsibilities and begin to talk about environmental management, of which agriculture is merely a part. These are the urgent realities.
The truth is that a grip on environmental strategy is central to any kind of relevant politics. That raises the most immense issues of access, equity and justice. Without this priority becoming a constant, evident reality for the United Kingdom, and the international community as a whole, all our work in Select Committees may add up to nothing more than occupational therapy for those of us who do it—card playing while the "Titanic" sinks.
For all those reasons, I am 100 per cent in favour of producing energy from a variety of renewable resources. Among them I welcome wind power, but I favour it as a means to a decent, balanced and sustainable society. Wind power, or any other alternative power, must be planned in such a way that it does not destroy what it is there to serve. That is why much clearer guidance is needed on where wind power developments in either onshore or offshore locations are environmentally acceptable and where they are not. There is an urgent need to use stakeholder inputs to regional, county and district planning in order to identify the most environmentally suitable areas for the development of renewable energy in general and the wind energy resource in particular.
There are indeed places where wind and other renewable energy generation can be developed in an environmentally benign way. The coast north of Workington, Liverpool docks, or Blyth Quay, to which the report refers, are all examples. Renewable energy strategies, such as those pioneered in Cumbria and Cornwall, are needed to guide developers to such places. Their preparation should involve full public consultation and participation by local communities. However, we must beware of putting all the load on the relatively disadvantaged, creating new social sinks where we expect to find the power generation, the incinerators, the sewage works and the poor.
When we consider future planning for renewables it is essential that some kind of environmental appraisal is built into the incentive process. This will help to weed out the most environmentally questionable applications. I think of those on the fringes of national parks that keep being refused but will not take no for an answer. For example, there is a proposal for a wind
1134
power station at Mynydd Cilciffeth on the edge of the Pembroke National Park which I understand has recently raised its head for the third time in three years. Such an appraisal will also help to direct developers towards more environmentally acceptable locations, thereby reducing delays in the planning system.
Government guidance should make it much clearer where such developments are acceptable and where they are not. Nationally designated special landscapes and their fringes need stronger protection within planning policy guidance on renewables. Planning policy guidance in this context should underline that national parks are afforded the highest status of protection for landscape and scenic beauty: It is essential that planning guidance is not weakened to secure permission for developments that would otherwise be unacceptable, particularly in designated areas.
By being clearer on the appropriate siting of wind energy developments and in future introducing a form of prior environmental appraisal, the planning system would hold the key to the Government's policy on renewables. It would enhance countryside protection, increase public support for renewables and direct developers to environmentally more acceptable locations. It must be recognised that the sensitive boundary zones around the national parks are under great pressure from large-scale wind energy development.
Considerable pressure is being exerted by developers. The boundary zones of the Lake District, Snowdonia, the Pembrokeshire coast and Yorkshire Dales have been particular targets. As turbine size increases, the visually sensitive zone around the national parks will obviously become enlarged. For all those reasons, financial support should be given to a wider mix of renewable technologies, such as photovoltaics and solar energy. That will increase the choices available to the public and local authorities in deciding what renewables are appropriate for their areas.
The non-fossil fuel obligation inevitably encourages developers to target the economically most advantageous sites. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel powerfully argued, this means that areas of greatest landscape sensitivity are the preferred choice for developers because that is where the highest wind speeds are to be found. NFFO's narrow focus on cost has encouraged the insensitive siting of wind turbines in or near nationally recognised landscapes. I believe it is highly questionable to claim that NFFO has been a considerable success because of the environmental benefits of the wind energy projects that it has supported. Surely, financial contracts for new wind power developments should take account of a range of environmental considerations, including the landscape and wild life impacts.
I should like to put five specific questions to my noble friend. First, does he agree that policies for renewable resources should be set within a strategic framework for energy policy, with emphasis given to measures to promote a reduction in energy

1135
consumption and efficiency? Secondly, does he agree that public policy guidelines should be speedily reviewed with a view to giving clear strategic guidance on developing regionally based policies for renewables and stronger protection for national parks and their sensitive fringes? Thirdly, does my noble friend agree that the planting of large-scale energy crops and the deployment of offshore wind turbines should be brought under the control of the local use planning system? Fourthly, does he agree that financial support should be made available for a portfolio of renewable technologies, including small-scale and community-based schemes? Fifthly and finally, does my noble friend agree that projects should be required to obtain planning permission prior to receiving a financial contract, and there should be a sustainability appraisal for each round of contracts under the future support arrangements?
Wild landscapes are a valid and genuine sustainable development issue. Future generations will need clean energy, but they will also need open and wild countryside. I believe that if ever there was a dimension of human affairs where the drive and rules of the market must be balanced by intervention for the common good, unarguably this is one.

Hereditary Peers' Elections
1.10 p.m.
The Clerk of the Parliaments: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now announce the results of the election of 75 hereditary Peers and their party or group in accordance with the provisions of the House of Lords Bill and Standing Order 9. I shall start with the smallest electorate—namely, the Labour Party—and end with the largest—namely, the Conservative Party. A paper setting out the complete results will be available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library shortly after I sit down. The paper will give names of the successful and unsuccessful candidates with the number of votes cast for each. At the elections held on 3rd and 4th November, the following candidates have been elected:
Labour Party: 17 Peers completed valid ballot papers. The following were successful:

L. Milner of Leeds

8

L. Rea

7

Liberal Democrat Party: 20 Peers completed valid ballot papers. The following were successful:

E. Russell

17

L. Avebury

13

L. Addington

10

Cross-Bench Peers: 105 Peers completed valid ballot papers. The following were successful:

B. Darcy de Knayth

85

L. Freyberg

82

L. St. John of Bletso

81

L. Northbourne

78

E. Sandwich

78

V. Allenby of Megiddo

75

V. Tenby

74

L. Palmer

72

V. Slim

72

V. Bledisloe

70

L. Monson

70

V. Brookeborough

68

L.Bridges

68

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy

64

L. Hylton

64

E. Baldwin of Bewdley

63

E. Carnarvon

58

E. Listowel

58

L. Moran

57

B. Strange

53

E. Erroll

52

L. Walpole

52

V. Craigavon

51

B. Wharton

48

V. Colville of Culross

47

V. Waverley

47

L. Greenway

47

E. Rosslyn

45

Conservative Party: 204 Peers completed ballot
papers. The following were successful:

E. Ferrers

190

L. Strathclyde

174

L. Trefgarne

173

L. Denham

169

L. Mancroft

168

E. Howe

165

L. Brabazon of Tara

165

E. Caithness

161

L. Henley

160

L. Glenarthur

157

L. Astor of Hever

151

V. Astor

146

E. Courtown

143

E. Peel

142

L. Moynihan

137

E. Attlee

135

V. Goschen

132

D. Montrose

127

L. Burnham

127

L. Vivian

126

E. Northesk

126

E. Selborne

125

V. Bridgeman

125

L. Luke

124

E. Lindsay

116

L. Lucas (of Crudwell and Dingwall)

115

L. Montagu of Beaulieu

113

E. Home

113

L. Glentoran

104

E. Onslow

99

L. Crathorne

97

L. Willoughby de Broke

96

L. Inglewood

95

L. Northbrook

95

L. Swinfen

95

E. Shrewsbury

95

L. Selsdon

94

E. Liverpool

93

E. Arran

90

E. Dundee

90

L. Mowbray and Stourton

88

L. Rotherwick

88

That is the complete list.

Electricity from Renewables: ECC Report
Debate resumed.
1.16 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is for me a day of sadness and regret. I regret that colleagues both old and new are retiring by rotation or because the Government have cut the ground from under their feet. Although the noble Lord, Lord Paul, was a little previous earlier in this debate, it is poignant that all I can say is that my noble friend Lord Cathcart is welcome; I thank him for making his one and only, and most pertinent, speech, in this debate; and I am afraid I have to say goodbye. I regret too that it is not "peeratically" correct for each succeeding speaker to congratulate maiden speakers. I should probably not even comment on the fact that this is the last debate on the report of Sub-Committee B to be introduced by my noble friend Lord Geddes for a while at least. I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues, even perhaps the whole House, when I say that we shall miss his lighthearted but firm leadership and his ability to put complex concepts into words that even I could understand.
My regrets are not wholly personal. I should hate to be in the Minister's shoes when he answers this debate. It has been difficult, to say the least, for any previous speaker to say anything good about the Government's response to this report. The noble Lord has been put in rather a difficult position, not only by his own department but also by the usual channels. I am also genuinely sorry for him that the DTI responded before this debate was held—I doubt that he will make that mistake again. The point is that we are all on the same side; we all want the Government to succeed.
The central theme of the report—the 64 billion dollar question—is whether the Government will meet the Kyoto target to which they themselves signed up, of obtaining 5 per cent of this country's electricity from renewable sources by 2003 and 10 per cent by 2010, and, if so, how.
I have to say that I heard no one in the committee, even after such an exhaustive inquiry as we had held, say that they had any more than a cat's chance in a whirlpool of achieving it. Nor does the Government's response make me any more sanguine. Yes, they agree with us that it is technically possible, but that is not the point. Much of the debate so far has concentrated on the technicalities. I do not think that it is right for me at this point to reiterate what has been said. Yes, the Government have a policy, but that is not the point either. Yes, renewable forms of generation have been encouraged under NOFFO and its Scottish equivalent. Contracts have been placed. Very good. But it is one thing to sign up to a contract without, I would remind the House, any planning permission required in advance; and for that contract to result in the production of a single watt of electricity. Will the same be true of the post-NOFFO arrangements?
1138
The Government's response is littered with comments like,
"The Government believes the existing non-fossil fuel obligation arrangements should"—
I emphasise the word "should", as clearly they do not have the courage of the convictions of the former Minister for Energy that they would—
"secure its target of 5 per cent … by 2003".
And it states:
"The Government has announced its intention of working towards the aim of achieving 10 per cent … as soon as possible. We hope to achieve this by 2010".
That does not give me much confidence.
I might have become less cynical when I read,
"What is clear is that achievement of both the European Commission's renewable targets and the Government's own renewables aim will require coherent policy action and a sustained drive and leadership. The Government intend to provide that drive and leadership".
That is until I read it again. The Commission has targets. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government merely have aims which are considerably lesser things. By their own omission the Government have nothing to say about coherent policy action, a point that was made earlier in this debate.
I have one last quote. When talking about the role of planning and an inclusive approach to policy objectives, the Government say,
"not least those related to sustainable development and climate change. The Government also attach great importance to developing an inclusive approach to all these issues, and one which can command broad and continuing support across the wider community. It has therefore sought to develop that consensus through consultation".
The sands of time are running out. We have only three years left to the first Kyoto objective date.
However, I conclude on what I hope will be a positive note. Most of the first of those years will be taken up by the utilities Bill. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be in his place leading upon it. I understand that it will be proposed in the Queen's Speech. I and other noble Lords will scrutinise it carefully. The Government have a golden opportunity to give positive incentives, not only in the post-NOFFO regime, which at the very least is to be included, but to take other positive steps. I should like renewable energy projects on the land already owned by the generating companies surrounding power stations to come within the general development order for the purpose of renewable energy developments. That would surely get rid of most of the environmental concerns expressed on both sides of the House. If necessary, I shall seek the agreement of the House to amendments to that effect.
Outside the Bill, I should like to see changes to the tax regime. Why should landfill tax not be reclaimed when methane is used for energy production, whether in combined heat and power plants or just electricity generators? To support a point made by my noble friend Lord Geddes, why should not the electricity generating companies be given climate change tax

1139
credits for the percentage they generate from non-fossil fuel sources? That would offset the cost which they claim as their reason for being dead set against net metering; namely, the cost of inspection.
If, as the committee believes, the 2003 aim is not achievable, at least then the 2010 ambition would be closer to reality. What almost every speaker in the debate has asked for is simple. We want action, not chat.
1.24 p.m.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, as have other members of the committee, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, first, on his patience with us and his diplomatic skills in bringing our report to the conclusion which is arousing so much interest today. I congratulate, too, the noble Earl on his maiden speech. It is customary to congratulate noble Lords on their maiden speeches. I do not know how customary it is to invite them to become members of the committee, even if they are to be no longer Members of this House. We would have welcomed the noble Earl had he been available, I am sure.
As a business man, in addition to considering all the technical points to which noble Lords have listened today, I asked myself over and again: would I invest in this industry at the present time? From a national need point, I would. But when one leads a company one does not lead it for the national good but primarily for the good of one's shareholders. I must say that at present I would find it very hard to justify investment in this industry. Could one gain a decent return on one's investment? I do not think so. At present it is a demoralised industry. It is an industry which is surrounded by uncertainty.
Of course that is not surprising, for each of the constituent parts is dependent upon government funds for its financial health, and where one relies on the custodians of the purse one is competing against a vocal public insisting on action and expenditure in areas of which this is not one. Without wider understanding and awareness of the issues, there will not be the public support which is crucial both in terms of funding and sympathetic planning approval, which is necessary.
During the two energy crises, in particular the one when it was suggested that we clean our teeth in the dark or were not permitted to travel at more than 50 miles per hour, all our citizens realised how dependent we are on energy. At the present time we burn it as though it will gurgle for ever, but in reality we know that it will not. To me it is somewhat ironic that it is the overwhelming importance of reducing CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2010 which is currently driving this debate. It is the fact that fuel resources are finite, and the absolute inevitability of, first, a clear decline leading to fears of scarcity coupled with sharply rising prices. That is what we shall face at some moment in time. Of course people have cried wolf about this previously. It would be a pity if we had to suffer that before renewables came into their own.
1140
Until then, we have public subsidy, and all the uncertainty that that must bring. The one thing above all others which struck me as I listened is the issue of uncertainty: uncertainty about the future of NOFFO contracts; uncertainty as to whether existing NOFFO contracts will be honoured in such a way that the finance they have put in place will not have to be renegotiated; uncertainty about planning permission for wind farms; uncertainty about offshore wind; uncertainty about biomass; and uncertainty about coppicing. We have had review after review, and we are still at it.
I quote from the Government's response to our report:
"The Government plans to publish a draft climate change programme for the UK towards the end of this year".
Is this the Statement from the Chancellor announced for next week? Maybe not, because Mrs. Liddell, the newly appointed and very able Energy Minister, announced in a Written Answer last week that the period for discussion with industry on some aspects of the climate change levy has now been extended from mid-October to 20th December. I quote again:
"and a statement on renewable energy policy to follow".
There is no date for that, or are we getting it next week? I doubt it.
I turn to page 27 of the Government's response to our report. It states:
"The Government intends to take broad powers to establish a new support mechanism in the Utilities Bill, which it hopes to announce this autumn".
Presumably that will be in the Queen's Speech. In this is mentioned the possibility of a further support scheme to replace the current NOFFO arrangements, so uncertainty might continue not for more months but for a year or more in this area.
The Government, who have justly earned generous plaudits for their management of the economy, recognise that the two things commerce must have are consistency and certainty. The Government are so right. It is what we need in this area.
That prompts me to turn to the committee's recommendation that, in order to help to achieve the UK's targets, there should be established a strong and pro-active new agency to bring together the fragmented responsibilities which could provide the drive which seems to be absent at the moment.
The Government's response states:
"It is important to recognise the cost and disruption resulting from organisational change".
But what about the gain? There is the prospect of tens of thousands of new jobs; the prospect of £6 billion of new investment from British industry for renewables during the coming decade; and the prospect of low cost, sustainable energy for all our population. What prizes in return for some bureaucratic inconvenience!
I have been through this before. In the late 1960s, when it was obvious that there was a huge potential for tourism, there were great difficulties. In 1969, the Development of Tourism Act had to be passed to create the necessary hotel logistics and the support

1141
structure. At that time, we had 5 million tourists. This year, we shall have 28 million. If we had not taken such an initiative at that time, we should not have a new industry employing 1.7 million people and a colossal foreign exchange earner.
I do not malign those who have the enormously difficult role of co-ordinating the many government departments which have to be involved in renewables. Indeed, I respect their diligence and patience and recognise how multi-dimensional their task is. The farmers, who we all know are desperate for funds, can gain special financial support necessary for coppicing, but that has yet to be clarified in full.
I turn to a new area: the waste edible oil industry. It is stated that it has identified another interesting possibility: recovered oils and fats. Is that true? I do not know; but who jumps on it to have a look? Apparently no one has that responsibility. The Government need to have technologically specific policies to ensure that developments still in their infancy do not become overlooked.
The closing paragraph of the Government's response, when I believe responding to a favourable assurance we received from the previous Energy Minister to our suggestion that there should be an annual report which measures precisely what has been achieved during the year, states:
"The annual report of the Government's independent Energy Advisory Panel will continue to address all aspects of energy policy, including renewables. In addition, the DTI's annual report will report progress against the Department's stated objectives. The Government will however continue to examine the need for additional reports".
There is no need for any additional report. Any existing report can be used for what is necessary. It is the same reporting without which a modern business will not advance. What is planned for the year? What are the targets; the measure of precisely what has been achieved?
In one of their statements about the proposed climate change levy, the Government stated that an additional £50 million would be spent on "this", meaning a further £50 million would be recycled from the proceeds of the levy to support renewables and energy efficiency. Is that £50 million annually? Is it to be divided equally between renewables and energy efficiency? For both, it does not seem an adequate figure. So, you see, there is uncertainty here, too.
The new framework for renewables is at least 12 months overdue. 'There are tremendous opportunities for business and for jobs, if only we could get all this activated. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Mr Hill, when talking about the climate change levy last week, said in the other place that action speaks louder than words. I am sure that all of us in this House urge action and look forward to seeing it.
1.37 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend and his committee on the production of a
1142
most interesting report into what at first appears to be a relatively simple subject but what turns out to be very diverse indeed.
I do not profess to be an expert on any of the technologies involved, but, being a practical kind of person, the mechanics of the various methods of electricity and/or heat production I find quite fascinating. During my earlier days as a farmer, we used to burn a lot of wood in the house. Eventually, we had two wood-burning stoves and, properly managed, they must have saved us a considerable sum in reduced heating bills. Much, if not all, of the wood they consumed was waste and when not picked up around the farm could be obtained locally at minimal cost. Indeed, much of the waste that the farm produced was eventually consumed by fire, and I have to confess to being among those whose fields following the grain harvest became an inferno.
Thus, it was particularly interesting to read the report of the committee's visit to Denmark where the production of electricity from straw seems well advanced. I seem to remember that around the period that I was farming, many of the Danish farmers became insolvent and there was obviously a need to diversify. Perhaps this was why the practice started there. Straw is a very bulky commodity and suffers from seasonal availability, and one tends to feel that a plant of this nature could perhaps be designed to burn other things to even out any supply problems.
This brings me to the burning of municipal waste, which has always seemed to me to be a highly desirable method of its disposal, especially in view of the benefit of the heat and power availability. Much of Paris's waste is disposed of in that way and the city is ringed with incineration plants.
The committee was disappointed that in this country there seems to be difficulty in developing that technology, and that the difficulty is associated with planning problems and emission. I share that disappointment, because it is perfectly possible to design a plant in which nothing emerges from the stack except water vapour and some carbon dioxide, and to site and design it in such a way that little environmental damage is caused, even that associated with the waste's delivery. Such a plant would be less damaging than a landfill site, with its associated problems of wind-blown debris and unsightly appearance.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the South East London Combined Heat and Power Station, which is situated in the New Cross area, and, I believe, was developed by several local authorities. It is fuelled entirely by municipal waste and is supposed to produce electricity for the National Grid and waste heat to be piped to several nearby buildings for heating purposes, but I have yet to see anything come out of its chimney. I was sorry to learn from my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that the aspirations of that plant have not been achieved.
It was pleasing to see that the report acknowledged the useful part played by small hydro schemes. To those could perhaps he added similarly sized

1143
generating plants driven by tidal flows. As I live near Bristol, I am familiar with the enormous tides that occur there associated with the Severn Estuary. There must be many places where it would be possible to set up some sort of pilot scheme at one of the many creeks and tributaries.
In view of the great difference in level between high and low tides, useful quantities of water could be impounded and its energy used in both directions. I understand that such a scheme was envisaged for the River Avon at Bristol, but, alas, planning difficulties caused it to founder. Attempting to place a barrage across the Severn itself must be fraught with difficulty and, as the report notes, looks likely to produce too much power at the wrong times.
Wind generation using turbines is another useful method of electricity generation on a local basis. The concentration of the turbines at so-called farms is perhaps rather environmentally unfriendly and tends to concentrate any noise nuisance. One appreciates the economies of concentrating these turbines. However, a recent journey through the Eifel region of Germany revealed that many of the heights were crowned, in a fairly sympathetic manner, with at most two turbines or, more often, a single turbine. That arrangement appeared quite attractive and the presence of those majestically revolving propellers seemed almost complementary to the attractive landscape.
Travellers on the motorway in France driving parallel to the Channel coast will not have failed to notice, at the service area to the south of Boulogne, a wind turbine constructed as part of the service area site. It is fascinating to speculate as to whether the power requirements of that service area are provided by the turbine, assuming of course that there is sufficient wind.
That motorway is very well designed environmentally, with frequent crossings for local wildlife. Many of the telephones and signs are powered by photovoltaic panels, which I suppose are associated with batteries. Those devices are becoming increasingly available. Their uses run from being a power source for camping and caravanning to providing power for railway track lubricating units. I agree with the right reverend Prelate on this point. I feel that this technology associated with renewable energy will be most useful in the area of relatively small-scale projects and usage.
It is of course far more convenient to be connected to the public electricity supply, but one of the policies that might be adopted is perhaps to encourage people to use those renewable technologies as a primary form of energy, with back-up from the public supply. If that sort of use became widespread, the energy saved could well go a long way towards helping us to meet our Kyoto obligations.
The report notes that that type of energy use will be difficult to achieve and that most people seem to regard planning difficulties as one of the main obstacles. That is unfortunate, since planning seems to be problematic in many other fields. The adoption of
1144
a less obstructive planning system is important not only in connection with this subject but with many other unrelated infrastructure projects, especially in connection with transport.
In an excellent maiden speech, my noble friend Lord Cathcart said that planning problems arose more often as a result of planning policies rather than local obstructiveness. I agree with him, and feel that the Government should perhaps take a serious look at how guidance is provided to local planners.
Overall, the report will be a valuable reference for the future. Its excellence highlights the valuable work performed by such committees in this House.
1.44 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, this report (which we are debating on a Friday afternoon at the end of a long parliamentary Session) represents a seemingly modest doorway which opens on to some of the most daunting perspectives of the coming century.
The report on electricity from renewable sources is concerned with how we should strive to reach the targets that we have set ourselves for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. At the conference on climate change at Kyoto in September 1997, the Government committed themselves to a reduction of 12.5 per cent in our emissions of carbon dioxide over a period from 1990 to some date within a target interval that runs from 2008 to 2012.
As many speakers have informed the House, the European Communities have derived some more specific targets, proposing that 5 per cent of their energy should be obtained from renewable energy sources by the year 2003, and 10 per cent by the year 2010. Among other matters, the report is intent on assessing the likelihood of our meeting those EU targets. It reaches the conclusion that, unless drastic action is taken, we have no chance of attaining them.
The Government, in the persons of the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, and the Minister of State at the DETR, Michael Meacher, played a leading role in saving the Kyoto conference from breakdown. They were faced with the unwillingness of some of the industrial nations, notably the United States and Japan, to commit themselves to taking any measures to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide. The American negotiators were doubtful that the US Congress could be prevailed upon to ratify the Kyoto protocols, given the powerful opposition of the members representing coal, oil, steel and automobile interests.
Third-world countries were in turn unwilling to help in overcoming a problem that was not of their own creation, unless they were offered major inducements. Their negotiators protested that they were being asked to forgo their own opportunities for industrial development by renouncing the use of their available energy resources, which they refused to do. The US

1145
Vice-President Al Gore said that the Clinton Administration would not even send the treaty to the Senate unless the third-world countries agreed to its terms. The outcome was a set of agreed emission targets to which no nation seems to be seriously committed.
I shall cease at this point because there seems to be some anxiety.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.47 to 2.8 p.m.]
Debate adjourned.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes past two o'clock.

  Benefits Recipients: Indebtedness
  Benefits Recipients: Indebtedness
  Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle
  Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle
  Rhine Army Units: Relocation
  Rhine Army Units: Relocation
  Lord Chancellor's Department: Expenditure Limit
  Lord Chancellor's Department: Expenditure Limit
  USA and Canada/UK Tariffs
  USA and Canada/UK Tariffs
  Committee for Privileges: Treaty of Union References
  Committee for Privileges: Treaty of Union References