Sitting of 28 October 1999

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill presented in the House in the present Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means;
  That the Chairman of Ways and Means shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to be considered;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Tuesday 2 November at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    New Deal (Renfrewshire)
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: How the new deal has been implemented in the Clyde coastal area; and which target groups have been identified in relation to the Renfrewshire labour market.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): A wide range of new deals are available in the Clyde coast and Renfrewshire area to tackle unemployment. These include the new deals for young people, for long-term unemployed people and for lone parents. In Renfrewshire, new figures to the end of August show that more than 1,000 people have found jobs through the new deal.
    Dr. Godman: First, I offer my compliments to my hon. Friend on his new appointment—long may he occupy the post.
    Although I think that there is too much emphasis on targeting, I wish to make a plea about the new deal on behalf of my disabled constituents, and of disabled people in the west of Scotland. I know that a first-class pilot project, the new deal for disabled people, is being conducted in Lanarkshire under the able management of Mr. Robert Jack and his team. However, we need a comprehensive system which will encourage disabled people to take up voluntary, part-time and therapeutic work, as well as education and training courses. If, as sometimes happens, things do not work out, disabled people should not have to face the threat of having to claim again for incapacity benefit and other benefits. The system has to be compassionate and sympathetic, and meet disabled people's needs.
    Mr. Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes. I shall do my best in the new deal that has been offered to me.
    My hon. Friend raises a serious issue about the treatment of people with disabilities. In his area, 561 people with disabilities have already started on existing new deal schemes, but he is right to say that we need to do much more. Pilots for the national new deal programme for disabled people are being held. We want to establish good practice so that we can roll out a national programme. In conjunction with our colleagues in the Department of Social Security, we are making sure that there is a sensitive interface with the social security system, so that people who have to return to the system if a job opportunity does not work out are not penalised.

    Long-Term Unemployment
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If he will report on progress under the New Deal in tackling long-term unemployment. [94250]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The latest figures released this morning show that 144,600 young people have found work through the new deal. Bearing in mind that these young people have been unemployed for more than six months, I believe that that is a very substantial contribution to the 700,000 people who have work under this Government and who would not have had that work under the Conservative Government. More than 92,000 people have benefited from the various options under the new deal, including more than 20,000 on the voluntary option and 20,000 on the environmental option. There has been a 60 per cent. fall in the number of young people who are unemployed, and youth unemployment is at its lowest level for 25 years.
    Mr. Savidge: Has my right hon. Friend assessed the financial and social costs that would be incurred if the Government adopted the policies proposed by the Conservative party of scrapping the new deal and replacing it with daily signing-on for benefit claimants?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am aware, of course, that the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), has proposed those ideas as Conservative party policy. It is impossible to detail the calculations that he has made, but we calculate that it would cost more than £540 million a year to force all job seeker's allowance claimants to sign on each day. That money could be used to get people jobs, implement the programmes that we have put in place, and ensure that people have the opportunity to work and to gain the skills necessary to hold down jobs.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Do not this morning's figures show that at least a third of people who have left the new deal have done so for what are called unknown destinations? As they are neither working nor not working, they seem to be the new disappeared. If the new deal really is working as the Secretary of State claims, why has the Secretary of State for Social Security proposed toughening up benefits sanctions?
    Mr. Blunkett: The survey work being undertaken shows that many of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred in fact go into jobs. Ironically, it is the new deal that has winkled out people from the sub-economy—the black economy—more effectively than any other measure this century. It has ensured that people are not drawing benefits and working on the side. We are achieving the goals that the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security seeks to achieve, but we are doing so in a way that is positively improving the life chances of thousands of men and women.
    Ms Linda Perham: I welcome the Government's measures to help the long-term unemployed. In my part of north-east London, by the end of July, 1,030 people were participating in the scheme for the over-25s. Almost one third of those people are over 50. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to reduce the qualifying period for the new deal for older people?
    1078
    Six months is a long time to be unemployed, and particularly so for anyone over 50. Two years is a very long time indeed.
    Mr. Blunkett: We have 28 pilots—plus Northern Ireland—for the over-25s. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I announced earlier this year that we would pilot the programme for the over-50s, and more will be said soon about that. We intend to roll out that programme across the country to ensure that, in addition to the 24,000 people who have gained jobs under the programme, others may benefit, and we are evaluating the pilots that currently monitor unemployment of more than 12 and 18 months to determine which date is most effective in ensuring that people can return to work. That will meet precisely my hon. Friend's correct analysis that the sooner we get people back to work, the more likely they will be to hold down the job.
    Mr. John Bercow: Is the Secretary of State aware that most new deal leavers do not succeed in gaining sustained unsubsidised work? Does he know that almost three quarters of those aged over 25 do not get jobs, and that no less than 41 per cent. of those who leave the advisory process on the scheme are simply left to traipse through the revolving door of benefits dependency? This week's Employment Policy Institute report shows that YMCAs across the country are complaining that they have to subsidise the over-bureaucratic wheeze introduced by Ministers. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that the new deal is an expensive white elephant which has done little but spray cold water over the legitimate hopes of thousands of jobless people the length and breadth of Britain?
    Mr. Blunkett: It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman takes that view because he has been against the new deal since it began. He has opposed the measures we have taken which have succeeded in getting young people back into work. Let me offer him some statistics. Out of 144,600 people who have gained a job, 106,000 are in what is clearly identified as a sustained and long-term job. That entirely refutes the hon. Gentleman's figures.
    Mr. Bercow: Wrong.
    Mr. Blunkett: Those are independent figures from the Office for National Statistics, which the Conservatives were happy to defend when they were in government. If they want to take up the matter outside Parliament, they are welcome to do so.
    The YMCA programmes are funded on a basis and to an extent never before achieved in the voluntary sector. Some 21,000 people across the country have benefited from the voluntary sector option. The sector has contracted voluntarily for that option in the full knowledge of what it was taking on. It is also reinforced by our intention, as I said at the Labour conference in Bournemouth, to extend the intensification of the gateway so that we can deal with the real problems that young people face. None of that would be supported if the Conservatives had their way.
    Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend encourage other areas to follow the example of the

    1079
    southern Derbyshire new deal joint venture partnership, which yesterday published its annual accounts and report on activities that have helped 2,500 young long-term unemployed adults into training and employment? Will he congratulate the five young adults who gained special awards at yesterday's launch in recognition of their outstanding work on the new deal programme, including Simon Carrier, who has undertaken a voluntary sector option at the Stepping Stones day centre in Amber Valley? Simon, who previously had a poor school attendance record, no educational qualifications and little work experience, has gained unsubsidised evening employment and will soon be a trained cook.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased to be able to congratulate Simon and his colleagues on what they are doing. One of the most encouraging things about the new deal programme is the pride and confidence that it is returning to young people who, after six months or more of unemployment, had lost expectations and confidence in themselves. The partnership that has developed between the private and voluntary sectors and the Employment Service is unique, as are the training and qualification measures, which are being carried out in ways that previous job schemes never achieved. Young people themselves are committed to the new deal, and they welcome what we are doing. They are the best judge and jury of the new deal.

    TECs
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on his plans for the future of TECs. [94251]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I am announcing today the boundaries of the new learning and skills councils at sub-regional level—subject to the legislative process of this House—following consultation through the regional development agencies and with the broader community. I am also announcing that a minimum of 40 per cent. of the membership of both the national and local councils will be those with recent experience in business and commerce, that the chairman of the national council and the majority of local council members will similarly have had recent business and commercial experience, and that we will try to ensure coherence in the delivery of funding and the provision of services to provide the skills that we need for the 21st century.
    Miss McIntosh: I take it from the Secretary of State's answer that the training and enterprise councils are to be abolished officially. May I take this opportunity to place on record my overwhelming support for North Yorkshire TEC and the contribution that it has made through the business community to training in the area? May I also ask the Secretary of State who is to be responsible for Investors in People and what the local involvement will be of the business community in training in future? I understand that reporting will be not local or sub-regional, but national—there will be no local involvement.
    Mr. Blunkett: The last point is entirely wrong. There will not only be direct involvement, but a great deal of
    1080
    discretion will be given to local learning and skills councils. Today, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I are putting out the details of the boundaries and of the operation of the Small Business Service. Those details are in the Vote Office for all Members to see. The Investors in People and work force development programmes will be carried out from the Small Business Service, which in the majority of cases locally will be coterminous with the learning and skills councils. It will have the opportunity to contract out those services to ensure that, by building on the success of the many business links, we will be able to provide the support and help to small businesses that they have lacked and for which they have clearly called.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Does he agree that he needs to get two big things right? One is to manage sensitively the transition in the next 18 months, so that the wheel does not fall off, and TEC staff continue to be motivated and committed to delivering their training and enterprise agenda. The other is to ensure that the new learning and skills councils are not mired in the bureaucracy that was heaped on TECs and are allowed genuinely to tackle skill shortages in their areas. What plans has my right hon. Friend in both fields?
    Mr. Blunkett: On the first point, I assure my hon. Friend that we will take every possible step to ensure that the transition is effective and that we carry forward programmes that are working to the new system. We will draw forward the announcement on resources for TECs from the usual time in the spring to the middle of November. We hope that that will ensure that they can support and work with us, as the TEC National Council is committed to doing, to ensure that the transition works effectively.
    Secondly, we are absolutely committed to business playing a vital role to ensure that learning is customised for the needs both of localities and the regions, and to ensure that in a modern, knowledge-based economy, we get the skills required non-bureaucratically and effectively. We will reduce the layers that exist in providing those skills, redirect the money from administration—up to £50 million a year—into training and skills development, and ensure that we meet the needs both nationally and locally of an economy of the future.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Secretary of State will be aware that many of my constituents work for his Department in Sheffield and are interested in decisions that affect the national headquarters of the learning and skills councils. Can he tell us where that will be? Can he assure staff in Sheffield about his Department's long-term commitment to maintaining a significant presence in the city and say what options may be offered to staff who may be affected by the decision?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am releasing today the decision taken following the investigation by Capita into the most cost-effective and administratively sensible approach to delivering the new programmes. We have decided that the learning and skills councils headquarters, together with the adult inspectorate, should be in Coventry. We believe that that will have an impact at the headquarters in Sheffield on about 100 or more employees. As usual,

    1081
    we shall give guarantees of redeployment and further training to them. We need to point out, however, that they will benefit from the Department's own concentration at the Moorfoot site of the staff needed to oversee the transition and to implement the new programmes, and a guarantee to retain the support that exists to the 2,750 people across Moorfoot and the Employment Service headquarters who currently have a job in the city.
    Ms Joan Ryan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London TEC council has stated that it strongly supports the objectives of the White Paper "Learning to Succeed"? We have a skills gap in London, particularly in the manufacturing trades and commercial construction services. We must have a learning and skills council that targets and closes those gaps. Does my right hon. Friend agree that for that to happen, it is vital that we have greater business involvement and greater training investment from businesses and employers?
    Mr. Blunkett: This is a partnership, which involves the allocation of £5 billion a year to 5 million current learners, matched by the commitment of business and commerce to their own in-house training and the broader needs of the sectors. The new 70 national training organisations are assisting in precisely that. The new structure, with a co-ordinating body and five learning and skills councils in London, will enable us to focus on the needs of Londoners more clearly and ensure that we meet the skills needs of the capital and the nation.
    Mrs. Theresa May: The Government's proposals on TECs and post-16 education and training have been described by the Confederation of British Industry as
    "a step in the wrong direction",
    by the Institute of Directors as
    "a potential form of centralised manpower planning",
    by the Local Government Association as introducing
    "unnecessary layers of bureaucracy",
    and by a former permanent secretary at the Department of Employment as
    "central control that cannot take account of local circumstances".
    Will the Secretary of State now accept the need to abandon his heavy-handed, centralised approach? Or do we assume that he classes the whole of British business, local government and the civil service as forces of conservatism?
    Mr. Blunkett: The main forces of conservatism are on the Benches opposite.
    I met Adair Turner and his colleagues from the CBI this week, and they welcome today's announcement. They embrace the way in which we have listened to the comments that they, the British Chambers of Commerce and others have made. They are fully in favour of our devolved powers and funding for the local learning and skills councils, and to the commitment to business having a substantial role in determining how public money is spent to meet the demand, which they rightly identify as being crucial to our nation's future. Therefore, they are behind what we are doing, not against it, and behind the Government, not the Opposition. They will work with us to ensure that the system works.

    Disability Rights
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How the Government are fulfilling their commitment to support comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for people with disabilities. [94252]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): We have made considerable and important progress towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment. To mention just some of the key achievements: the Disability Rights Commission will be in place by April 2000; last December, we reduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 employer threshold from 20 to 15; and from 1 October this year, service providers have been required to make reasonable adjustments to their policies and practices for disabled people. We are raising awareness of disability issues through our "see the person" campaign. I know that you, Madam Speaker, like brief answers so I will just say that there is much more to come.
    Mr. Griffiths: This is landmark legislation of which the Government can be proud. When will the Disability Rights Commission be fully operational? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that people with disabilities are able fully to utilise the services that it offers them?
    Ms Hodge: We have given a commitment that the Disability Rights Commission will be open for business next April and we have publicly announced the appointment of the chairman, Mr. Bert Massie, who has long experience as a disability campaigner and as chief executive of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. We shall ensure that the majority of people on the commission have a disability and that in terms of both where we locate the commission and the way in which it does its work, the organisation is fully accessible to people with a broad range of disabilities, who will want its services.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: There is widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland that the civil rights of all sections of society must be upheld. Bearing in mind the increased expectations of parents whose children have been statemented, is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate funding to ensure that people with disabilities throughout the United Kingdom receive the individual help that they need and can achieve their full potential through education and training?
    Ms Hodge: This is an important point. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has put huge efforts into introducing a new action plan for children with special educational needs, which will be properly funded. I am sure that with that plan in place and the additional funding that has been available, we can ensure that children with disabilities and other special educational needs get the best possible education so that they can meet their full potential.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applies to people who work for firms of 15 or more? Does she accept that, given the commendable speed with

    1083
    which the Government introduced the Disability Rights Commission, it would be appropriate to consult it as well as the Employers Forum on Disability, which is progressive on these matters, about extending that employment protection to other disabled people and those who could find important jobs?
    Ms Hodge: I commend my right hon. Friend's work on disabled people's rights throughout his long and distinguished parliamentary career. I assure him that we share a desire to bring all businesses, whatever their size, within the parameters and framework of disability discrimination legislation. To achieve that, we inserted a clause in the Disability Rights Commission Bill to enable the DRC to advise the Secretary of State on further reductions in the employer's threshold so that we can move as speedily as possible, bringing everyone with us, to coverage of all companies by disability discrimination legislation.

    National Year of Reading
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What assessment he has made of the impact of the national year of reading. [94253]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The National Literacy Trust will produce its evaluation report in December, but it has already told us that the success of the national year for reading has resulted in a massive take-up of library services, an increase in reading by parents and grandparents with children and a substantial contribution to the success of the national literacy programme which, as hon. Members will know, resulted in a five percentage point improvement in literacy levels for 11-year-olds this summer. The Conservatives, who announced their policy at their conference in Blackpool, would sweep away that programme, along with the numeracy programme, which is making so much progress.
    Mr. Simon Burns: One group of people are not benefiting from improved literacy skills, and they are individuals who are excluded from school. I thank the Minister for School Standards for the help that she gave a constituent of mine on this problem during the summer. Can the Department do more to ensure that excluded pupils benefit from improving their reading? Some children are excluded from school for more than a year without receiving any other education, even though they should be receiving it.
    Mr. Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments about my right hon. Friend; I, too, offer her congratulations on her becoming a Privy Councillor only a week ago. I am extremely glad that she is in the Chamber today, because she was stuck in a lift in Sanctuary Buildings, which could have excluded her from today's Question Time.
    School exclusion is a serious matter; it transcends party differences. Children who are not in school are not learning, and those who are excluded for long periods are likely to drift into crime and other activities which make matters worse. Ensuring that such children are quickly and effectively dealt with, and that support units throughout the country are available rapidly so that we can re-engage
    1084
    those young people in the most appropriate ways, is an essential task to make the literacy programmes work in practice.
    Madam Speaker: I have not called Dr. Iddon for his supplementary question. I think that I may have been confused because, after half an hour, we have only reached Question 5. However, I now call Dr. Iddon.
    Dr. Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Bolton local authority library service on the huge success of its national year of reading? During that year, the service contacted more than 40,000 people across the age spectrum—including 15,000 of the local authority's workers through their wage packets. It also put adverts on local multiplex cinema screens. One effect of that scheme has been a noticeable increase in library membership. Will my right hon. Friend promote numeracy in a similar way?
    Mr. Blunkett: In view of Madam Speaker's strictures, I shall be brief.
    Madam Speaker: I am glad that the Minister has got the message.
    Mr. Blunkett: That has taken up a little time.
    I congratulate all the people in Bolton whom I saw when I came to the festival held there during the summer. It was a tremendous success and has enabled Bolton to exceed the national improvement in literacy. I am sure that the maths and numeracy year will give equivalent results during the 12 months ahead.

    New Deal (Gateway)
    Ms Rosie Winterton: What steps his Department is taking to enhance the services offered at the gateway stage of the new deal. [94254]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): We have strengthened the gateway through extra support for young people during its fourth month, and by developing new tools to help identify their needs. We have also established trailblazer projects in 12 locations to test further improvements.
    Ms Winterton: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position, and thank him for that reply.
    The Employment Service in Doncaster greatly welcomes the Government's initiatives—especially the trailblazing initiatives—because of the help they give to promote best practice in dealing with clients who pose particular challenges. The Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council has emphasised the need for a coalition with employers. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps are being taken to ensure best practice from trailblazing through the involvement of employers? How can that best be passed on when the scheme rolls out nationwide? Will he come to Doncaster to encourage employers to join the Employment Service in that scheme?
    Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words about me and about the trailblazer projects. Their point is

    1085
    to promote best practice. We are already encouraging other units of delivery to adopt for their own gateways the successful aspects of the trailblazer approach. Trailblazers are about developing in young people the kind of soft skills that employers tell us that they want. It is most pleasing that employers are already getting on board; for example, Scottish Amicable in the Forth valley, Bovis in Liverpool and Vauxhall in Luton.
    I should be delighted to visit Doncaster, to encourage employers to see the real advantages these projects can offer them—as well as the young people who have already benefited from the scheme.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I welcome the unpaid Under-Secretary to his new Department and I am sorry that my campaign to get him a salary has not worked. We shall keep on trying.
    Has the hon. Gentleman examined the detailed statistics on new deal and the gateway? How many people complete the gateway but do not gain access to any schemes or employment? How many people who completed the gateway had their benefits stopped because they did not accept a place on any scheme?
    Mr. Wills: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his solicitude on my behalf, but I must inform him that his campaign has paid off. Perhaps the Prime Minister listened to the hon. Gentleman on that issue, if not about anything else.
    I am afraid that, as usual, the hon. Gentleman is looking at the problem in the wrong way. He needs to consider the big picture. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, more than 100,000 young people have secured jobs. They have regained hope—which would never have happened under the previous Government. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. He should also consider the benefit that the new deal brings to the economy as a whole. We are removing the inflationary pressures that come from not having enough competition in the job market to fill existing vacancies. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers inflation from the years of Conservative Government.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Andrew Miller: What action he has taken to secure high standards of teaching and research in higher education. [94255]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): We expect high standards in both teaching and research in our universities. We have supported the work of the Quality Assurance Agency and the Institute for Learning and Teaching, and we expect new teachers in higher education to be trained on programmes accredited by the institute.
    Mr. Miller: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved appointment to the Front Bench. Has he considered the proposal by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) to empower universities to set their own fees? Does my hon. Friend think that such a proposal
    1086
    would damage our attempts to open access to universities—especially those universities that are regarded as more prestigious—to all people?
    Mr. Wicks: I noted the comments by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) with some sadness, because at the end of the 20th century, when we are looking forward to new higher education challenges in the 21st century, we do not want to return to an elitist 19th century university system. We have introduced measures that will prevent that from happening. Access to any of our universities should be based on academic ability, not socio-economic status.
    Mr. Phil Willis: I welcome the Minister to his position and thank him for his excellent work as Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee.
    The Bett committee recommended a 2.5 per cent. increase in university budgets to allow universities to meet their statutory obligations regarding equal pay. The effect of not granting that increase would be reduced teaching and research standards. Given the Bett committee's clear recommendation and the fact that the Government have said that they will not respond to the committee's findings, what advice will the Minister give to vice-chancellors? Should they go for statutory equal pay or reduce teaching and research standards?
    Mr. Wicks: We support equal pay across all spheres. We are grateful for the work of the Bett committee, but pay rates for university academics are a matter for their employers—the universities—and those who represent the sector. I must point out that we have provided an extra £776 million to universities over two years.
    Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's commitment to continuing to widen access to our universities. However, is he aware of the experience of one of my constituents who applied earlier this year to study for an economics degree? This young man, whose academic performance has been outstanding, is in a wheelchair; his application was rejected by one of Britain's leading universities explicitly on the ground that the university could not cope with his access problems. Another university later accepted him.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that his rejection was unacceptable and illegal. Will he take up the matter directly with the vice-chancellor of that university to ensure that it does not happen again, either at that university or any other in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Wicks: I am sorry to hear about that distressing situation. If my hon. Friend will give me details, I will personally write to the vice-chancellor of the university. Such a practice belongs to the past, not the future.
    The disability task force is specifically considering these issues. We want to see every able young man and woman in a British university, regardless of any circumstance and certainly regardless of disability.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I welcome the Minister to his new position. It is evident from earlier exchanges that, bizarrely, the Prime Minister is able to countenance

    1087
    the soliciting of top-up contributions by maintained schools to continue their activities, but the Minister rules out top-up fees for universities.
    In view of what the Minister has said about the quality of the university experience and his commitment to that, will he explain why Health Ministers are, rightly, seeking to end the lottery of prescribing by postcode, but Education Ministers are letting it be known that they would favour the incorporation of an element of postcode discrimination into selection for places in higher education? Does he realise that that would call into doubt the credibility of the individual student and, certainly, the quality of the university itself?
    Mr. Wicks: It is appropriate to find suitable statistical mechanisms for targeting resources so as to achieve our goal of enabling every young person with ability to go to university. However, I repeat that we are totally against top-up fees because, by definition, they would favour only young people from richer families and would discriminate against those from poorer families. We do not want social class to be the gateway to university; we want ability in the class to be that gateway.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I add my best wishes to my hon. Friend for his future career on the Front Bench, which is wholly deserved. As an MA Cantab., I understand that this honorary title may in future be refused to others, unless they undertake a course of postgraduate study. Will my hon. Friend take on board the fact that many of us feel that the title is not wholly deserved? May I encourage him to continue to press for a consistently high quality throughout the postgraduate sector?
    Mr. Wicks: It has been remiss of me not to thank those who have offered their congratulations, but I have been so anxious to spot the hand grenade rolling across that I may have been impolite. I now thank everyone for their congratulations.
    The awarding of MAs and other qualifications is essentially a matter for the university, but the public have a right to expect that throughout British universities a BA, a BSc or an MA has meaning. In my earlier career, I taught postgraduate students at two excellent British universities, and I knew that when they got their master's degrees they had studied very hard for them and earned them.

    Foundation Schools
    Mr. Nigel Evans: If he will make a statement on the cost of administering foundation schools. [94257]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Foundation schools receive delegated budget shares from their local education authorities, which should reflect schools' additional costs arising from additional statutory responsibilities.
    Mr. Evans: The Minister will be aware of the excellence of Clitheroe royal grammar school in my constituency, which has superb examination results. It was a grant-maintained school and is now a foundation school
    1088
    and a beacon school. When I spoke to the headmaster this morning, he said that he has been told that next year his budget would be reduced by £107,000. He has a choice: he could get rid of some of the teachers, or he could do as other headmasters have done and ask parents to make a voluntary contribution.
    The Minister will be aware of parents who are facing that dilemma. What advice would she give to parents who send their children to that school? Should they pay the money?
    Ms Morris: I am delighted to acknowledge excellence in any school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am sure that it exists in many grammar, non-selective, infant and junior schools. I am surprised that the head of Clitheroe royal grammar school is in a position to talk about next year's budget, given that it has not been set. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the summer, foundation schools—former grant-maintained schools—will next year receive a 2.5 per cent. increase to protect them from inflation. That is on top of the cash protection that was offered last year.
    Mrs. Theresa May: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment to the Privy Council. When abolishing grant-maintained schools by turning them into foundation schools, the then Minister for School Standards said that the Government were "levelling up" funding,
    "not to cut grant-maintained schools' funds but to increase the funding for pupils in other schools".
    Given that GM schools are losing £100 million this year, will the Minister admit that the Government have broken their promise not only to the former grant-maintained schools, but to teachers, governors, pupils and parents of all other schools?
    Ms Morris: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments. Former grant-maintained schools still receive £62 more per pupil at primary level and £101 more per pupil at secondary level to reflect their additional responsibilities. The hon. Lady knows that, following evidence from the Public Accounts Committee in 1994, her Government took action progressively to withdraw excess funding for central services, which had been provided under that Administration. This Government are about fairness and ensuring that all schools benefit from the increased money that we are putting into the system—no matter their status. Every school—not just the 1,000 former grant-maintained schools, but all 24,000 schools—will benefit over the years from the extra resources that the Government are providing.

    New Deal (Disabled People)
    Ms Chris McCafferty: What direct consultation his Department has had with personal advisers working on the new deal for disabled people pilots. [94258]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Ministers and officials have frequent contact with the Employment Service and with the private sector, local

    1089
    authority and voluntary sector contractors which deliver the pilot for my Department. I have also visited many of the pilot areas and met personal advisers from all pilot areas.
    Ms McCafferty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can she assure me that personal advisers for disabled people who wish to participate in the new deal receive disability awareness training? Can she further assure me that there is effective monitoring of the treatment of and the help given to disabled people on the new deal, through, for example, exit surveys or interviews? Does that happen? What efforts are the Government making to ensure that disabled people who can work and who want to work are better off working, given their clear extra needs?
    Ms Hodge: I think that my hon. Friend asked three questions. First, there is specific training for personal advisers. We have the ambition that all personal advisers working on the new deal for disabled people should reach NVQ level 3. Ten per cent. of personal advisers are themselves disabled. They receive extensive training in all the areas that they need to cover.
    On monitoring, we are closely and comprehensively evaluating the pilot new deal for the disabled. Loughborough university is undertaking a study and initial findings will be reported at the end of this year, with the full findings next year. The study includes, for example, surveys of clients who have participated in the new deal, group discussions and in-depth interviews. There will be plenty of feedback.
    We have several initiatives on making work pay for disabled people. This week, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security launched the disabled persons tax credit, which will make work pay. We have introduced a linking rule to make it easier for disabled people to move from benefit into work. There are also initiatives such as jobfinders grants and a fast track to the disabled persons tax credit—all of which support disabled people in their move from benefit dependency to work.

    Information Technology
    Mr. John Smith: What support schools will be given to ensure that all teachers are trained in the use of information communications technology. [94259]
    Ms Ruth Kelly: If all teachers will be trained in the use of information technology. [94260]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): The new opportunities fund is making available £230 million to support the training of serving teachers and school library staff in the maintained sector in the effective use of information and communications technology. The training is available to all teachers in maintained schools in the UK.
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that our schools could become a vital resource for the whole community, giving access to
    1090
    information technology? That especially applies to schools in poorer areas, where we might create cybercentres in every less-favoured community. Does my hon. Friend look forward to the day when all our schoolteachers are on-line, and hard copy becomes a thing of the past?
    Mr. Wills: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for drawing the attention of the House to the important IT initiatives that we are undertaking.
    We must ensure that all children leave school with basic competence in information and communications technologies. We must also ensure that they have the opportunity to receive the benefits that those technologies can contribute to the whole educational experience in the classroom. I strongly agree that we must use our schools as a basis for making those technologies available to the wider communities—a process that is already under way in the excellence in cities initiative, and that we shall pursue with the roll-out of more than 700 IT learning centres next year.
    Ms Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I very much welcome his commitment to turning schools into centres of excellence that the whole community can use. I take the opportunity to draw his attention to the bid by a school in my constituency, Rivington and Blackrod school, which not only intends to set up an IT centre of excellence but expects to be able to draw in business and industry, parents and members of the local community to develop a real learning town, both for Horwich and for Blackrod.
    Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that project to my attention. It sounds interesting and exactly the type of project that we want to encourage. I look forward to receiving a bid from the school when we invite bids for the IT learning centres.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: While considering support for teachers, is the Minister aware that yesterday the National Union of Teachers, in evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Employment, joined the chorus of criticism of the Prime Minister's patronising remarks to head teachers last week? Is he further aware that they will not be mollified by some spurious offer of laptop computers from someone who does not know how to use them?
    Mr. Wills: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read what the Prime Minister said. He congratulated the great majority of head teachers on the wonderful work that they are doing. I believe that every Labour Member would agree with those sentiments. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman supposes that the offer of £3 million for laptops for heads is spurious. Every head has welcomed it, and heads in my constituency have said how valuable they have found previous IT initiatives. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will open his eyes and see the real advantage that those technologies can bring to all teachers.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is the Minister convinced that such initiatives are cost-effective? The Prime Minister's lack of IT expertise is legendary,

    1091
    but it has not held back his achievements. Given that he said that the profession was still pervaded by the forces of conservatism, would not the money be better spent on a programme of re-education on the Chinese model? After all, it had a remarkable effect on our police force.
    Mr. Wills: I am very interested to note that the hon. Gentleman has now become a Maoist, to add to all his other accomplishments. We shall ensure that the initiatives are cost-effective. We are absolutely convinced of the benefits that those technologies can bring to everyone in education. I look forward to the day—perhaps some time in the next century—when Opposition Members will join everyone else in the country in recognising those benefits.
    Helen Jones: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Will he join me in congratulating the head teacher and staff of William Beamont high school in my constituency? They have made a great investment in new technology and, by linking up with Warrington collegiate institute, have given free internet access not only to their partner primary schools, but to a number of community groups in a deprived area in the centre of my constituency. Is not this the way in which we should encourage schools to proceed in future?
    Mr. Wills: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I should be interested to come and see that exciting project. She draws attention to an important point: as the technologies become more and more available in our society, it is fundamental that our most deprived areas should get exactly the same benefits from them as other areas. That is fundamental to the roll-out of the IT learning centres, which we are targeting on the 1,500 most deprived wards. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing our attention to the importance of making sure that no digital divide opens up in this country.

    School Places
    Mr. Howard Flight: What discussions he is holding with directors of education to ensure that there is an adequate supply of school places in areas where housing growth is expected to take place in the near future; and if he will make a statement. [94261]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Responsibility for the adequate supply of school places rests with local education authorities, which take proposed new build into account in their planning.
    Mr. Flight: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. I am sure that she is aware that there is a major problem in my constituency and in many other rural areas in the south-east. With the additional housing forced on areas by the Government, there are not sufficient schools places for children, so young children must travel five, six or seven miles to primary school. Will the Government ensure that that contradiction in policy is resolved? It is unsatisfactory that such problems should be forced on children.
    Jacqui Smith: I am sure that, for those reasons, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the number
    1092
    of infants in class sizes of 30 in west Sussex has fallen from 3,875 last September to 1,251 this September; that the Government have made available in his constituency an extra £8 million, through the new deal for schools and class size capital; and that the planning undertaken by his local authority through the school organisation plan has been approved by the local schools organisation committee, which gives a role to schools and head teachers in the planning process. Hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench would do away with that if they were allowed to put their own policies into operation.
    Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend and my very good friend on her promotion to the Front Bench. I know that she will make a great success of it. I draw to her attention the number of rural schools that were closed under the previous Conservative Administration. Does she agree that the Government have done much to safeguard schools in rural communities, such as one primary school in my area, to keep them open and to protect them for the future, so that they can meet the needs of all the children in the communities where they are situated?
    Jacqui Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for her words. I agree that the activities of the previous Government with regard to rural schools give the lie to the Conservatives apparent concern for promoting those schools now. The Labour Government have provided support through the small schools support fund, which will enable small schools, particularly in rural areas, to work together constructively to safeguard those facilities for local communities and to raise standards.
    Mr. James Clappison: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) in welcoming the hon. Lady to the Front Bench. Is not my hon. Friend right in his analysis—that the extra development of 1.1 million houses in the south-east is likely to be in areas where schools are already oversubscribed? What the hon. Lady has just said about class sizes is likely to make that situation worse. Would it not be common sense to try and plan so that local authorities would not be obliged to provide further development in the green belt and on green-field sites? In our schools, we rightly teach children about the importance of the environment. Should we not plan so that we can avoid development that ruins the environment?
    Jacqui Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I agree that it is important for local education authorities to work with district councils in looking at local structure plans in planning their school places. That is why the Government, in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, required LEAs to produce school organisation plans which are subject to local decision making through school organisation committees, which, I reiterate, involves local schools and local head teachers. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has already announced that she would get rid of all that, presumably to reduce the level of local planning and the influence of schools and head teachers in the planning of school places in local authorities.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve the Administration Committee's second report on record copies of Acts.
TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day Second Part]; there will be a debate entitled "Planning, Greenfields and Brownfields: The Two Britains" on an Opposition motion.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
THURSDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Progress on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill.
FRIDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Debate on family friendly employment policies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business. We note that the Leader of the House is unable to shed any light on business for the week after next, although the options must be narrowing. Nor can she give us the date of Prorogation.
There is a meeting of Finance Ministers to discuss the withholding tax. Will the Chancellor be coming to the House next week to make a statement assuring us that he will exercise his veto on that proposal?
On Northern Ireland, as Senator Mitchell has said that he plans to return on Sunday, might we have a statement from the Secretary of State on the outcome of the review talks?
The right hon. Lady will know that there is substantial pressure on the Government to complete their programme, with four major Bills still to come back to the House—the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, the Immigration and Asylum Bill, the Greater London Authority Bill and the House of Lords Bill. Two of those Bills are ready and two are not. The Bill that was ready first is not to be debated at all next week, whereas a Bill that has not completed its passage is down for debate. Is that not a perverse way to manage the business of the House?
The right hon. Lady announced as the business for Thursday consideration of Lords amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill. As 750 amendments have already been agreed to, with 35 still to be debated and more to be tabled, how long does she think the House will need to do the Bill justice? When it left us, it had 330 clauses and it now has 413, as well as five new schedules, including a new clause on the part-privatisation
1094
of the tube. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and other contenders for Mayor of London will want ample opportunity to debate that and all the other amendments. We certainly will and we need adequate time.
Finally, last week I asked the right hon. Lady to find time for debates on important issues, not least the royal commission on long-term care, and my right hon. and hon. Friends made other suggestions, as did Labour Members. No one asked for a debate on whether the public records should be printed on vellum or paper, but that is the debate that she is visiting on us on Monday. With all the pressures on Government business, the Government amendments to important Bills, and a guillotine on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, is that really the best use of this Chamber's time?
Mrs. Beckett: If the Chancellor believes that there is something that he needs to report to the House on the withholding tax, he will no doubt seek an opportunity to make a statement. But since the Government have said repeatedly and on every occasion when it has been discussed that we shall certainly veto any settlement that we regard as not being in Britain's interests, it is not clear to me that there is anything new to say.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Northern Ireland and the fact that Senator Mitchell has said that he may return on Sunday. Obviously, I know no more than he about where matters stand or what, if anything, is likely to be able to be reported to the House, but of course I give the undertaking that we will do everything we can to keep the House informed, as we always have, on this difficult and delicate issue.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of the legislation in the pipeline and said that were large numbers of amendments. I accept that but, sadly, it is not unprecedented in any way, shape or form. It is not a precedent that I care for and the Government are working hard gradually to overturn it. Unfortunately, there is nothing whatever unprecedented about large numbers of amendments being made at a late stage in the House of Lords and returning to this House towards the end of a Session.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the debate on long-term care. He knows that I have repeatedly told him that the Government will hold such a debate in the House, but when we are ready and able to do so. On the Administration Committee motion, he may not have called for such a debate, but the matter was objected to and so a decision is required.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Can my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate on education spending, from the primary sector through to the secondary? The allegation is that, although we inherited a system in which young people were much worse off, we have improved it. We need to put that on the record.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. A range of improvements have been made and he will know that we inherited a system in which, under the spending plans of the previous Government, there would have been a fall in real-terms spending of £38 per pupil. Thanks to the decisions made by the Government, there has been a real-terms spending increase of £73 per pupil. In his area,

1095
the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), recently opened one of the new initiatives—a homework club at the Norwich City ground. That is another of the developments that are bringing so much benefit to our education system. My hon. Friend is right to raise those matters, but I cannot undertake to find time for an extra debate, especially as we have just had Education and Employment questions.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I share the concern of the Conservative spokesman about the idiosyncratic sense of priorities for Monday when we clearly have important business to debate. In particular, will the right hon. Lady give us an absolute assurance that there will not be an allocation of time motion for the Greater London Authority Bill on Thursday? Given the many amendments that have been tabled so late, it would be outrageous if there were any attempt to push it through without proper regard to the concern in all parts of the House about important issues.
Will the right hon. Lady return to how the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is to be handled on Wednesday? Can she give us an explicit assurance that there will not be an artificial cut-off time of 10 o'clock, midnight or whatever and that there will be a real attempt to understand that Members in all parts of the House want to debate important issues of principle properly? It would be outrageous if debates were cut short.
In her capacity of Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, is the right hon. Lady satisfied at the way in which those Bills have been crashed in during the last few days of this Session? Can we not try to find a better way to deal with them in future?
Mrs. Beckett: The House debating a variety of other matters and then turning to pressing legislation as it comes from the House of Lords has always been a feature of this time of year. I agree that there may be better ways of organising things and it is part of the work of the Modernisation Committee—and, indeed, of the Government—to try to move in that direction, but these things cannot be done overnight.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance about an allocation of time motion for the Greater London Authority Bill and mentioned the one on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. I tell him quite straightforwardly that the Government would prefer, on all those matters, for there to be no need for such a motion. He will recall that the Modernisation Committee recommended, to all parties in the House, that programme motions and programme motion agreements provided the best way of ensuring that we achieve proper discussion of all factors that are raised in a Bill and that need to be debated without anything being overlooked. That is how the Government always prefer to operate. It is for the usual channels to discuss how far it is possible in regard to these issues, and the same applies to the allocation of time motion relating to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is not the best way to run things. We will continue to try to improve the manner in which legislation is handled, so that the present system is not a feature of the future. However, he will know as well as any other Member that it has been a
1096
repeated feature of the handling of business here for all the 20-something years during which I have been—fleetingly—a Member of Parliament.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Leader of the House will know of the case of my constituent Anita Froggatt, who had a breast removed in error at Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital owing to a mix-up of slides. The former Secretary of State for Health expressed extreme concern. Would it now be appropriate for the new Secretary of State to make a statement? A report was published on Wednesday, but it is inadequate in that it merely calls for the retraining of the doctor concerned in dealing with slides, and recommends that no further checks should be carried out on any of the slides with which that doctor dealt previously. A statement would allow us to discover the Government's opinion of the report.
Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that he has pursued this matter for some time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is obviously aware of the report, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that he has not had much time in which to consider it. I cannot undertake to find time for a special statement now, but I will draw my hon. Friend's concern to my right hon. Friend's attention in case he can add anything to what is already on the record.
Sir Norman Fowler: Can we have a wider debate on local authorities than that envisaged for next week? Does the Leader of the House realise that in the west midlands, Labour-controlled Coventry council is maintaining a ban on British beef in schools and old people's homes? If a debate is not possible, will the right hon. Lady at least urge the council to change its policy immediately?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the issue. I will simply say that, however much any of us may regret the aftermath and the knock-on consequences of the British beef crisis, I fear that blame does not rest with this side of the House.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am sure that the Leader of the House has been following events in Kosovo since the KFOR occupation, and will therefore know that more than 100 Serbs and people from other minorities have been murdered or injured by the Kosovo Liberation Army and 100,000 have been ethnically cleansed. Yesterday, as a column of Serbs attempted to leave Kosovo—supposedly protected by NATO troops—they were set upon by Albanians who tried to burn them alive in their vehicles. At least five are missing. Given that we went to war with Yugoslavia to prevent such practices, will the Leader of the House ask the Government urgently for a debate on this serious situation?
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government share her concern. An explicit part of the remit of those who now seek to keep the peace in Kosovo was that there should be a fair and even-handed approach, and that we should try to preserve the safety and the human rights of all concerned. She will also know that that is not always an easy task. I fear that I cannot

1097
undertake to find time for a special statement in the near future, but she may find an opportunity to raise the matter next week during Foreign Office questions.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Why is there to be a statement on the millennium bug today? The House rose early on Monday and yesterday. We are experiencing the biggest crisis in British agriculture since the 1930s, and we need every minute to discuss it today. Why could the millennium bug statement not have been made earlier?
Mrs. Beckett: There is nothing sinister about the decision to have the millennium bug statement today. It has long been scheduled. I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I last made a statement about this, but part of the undertaking given by the Government was that there would be a statement. It comes immediately after the publication of the findings of the national infrastructure forum, and a number of other events directly related to the millennium bug. The House rising early yesterday and on Monday is a matter for the whole House. If hon. Members do not wish to add their voices to debates, there is nothing that the Government can do to make them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the House is rising early, is it not true that the Opposition cannot be doing their job? When Labour was in opposition, the father of this lad here, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), and I would keep that lot up all night. It did not take very many of us to do that.
My right hon. Friend will recall that the Government allocated £2.5 billion for the sufferers of white finger and of bronchitis and other chest problems. Is she aware that paying out the compensation has been a very laborious process? It is taking a long time and needs to be speeded up. Can we have a statement from the appropriate Minister, and ensure that we get all those miners dealt with before the end of the year? Many of them are 70 or 80 years old and may not be around to pick up the compensation.
Will my right hon. Friend also have a word with the lawyers who have been given some of that £2.5 billion by the Government, and who are calling on those miners and miners' widows for an extra 5 or 10 per cent., although they have already been paid?
Mrs. Beckett: On my hon. Friend's first point, there was much in what he said, although I am not necessarily all that grateful to him for pointing it out to the Opposition. I have long thought that it would be good for them if we gave them tutorials, but I have resisted the temptation.
On the serious matter of those who have suffered because of their service in the mining industry, I know that £35 million of the money has already been released. Nevertheless, the Government and I share my hon. Friend's view that we should do more to try to speed up release of the allocated funds. From my own experience in the matter, I think that he was entirely right to identify the fact that, to some extent, the problems have been related to the legal handling of the case. However, my
1098
right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, who is responsible for those matters, is taking action to try to speed up payments, in exactly the way that my hon. Friend wishes.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Is the choice of paper, parchment or vellum in modernising Britain really the Government's priority for Monday? Given the crisis in farming—with two chicken abattoirs going bankrupt in the past 10 days, but hundreds of tonnes of chicken breast being imported to the United Kingdom from Thailand—is it really impossible to move the millennium bug statement to the empty day on Monday so that we might have a full debate on agriculture today?
Mrs. Beckett: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated in his final remarks that he is aware that there is a debate on agriculture today; one might otherwise not have thought so. Today's agriculture debate has been initiated by the Government, and there will be plenty of time—should hon. Members choose to use it—to debate farming issues. We have had many opportunities to debate those issues in the House this week, and we shall continue to have such opportunities.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate on the Government's recently announced plans to make NHS dentistry available to all who want it? Does she agree that that would provide a fine opportunity to reveal whether the Conservative party would delay, reverse or even destroy such an initiative with their recently announced policy of creeping privatisation of the NHS?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the public concern about the availability of dental treatment, and particularly of NHS dental treatment. Dental treatment was one of the best examples of creeping privatisation under the previous Government. In many parts of the country, it has become hard for people to gain access to NHS care. I agree that it is very important to restore such access. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on it in the near future.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The right hon. Lady knows that I am always keen to assist her if she is in a spot of difficulty. May I therefore suggest that, to pad out Monday's business—which is currently composed of inconsequential and uncontroversial matters—she might find time for the appropriate Law Officers to make a statement to the House on why Dr. Anthony Glees, a distinguished researcher at Brunel university, has not been contacted by the Security Service, the police or the Crown Prosecution Service about the contents of the Stasi files that he found? They exposed in great detail the activities of Dr. Robin Pearson, Ms Fiona Houlding and others. The same material in America and Germany has been the basis of successful prosecutions, in one case sending someone to prison for a total of 18 years.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter, quite properly, in the House already. It seems to me that there is no need for a further statement on it. However, if he still wishes to raise it again, I remind him that he can do so at Home Office questions on Monday.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future of the branch

1099
network of Britain's clearing banks? She may be aware that, in my constituency, Barclays bank is to shut its crucial Gedling branch. Local people have not been consulted, and the closure is being presented as a fait accompli.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is a matter of great concern when people lose access to personal banking services. Many feel that such losses are not compensated for adequately by some of the developments in telebanking. Although I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter, my hon. Friend may find other opportunities to raise it—perhaps at the forthcoming Treasury questions.
Mr. Michael Jack: This time last week, the Leader of the House announced that European Standing Committee C was to debate two European directives, on copyright and on e-commerce. Those directives were issued in connection with a Single Market Council meeting on 7 December. Her announcement gave members of the Committee precisely three and a half working days to read files on those directives that were each about 3 in thick. Committee members also had to try to get a briefing from the Library of the House on all the matters involved, but there was no time to arrange any consultation or advice sessions with interested parties outside the House.
Will the Leader of the House assure me that we will not suffer the same farce when it comes to the future scrutiny of crucial European legislation? Back Benchers must have adequate time to get properly briefed and to seek the views of the people affected by the directives, if we are to scrutinise the legislation properly.
Mrs. Beckett: I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but may I gently point out that the problem is a consequence of the summer recess. The documents were not available to hon. Members earlier because the House was not sitting.
Mr. Jack: They could have been.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman says that the documents could have been available, so I presume that a conscientious Back Bencher with an interest in the matters involved might have tried to get them from the Library earlier.
I repeat that I sympathise with the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. He will know that the Government have taken steps to try to improve the scrutiny of European business, and we will continue to work on that. However, he will also know that it is sometimes not possible to give hon. Members as much notice as we would like. We shall continue to strive to improve in that regard.
Judy Mallaber: My request follows on from that made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). As we reach the end of breast cancer awareness month, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the very important issue of breast cancer? That would allow the House to examine the success of the Government's pilot initiatives in extending routine screening to women aged between 65 and 69.
1100
Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would provide a useful opportunity for the House to examine the Opposition's attitude to such important initiatives, especially as they are on record as stating that the Government are being reckless in giving an extra £40 billion to the NHS and education services?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There was a half-day debate on health service matters in Opposition time this week, and the matter that she raised continues to be important. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, but my hon. Friend has reminded me of a point that I should have drawn to the House's attention earlier. As we have agreed to experimental sittings in Westminster Hall, that is precisely the kind of debate that might find a place there when it is not easy to find time in the Chamber.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Would the right hon. Lady ask a Minister to make a statement on a very important issue? Among all the heat and light generated over the national health service, no mention has been made of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus. MRSA is a killer which has invaded virtually all our hospitals. It is extremely difficult to get rid of and it has enormous knock-on effects on staffing and the segregation of male and female beds. Whether or not people should be admitted to hospitals from nursing homes that have MRSA is a tremendous issue. Nothing seems ever to be said about it, and many trusts are going into deficit partly because of the costs incurred as a result of it.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and entirely correct point. I share his concern. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future, but the House would sympathise if he looked to the opportunities available to hon. Members to raise important issues. MRSA is a good example of a specialist, non-party political issue that requires consideration in depth. There are, unfortunately, so many such issues that it is not easy to find time to debate them all.
Mr. David Chaytor: In view of the ministerial statement earlier this week in response to the report of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on radioactive waste management and the additional statement on means of complying with the Ospar convention, not to mention the important and controversial decisions pending on the Sellafield MOX plant and the discharge authorisation at Sellafield and the proposed partial privatisation of British Nuclear Fuels, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an overwhelming argument for a debate in Government time on all aspects of nuclear policy?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises a number of important, and to some degree related, issues, but I must tell him, as I have told others, that I cannot find Government time for a debate on those matters in the near future. I am confident that my hon. Friend will use his ingenuity and the procedures of the House to find other ways to raise those matters.
Mr. David Chidgey: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is perfectly legal to allow 12-year-old children—minors—to be subjected to cosmetic body

1101
piercing without parental consent? During an earlier debate, her colleagues recognised the law's inadequacy and the need to strengthen it. However, they did not find time for new legislation. Will she use her good offices, if not to introduce legislation in this Session, to do so early in the next? That would put at rest the minds of many parents throughout the country.
Mrs. Beckett: That is one of the many worthy issues for which it is not easy to find legislative time. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may press the matter on one of the hon. Members who wins a place in the private Members' ballot. I cannot undertake to introduce Government legislation in the near future, although I say that without pre-empting the Queen's Speech in any way.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Leader of the House aware that two days after the House rose for the summer recess, but before the other place had risen, a substantial amendment to the air navigation order was laid before us? It will have swingeing bureaucratic and financial consequences on flying training, and is likely to increase costs by about 35 per cent. Bearing in mind that 45 per cent. of our pilots train themselves initially through private flying, will the right hon. Lady—who has a constituency interest in aviation as she represents the home of the Rolls-Royce aero engine company—allow the House time to debate an issue of serious concern to the flying training industry?
Mrs. Beckett: I freely confess, and hope that it will not be held against me, that I was not aware of that. I had other things on my mind two days after the House rose for the summer. I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the possible knock-on effects, and I undertake to draw the matter to the attention of my relevant ministerial colleague.
Mr. Huw Edwards: I am sure that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have enjoyed watching the Rugby World cup in the past few weeks. Will she find time for a debate to ensure a fair deal for rugby supporters? I was able to attend the game last Saturday at Cardiff and there were clusters of empty seats at a game that was supposed to be a sell-out, thus denying many supporters the opportunity to go to the game. Next Thursday, there will be no trains back to London from Cardiff after the third and fourth place play-off and the minimum price of the tickets for that game will be £30, thus denying my constituents, especially young people, the opportunity to go to the Millennium stadium to see what a wonderful creation that is in Cardiff.
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware that the travel difficulties would be as great as my hon. Friend has identified and can understand his concern about those who will suffer a disadvantage. I can only hope to draw the matter to the attention of the relevant authorities, since from what he said it is a combination of the activities of the rugby and the transport authorities that have led to those difficulties.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the right hon. Lady understand Opposition Members' concern
1102
about the fact that she has chosen today for a statement on the millennium bug when the House has risen early twice this week? There is growing concern in the countryside that we have not had sufficient time to debate agriculture. The simple fact is that the Opposition have chosen it as the subject of debate on three occasions this year. There are many concerns also about the wider implications for the countryside.
Mr. Tyler: We had a debate on agriculture last week, but the hon. Gentleman was not here.
Mr. McLoughlin: Is the Leader of the House also aware that in the past two days I have received letters from the Post Office to inform me of the closure of two rural post offices in my constituency, at Lea Bridge and Roston? It is the whole fabric of the countryside about which we are concerned as well as the agriculture industry.
Mrs. Beckett: I can only repeat that the Opposition have no cause to complain about the Government since we have volunteered the time for that debate. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has pointed out, there was a further opportunity to debate agriculture last week, when attendance on the Conservative Benches was unfortunately a little thin. Undoubtedly, there will be further opportunities to discuss a range of rural matters when the White Paper is published. I assure the hon. Gentleman that as we now have so many Labour Members who represent rural constituencies, the Government will be happy to find further opportunities for such debates.
Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to deal with the worrying problem of train overcrowding? I draw to her attention early-day motion 941.
[That this House notes the incident on the 10 a.m. Paddington to Swansea train on Saturday, 23rd October, when over 1,000 passengers boarded a train designed to carry fewer than 450 persons; notes that in the interests of passenger safety, the drivers refused to stop the train beyond Reading at Bristol and Newport station to take on more passengers; and calls upon the Government as a matter of urgency, to consider introducing a numeral limitation on the numbers of people who can travel on passenger trains.]
The situation on the train was so dangerous—it was designed to take only 428 people—that the driver and guard refused to stop at stations beyond Reading in case more passengers tried to board it. Dangerous overcrowding happens daily in my constituency and affects my commuters. I suspect that many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have a similar problem. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no numerical limit or maximum capacity for that form of public transport, unlike any other? We should tackle that problem.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that there is no limit on capacity for rail transport and can understand the concern that my hon. Friend expressed in the circumstances that he described. All aspects of rail safety are under review following the tragic accident on the line to Paddington. I strongly suggest that he should draw that aspect of safety

1103
to the attention of those conducting the review and encourage his constituents to do so, since I suspect, as he does, that it may be an aspect that is sometimes overlooked.
Mr. Robert Syms: I implore the Leader of the House to reconsider the outrageous decision to guillotine the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. My constituents care greatly about that measure and it deserves sufficient debate. If the House had been over-busy this week and we had been dealing with a matter of substance on Monday, one might understand the Government's position, but the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Bill is nothing like as important as welfare reform. Please may we take the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill on Monday and give it at least a fair airing, because it is an important issue?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the House that when the Bill previously came before the House three days were available for debate, although the Opposition had asked for only one. We have done our best to ensure that adequate time has been provided for those debates and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Hilary Benn: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity yet to consider early-day motion 954?
[That this House notes with concern the proposal by Remploy to make 35 able-bodied employees compulsorily redundant at its Leeds orthotics factory; and regrets that the company's admirable no-redundancy policy for its disabled employees in not being applied to its able-bodied staff in this case.]
It concerns the 35 compulsory redundancies proposed at the Remploy factory in my Leeds constituency. The matter is of particular concern to those affected because although Remploy has a no redundancy policy for its
1104
disabled staff, it does not apply to able-bodied employees. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a ministerial statement on this issue?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, the employment provided by Remploy is greatly valued, particularly by its staff with disabilities. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on this matter, but I am confident that my hon. Friend will use his ingenuity to find other ways in which to raise it.
Mr. John Hayes: Given that the Leader of the House has parliamentary time on her hands, squeezing important Bills such as the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill into the minimum time while on other days she sends her Labour colleagues on gardening leave, will she arrange for an early statement to be made on the impact on e-commerce of the matters referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)? Those changes from Brussels are likely to destroy the Government's strategy. We understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department, in supporting them, did not consult the Department of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State there. We need to know what impact those directives from Brussels will have on e-commerce, particularly as business failures in this country have risen by 13 per cent. in the past three months and will rise further as a result of this additional meddling and red tape.
Mrs. Beckett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I, as a former Whip, never send anybody on gardening leave. The impact of the directive on e-commerce will have to be carefully considered. The Government do everything we can to ensure that the level of regulation, whether from Brussels or stemming from our internal activities, is kept under review and to a minimum, and to resist things that are not in our interests. We shall continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman may find an opportunity to raise the detail of the issue with DTI Ministers next week.

Millennium Compliance
1.8 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am announcing today the results of the October monthly review of progress in tackling the millennium bug across government. The completed questionnaires will all be placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet as usual. The report follows those that Members have received in writing from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office and myself during the recess. I will also be reporting on preparedness across the national infrastructure, including key services delivered by the wider public sector. I have also informed the House of information published during the recess, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble).
I am pleased to report that very good progress has been made by Government Departments and agencies in tackling the bug since I last reported on the Floor of the House. The latest returns show that work on more than 99 per cent. of business-critical systems has now been completed. That means that systems have been fixed, tested and successfully put back into operation. However, work on a few business-critical systems still remains to be completed. Three organisations report some completion dates in November and December: the Ministry of Defence, the Office for National Statistics and the Planning Inspectorate.
The Ministry of Defence's very large and complex programme is close to completion. Ninety-eight per cent. of critical systems have been made compliant and all front-line systems are ready. Robust and comprehensive continuity plans have been developed and tested.
The Office for National Statistics has experienced a delay in the roll-out of new compliant registration software to register offices in England and Wales. The roll-out in England is due to finish by the end of this month, except for register offices in one county—Hampshire—which has requested a delay until November to fit in with its operational plans. The roll-out is not scheduled to finish until mid-November in Wales, but in all these cases, robust and tested business continuity plans are already in place.
The planning inspectorate has completed 90 per cent. of work on its business-critical systems and is on target to finish in November. Since autumn of last year we have been placing greater emphasis on the importance of business continuity plans and millennium operating regimes, which are essential safeguards against the impact of unforeseen bug failures and the other pressures of the millennium holiday period. The vast majority of Departments and agencies already have tested business continuity plans and millennium operating regimes in place. Ministerial colleagues have given me their personal assurances that all Departments and agencies will meet the deadline of the end of October for putting into place and testing the plans and millennium operating regimes.
As I foresaw in my September letter to Members, arrangements have been put in place so that the Government and the key infrastructure providers can share information over the millennium about how things are going and how any problems that emerge are being handled. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Home
1106
Secretary and I announced the arrangements for the Government millennium centre, which will handle the flow of information over the critical period.
Exercise Herald, which took place on 26 October, tested how the information flows will work. This Cabinet Office-led exercise involved Government Departments and their agencies, Action 2000, the utilities, the Central Office of Information, the Government offices, and representatives of the media. A full analysis of the success of the exercise is not yet available, but preliminary indications are that a further exercise on a similar scale is unlikely to be required.
Independent assessments of the readiness of key parts of the national infrastructure have been undertaken as part of Action 2000's national infrastructure assessment programme. This programme has also included an assessment of business continuity plans and millennium operating regimes. The results of the latest assessments were announced at the national infrastructure forum on 21 October and are being published in a series of newspaper adverts in the national press.
I am pleased to report that almost all sectors of the national infrastructure have been rated as 100 per cent. "blue". That means that the independent assessors have not identified any risk of material disruption and that the public can expect a normal service. This includes key utilities services such as electricity, telecommunications, water and gas.
A number of essential and important services are delivered by the public sector. They, too, have been independently assessed as part of Action 2000's NIF programme. The benefit payments process has been blue since July. I am pleased to confirm that police services, fire brigades and NHS organisations are now all 100 per cent. blue. There has also been considerable progress in tackling the bug in local government. Local authorities in England, Scotland, and Wales are now 100 per cent. blue.
Financial institutions have been assessed as 98 per cent. blue. Seven medium-impact financial institutions are rated amber, but are expected to be blue by 12 November. Elsewhere, very few elements of amber remain, but further assessment work is under way in these sectors and all are expected to be 100 per cent. blue by the end of October.
No matter how much testing has been done, the possibility of failures occurring still remains. To address any remaining or unforeseen risks, and in line with best practice in the private sector, we have adopted a belt-and-braces approach to the issue, emphasising the need for all service providers to put proper and robust business continuity plans in place so that they can continue to deliver essential services, come what may.
There has been a vast amount of work in the UK to prepare for the millennium bug. We have subjected essential service providers to a rigorous programme of independent assessments—a process which gives us one of the most, if not the most, comprehensive and objective pictures of national readiness in the world. However, we have less information about other countries, so we cannot be confident that the rest of the world will be ready. We will therefore continue to prepare for potential disruption and make contingency plans to minimise any impact.

1107
The Government will continue to lead by example and to be open and transparent on this issue. I will report further progress to the House in November and December. The United Kingdom remains one of the world leaders in tackling the millennium bug.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving me an advance copy of today's statement, and for the briefing with officials that she enabled me to hold earlier this month.
I welcome the fact that, in the latest report, blue status has been awarded in many private and public sector organisations. I am grateful for that information. We can all share the right hon. Lady's relief at that progress. However, some concerns remain, especially in the public sector.
When the right hon. Lady makes statements on this subject, she places in the Library some rather large tomes of detailed data. She will be encouraged to know that I have ploughed through the documents that were placed in the Library in September, although I have not had a chance to consult those for October, which she is placing in the Library today. My questions are thus based on the information available to me.
I noticed that the contingency plans for many parts of government—the business continuity plans—have yet to be tested. If alternative arrangements have been set up, it is imperative that they have at least been tested. I hope that the right hon. Lady will give us some updated information on progress on testing. In her statement, she announced the establishment of the Government millennium centre, which will be Cabinet Office led and will be the Government's hub for dealing with any problems that might arise. However, in the section on the Cabinet Office in the September report, I note that the business continuity plan for the Government's secure intranet has not yet been tested. If the internal intranet is to be at the hub of the Government's dissemination of information, it is important that it should be tested. I should be grateful for some updated information on that point.
In her statement to the House on 17 June, the right hon. Lady announced 30 September 1999 as the target date for NHS contingency plans. Will she confirm that that target was met, and that the systems and contingency plans for the NHS have been satisfactorily tested?
There is continuing concern about the testing of contingency plans in many parts of the public sector—for example, the Passport Agency. The right hon. Lady will know why I choose that example. That agency does not have a good track record, so the fact that it has yet to report the completion and testing of the work is worrying. Will she confirm that the Passport Agency completed its business continuity plan by the end of September and that the October report, which she is placing in the Library today, shows that the plan has been tested?
Even more important are those plans with a target date of the end of November and the end of December. The right hon. Lady nods—I am grateful for that acknowledgement that the matter is now of extremely grave concern, because of the time constraints. On 9 September 1998, when she made her quarterly statement on the subject, she stated:
"I am concerned that there has been some slippage: the completion dates of a small number of plans have moved by a quarter, mostly from December 1998 to March 1999. I am particularly concerned that a number of the target dates are close to the end of 1999."
1108
I share the concerns that the right hon. Lady expressed a year ago—especially those about the overall capability of the Ministry of Defence to complete its work on time and, in particular, for that work to be tested. She stated that she was satisfied that critical systems—especially front-line systems—had met their targets. However, there seems to have been no overall improvement in the completion of work in the MOD to a target of the end of November or December—according to the graph in the right hon. Lady's documents in the Library, the MOD does not appear to have made any progress during the past year. If the work is to be completed by the end of December, it is self-evident that the test will not be made before the millennium—the millennium itself will be the test for the MOD. That is a matter of extreme concern.
I appreciate the fact that things such as nuclear weapons systems are not involved; I am referring to the MOD's overall capability. None the less, that Department is very important and we are looking to the right hon. Lady to advise us today as to what action she is taking to ensure that it not only completes its work by the end of December but puts its systems through the required testing in advance of that date.
The right hon. Lady referred to the state of preparedness in other countries. If the Cabinet Office is to act as the hub of Government at the millennium, it is important that we know exactly how the general public will receive information post-millennium. The Cabinet Office will presumably not be able to rely entirely on IT systems to disseminate that information. As it is only 64 days to the millennium, will the right hon. Lady outline today how the Government intend to put information in the public domain? For example, people may require travel advice, perhaps for health and safety reasons, for various parts of the world. How will our embassies and high commissions provide local information to the United Kingdom so that it may be analysed and passed on to the public?
The right hon. Lady promised in her statement to give two further personal statements before Christmas. The right hon. Lady will appreciate that, if we are scrutinise the situation properly, we must have access to as much information as possible before the House rises for Christmas. As the right hon. Lady has influence over the scheduling of business in the House, will she arrange for the December statement to be made in good time so that hon. Members can study it and ask relevant questions? It will be our last opportunity to do that before the millennium, and we will want to test the reassurances that the right hon. Lady has given today.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments and I will try to deal with most of the issues that she has raised.
Further testing is continuing on the Cabinet Office intranet. I am not certain whether it has been completed, so I shall write to the hon. Lady about the matter. I think she will find that NHS work and testing is now complete. The hon. Lady asked also about the Passport Agency. Its work is well under way and the Home Office announced recently that, after encountering some problems, the Passport Agency is now meeting its normal targets. Much of its work using older systems has dealt with post-2000 dates for a considerable period.
The hon. Lady raised concerns about some November and December completion dates. She will know that I share her concern in that regard, and have long done so.

1109
We have nagged Departments ruthlessly to bring those dates forward as far as they can. The hon. Lady will be aware—the available information will confirm this—that in all cases, not just the vast majority, we are talking about finalising testing and the independent assessment of contingency planning. A feature of our assessment process is that we are not prepared to sign off people until all the work is completed.
The hon. Lady expressed particular concern about the work of the MOD, which she said seemed not to have improved in the past year. That is certainly not the case: the MOD has improved enormously. I suppose that it appears, to some extent, to be in the same parish because some work remains to be completed. However, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, for example, have finished all work on their business-critical systems. Although a small amount of work on MOD programmes remains to be done, it is on systems that provide support—for example, logistics support and equipment maintenance. The vast majority of the remaining work is awaiting the completion of testing and assessment certification. Although I share the hon. Lady's regret that the work was not finished earlier, we are talking about the final stages of completion, not about work that has barely begun.
The hon. Lady also asked me about the international situation and how information will be collected and disseminated. As was announced yesterday, over the millennium period information will come to the information centre, primarily from Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts, which are charged with that responsibility. That information will be monitored. Media representatives will be in the information centre, so information that gives cause for concern can, if it is of considerable impact, be disseminated immediately. However, the Foreign Office will, of course, continue to update and assess the information that it has.
The information centre will remain open until 4 or 5 January at the least, because that is when many people will return to work and when some minor problems may be discovered. Similarly, as information comes in about other countries, we shall continue to update it. I anticipate that that will be done through the FCO website. If there is more that I can say about that, I shall write to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the issues that worries us is that some foreign countries do not have the same access to skilled support systems and may still be lagging behind, particularly in aviation? Will she assure me that the Civil Aviation Authority and the Foreign Office have carried out all possible checks to ensure that other nations' airlines that fly over London into Heathrow are absolutely certain that their systems are capable of dealing with any problems that. might arise?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to express that concern. That assessment and monitoring is continuing. I assure her that the air transport authorities, which are independent of Government, have made it absolutely clear that should there be any dubiety about the safety of aircraft or of airlines that would normally fly
1110
into London, their licences will be withdrawn. There will be no question of such aircraft being in United Kingdom airspace.
Mr. Richard Allan: The Leader of the House will be aware of the problems that can be caused to the telecommunications network by peaks in demand, as we saw recently when the simple operation of selling tickets for an England v. Scotland game caused major disruption, and callers—whether Scottish or English—were left being offered glazing services instead of tickets. Will she assure the House that business continuity planning covers the possible cumulative effect of panic calling resulting from systems going down or simply from human concerns?
On a more parochial level, will the right hon. Lady endorse and support efforts by the Information Committee and Officers of the House to ensure that all Members upgrade their systems and their staff's systems so that we are all ready to serve our constituents from the morning of 1 January 2000?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall deal first with the hon. Gentleman's second question. I fear that I cannot take responsibility for all Members and their offices. However, the House authorities are on the case and we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the services provided by the House to Members will be available in the ordinary way. We certainly encourage all Members to be aware of the impact on their own activities.
On the hon. Gentleman's initial question, everyone has been very mindful—there has been much discussion and in-depth consideration—of the problems that could occur, including those that result from human behaviour and from peaks of demand. All the telecommunications agencies have prepared for exceptional demand. Equally, one feature of the Government's approach to the matter—I commend this to Members—is that we encourage human behaviour that is less likely to exacerbate the difficulties. For example, we urge everyone not to pick up the phone and test it to see whether it is working immediately after midnight. That is the one thing that might mean that it does not work when one wants it to. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that special work and special committees have dealt with the general operation of telecommunications and, in particular, emergency communications. They are addressing issues such as demand as well as any problems that might arise from the millennium bug.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reassure me that, in the event of people suffering loss or damage because of a non-compliance fault, they will be compensated with speed and efficiency, so that the state will set an example of best practice to those who will undoubtedly be hurt by the private sector's non-compliance in some cases?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot give my hon. Friend the blanket assurance that he seeks. We cannot undertake to remove completely the ordinary, day-to-day problems that occur in the natural course of life. That is one of the features of handling the issue. I shall give him a simple example that I always find quite compelling: every day, an average of 40,000 people are without electricity supply for about

1111
an hour. We clearly cannot undertake that such things will not happen over the millennium period. However, we can say that everything is being done to minimise the likelihood of any problems. Of course, if there are problems due to negligence in some way, that will have to be taken into consideration. Our aim is to avoid such difficulties.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Are there any instances in reports that the right hon. Lady has received from different Departments of the other dates about which we were all warned—9.9.99, the beginning of the financial year and the beginning of 1999—causing problems for Government computers? Has she any indication of the cost to all Departments of preparing for 2000? Have the Government provided additional funds for organisations such as the health service, which might have had to take money from patient care to deal with the problem?
Mrs. Beckett: I am indeed aware of such implications. There was some worry about 1 September and, for obvious reasons, about 9 September. There has been no adverse impact, that we can discover, on any of those dates. Indeed, there have been few confirmed reports of adverse impact even in the private sector or in other countries.
The anticipated cost to Departments has been pretty stable for some considerable time at around £420 million or £430 million. One of the reasons for that, which the hon. Gentleman will readily appreciate, is that, in the national health service, for example, to which he referred, work, albeit on a smallish scale, began as long ago as 1995. We are talking about work in many key areas that has not been confined to one critical period, but has been spread over time.
Mr. Andrew Miller: From my discussions with people in other countries, it is clear that, on international comparisons, the Government and the nation have so far done a superb job—about that there is no doubt.
One aspect that is worthy of further consideration, perhaps through the newly created millennium centre, is the possible occurrence of minor problems as a result of the coincidence of Y2K and, for example, bad weather conditions. That could present difficulties in areas such as the public utilities, which no reasonable person could foresee. Indeed, part of my electricity supply was off over last Christmas and new year, without a Y2K problem. Against that background, will my right hon. Friend ask the newly created millennium centre to draw up contingency plans in order to cope with such eventualities?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right in his observations. He is right, too, to identify the substantial implications of the size and scale of the holiday, and, obviously, when it arises. If there is any impact, we may look back on it as being due primarily to bad weather, a flu epidemic or something of that kind, rather than to the millennium bug. I assure my hon. Friend that that has been a huge factor in all the thought, preparation and planning.
One of the reasons why the millennium centre was launched yesterday by the Home Secretary and myself is the range of services that are engaged in dealing with
1112
events over the millennium quite apart from the millennium bug. As an information centre, the millennium centre will be handling the flow of information on millennium events, not merely on millennium bug issues. We hope that that will mean a satisfactory flow of information to all who need to be kept informed.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is the Leader of the House in a position to estimate, however roughly, the percentage of the work on this problem that has been taken up with checking and testing, and the percentage taken up with fixing bugs that have been found? In other words, what amount of the work has turned out to be purely precautionary, albeit a necessary precaution?
Mrs. Beckett: That is a very good question. I cannot make such an assessment at this moment. My gut feeling, from the very many reports to which I have listened, is that, on the whole, in most areas, fixing has been a fairly small fraction of the work, and that the great bulk of the work has been that of checking and identifying possible problems, contingency planning and so on. However, obviously no one could have known that without that checking and examination.
I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) about the operation of the millennium centre. Although the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) did not raise the matter with me, he may like to know that similar centres will operate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Mr. John Bercow: I thank the President of the Council for her helpful statement, acknowledging in the process the hard work that is being done throughout the country to seek to ensure universal compliance by the due date. But, given that the right hon. Lady will recall from earlier exchanges in the House the widespread concern about the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry, a sponsoring Department, was a serious culprit and had a very dilatory approach to tackling those important matters, I wonder whether the right hon. Lady can give us an update today. Will she tell the House how the DTI has since performed—no doubt following a degree of nudging and encouragement from her—in absolute terms and relative to other Departments? Will she add something about the performance of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, about which there has been widespread concern for many months?
Mrs. Beckett: I would not call it nudging; it would be more accurate to call it beating over the head. I understand that all Government Departments, including the DTI and the ECGD, have completed their work, tested their contingency plans and are up to speed.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Last year the River Severn flooded, causing very serious damage, and this year it has already overflowed its banks. As I understand it, the countermeasure systems in the event of a possible failure have yet to be tested, and that is especially important for flood warning and the estimation of river levels. What contingency plans do the Government have?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand that that work also is on target. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the

1113
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who will reply to the agriculture debate, has some responsibility for those matters. Who knows—with the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity and Madam Speaker's good will, he may manage to pursue the matter.
Mrs. Browning: I remind the right hon. Lady that when she laid the September report in the Library, no countermeasures had been identified by the ECGD. They were due to be completed in October. Therefore they have yet to be identified as complete, let alone tested. I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would investigate that specifically.
Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. I have no briefing that suggests that there is any continuing problem with the ECGD, but she is right to raise the matter and I am grateful to her for doing so. I shall ensure that there is no continued problem.

Point of Order
1.38 pm
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I tried to give you notice via the Clerks of this point of order, which arises on a simple matter.
Can you confirm that, as "Erskine May" says in several places, if, during a debate in the House that has not exceeded its limited time—when there is still plenty of time for the debate to continue—a Member who has previously spoken rises to speak again, he can do so with the leave of the House?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is of course quite right in saying that a Member who wishes to make a second speech may do so by securing the leave of the House, with no single Member objecting. However, in my experience—I am sure that it is the experience of many Members—"Erskine May" is accurate in stating on page 375:
"It is very rare for a second speech to be allowed to a private Member other than the mover of a motion."
However, for all that, I know of the great interest that the right hon. Gentleman takes in such matters of procedure, and I am sorry that he was disappointed last evening. Having read Hansard carefully, I think that the Chair followed the current practice, whereby the House normally expects a Government winding-up speech to conclude a debate on a Government motion.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is most helpful to have had your ruling, but surely it is the House that makes the decision, not the Chair.
Madam Speaker: It is the House that makes the decision, but may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to last evening's Hansard? I see that the Government Whip asked the leave of the House to withdraw the motion. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his great experience of procedure, one voice raised objecting to the withdrawal of the motion could well have led to a different situation.
Very often, when we come to the end of a debate, members are confused about procedure. It is important that they should understand the courses of action that are open.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was a spectator last night at those enticing events. I confide in you—obviously, if one wants to keep a secret, one expresses it in the House of Commons—that it was a source of misery to me, as I was settling down, awaiting a couple of hours of outstanding speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), that he did not have the opportunity to deliver that speech.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I am a new Member, and I seek clarification and guidance. Are you telling the House that if there had been a single objection to the request of the Government Whip to withdraw the motion, I would have had the succulent pleasure of listening to my right hon. Friend for a couple of hours?
Madam Speaker: Indeed you would.
Sir Peter Emery: May I make it quite clear that I had no intention of speaking for two hours?

Agriculture
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
Madam Speaker: I inform the House that Back-Bench speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
1.42 pm
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): In little more than a week, agriculture has been the focus of two debates in the House. That is right. It demonstrates the importance that the House attaches to these matters.
Today, I want to set out how the Government are helping the industry to prepare for the future by providing special measures for the short term, and by providing a framework for an efficient, forward-looking and modernised industry for the longer term.
Before I deal with that, I shall say something about the French beef ban and the Government's response. As well as being a clear breach of European Union law, the French import ban has hindered the resumption of our beef exports. The Government have been, at both official and ministerial level, in regular contact with the European Commission and the French Government, to let them know just how seriously we take the matter and to bring the problem to a swift resolution.
The European Union Scientific Steering Committee is meeting today to consider France's evidence for its continued import ban. I have looked at the evidence, and it contains nothing not already known to us or to the Commission. I therefore expect the steering committee to dismiss the French evidence.
The Prime Minister has made it clear to the French Prime Minister this week that he expects nothing less than the immediate lifting of the ban on British beef, and I have made exactly the same thing clear to my counterpart as well. If the French fail to lift their ban, the Government will call upon the European Commission to take legal action at once.
We have made it clear that we have the science on our side, the law on our side and the Commission on our side. The French are isolated. We have played by the rules and fully expect to achieve the outcome that will benefit farmers and the entire beef industry.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. There have been press reports that the French Agriculture Minister has cancelled his meeting with the Minister. Is that meeting now to take place?
Mr. Brown: A routine bilateral meeting was arranged for Saturday which, I regret, the French Agriculture Minister has had to cancel because the French Prime Minister has asked him to accompany him on another overseas visit. [Interruption.] For Conservative Members to jeer at the French Government will not help. These are routine bilaterals, which often have to be rearranged at the last minute because of pressures on Ministers, and I take no offence at that. Our offices are in close contact.
The important contact between my office and others involved is not that with the French Government directly but that with the EU Commission. We should remember
1116
that France's quarrel is not directly with the UK—although, of course, we are the people most affected by it—but with the Commission. The French Government are defying an EU decision. The ban has already been lifted by 13 member states, a 14th, Germany, is in the process of doing so, and one member state, France, is not complying with what was a collective agreement.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does not the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) merely demonstrate the French Government's arrogance? They can have no more important problem than one involving the beef trade between two major EU countries. How much longer will the Government stand by and do nothing about a trade in beef fed with sewage—something that is illegal under European law—and about a ban on British beef that has nothing wrong with it and that the committee will not be able to find anything wrong with today? Will it take months or years in the European Court? What are our farmers supposed to do?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I can tell him from personal experience that Agriculture Ministers have to deal with many issues, some quite difficult, at the same time, so I make no complaint about the bilateral having to be rearranged. The hon. Gentleman asks what the British Government are doing. I have just set that out. The important next step is the meeting that is taking place today of the scientific advisers to the Commission, to which the French Government will respond and on which the Commission will then act.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Months and months.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says months and months, but I say November. It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to say that the matter will drag on. We are looking for a speedy resolution and, after today's meeting, we expect the Commission to stand in our corner.
That brings me to the next matter to which I wanted to refer. We are similarly relying on the science and the law in respect of the use of sewage sludge in French animal feed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Brown: Let me finish my point and then I shall give way.
I have received and published the clear and considered advice of the Joint Food Standards and Safety Group, advice which has been endorsed by the chairs of the three relevant independent advisory committees. The advice is that, although
"the practice of adding sewage sludge to animal feed is repugnant to consumers and illegal under Community law"
there is
"no immediate public health risk and therefore no basis for seeking a ban of French products at either a Community level or unilaterally".
Therefore it would be wrong, as well as illegal under EU law, to impose an import ban on French livestock products.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Brown: I intend to move on to discuss the other important issues that affect agriculture. If hon. Members

1117
wish to intervene on the French attitude to our beef exports and sewage sludge, I shall take interventions now, but not later, because the debate is scheduled to discuss the important but wider problems of EU agriculture.
Mr. John Burnett: Did I understand the Minister to say that proceedings will be resolved by next month? If it is, what penalties does he envisage will be extracted from the French for breach?
Mr. Brown: We expect a speedy response from the Commission to the scientific evidence, and it is that that I expect in November. Of course I would prefer a quick and decisive outcome, but I do not want one that sets aside our clear rights in this matter. We have the right to offer our perfectly safe beef for sale in France.
Sir Peter Emery: One learns that it is the French intention to attend the meeting in Brussels and give way on the understanding that certain further restrictions are placed on British beef. If that is the case—it seems absolutely unreasonable to me—what steps are the Government preparing to take to deal with that problem?
Mr. Brown: Some people have been suggesting that I should ring the French Minister and cut a deal with him. I cannot do that. The date-based export scheme is a European Union scheme that has been agreed within the EU. The Commission is the custodian of it. It is not for me to enter into separate bilateral negotiations, nor can I. I am keeping very close to the Commission, and I had two long discussions with Commissioner Byrne yesterday. I am expecting to have further discussions either today or tomorrow, but I cannot go down the route that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be inviting me to take.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), and will take all the interventions, but then the House will want to move on.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Is not the Minister's assurance on sewage sludge, which he has repeated, dependent on it receiving adequate heat treatment? Can he tell the House that such treatment is being given? If it is not, his assurance means nothing.
Mr. Brown: I have put the full advice that I have received in the Library. It deals with the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised and I refer him to it so that he can see for himself what advice I have been given and why I am acting on it.
Mr. Richard Burden: Is not the key point of the Government's position that we are acting in accordance with law and scientific advice? Would it not be the height of folly to act beyond, or in contravention of, scientific advice, as we are being urged
1118
to do by Conservative Members, and then expect the French to abide by the scientific advice that we want them to abide by?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. We have the law and the science on our side, and I am keeping it that way.
Mr. William Thompson: Why did the Government allow the French to give new evidence to the Commission? Surely the French broke the law. The law is set out, so why is another member country allowed to open the whole issue up again and delay matters, as France is doing?
Mr. Brown: The French are in breach of the law. Their explanation is that they have new evidence. That claim has to be examined before it can be set to one side. That is happening now. I have looked at what they claim to be new evidence. There is nothing new there, and I confidently expect that to be the outcome of the scientific examination that is taking place today and tomorrow.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am most grateful to the Minister, who is being very courteous and answering questions directly. I congratulate him on his personal stand of not eating French food while the problem continues. That is very brave of him—perhaps braver than he expected.
If one of my farmers in Dorset decided to start feeding an animal sewage sludge and/or bonemeal and/or hormones, would the Minister's Department be able to prevent that tainted meat from getting into the food chain so that my constituents could not eat it? If it could do so, why can he not do the same to the French meat that is being produced in such a way?
Mr. Brown: We have strict controls in this country, most of which we want and some of which we have because of our special circumstances regarding BSE. In my extensive discussions with the industry, I have not met a farmer who wants to feed his livestock contaminated animal feed. British farmers want a premium in the marketplace for the quality-assured schemes that we operate. I think that the hon. Gentleman wants that as well, so I invite him to make common cause with me in supporting the Meat and Livestock Commission's assured British meat schemes.
Mr. John Greenway: We all hope that the beef issue can be resolved quickly, but I bring the Minister back to the meat and bonemeal question. Surely if there is a meat and bonemeal ban for our own farmers, particularly in the pig and poultry sectors, the same should apply across the entire EU. The Minister shakes his head, but what is the justification for having the ban in Britain, but not in the rest of Europe? Does not the sewage sludge issue, which I first raised with the Prime Minister in June and which has come up again during the past few days, present a golden opportunity for imposing on the production of pork on the continent the same standards that we have in this country? Will the Minister think again about that? Whatever the president of the National Farmers Union says about a trade war, the pig and poultry farmers of this country want a ban on meat and bonemeal-fed products.
Mr. Brown: It is not a golden opportunity if it is not well founded in law, and the professional advice that I

1119
have received is very clear. As for the broader question of meat and bonemeal, the pig sector has a genuine grievance, with which I intend to deal later in my speech. I have something quite extensive to say, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me until then.
Mr. Owen Paterson: I thank the Minister for giving way yet again. Does he realise that maintaining the ban on beef on the bone hopelessly undermines his negotiating stance in relation to the French? Backed up by idiotic Labour councils such as Coventry council, which has banned all beef products, it enabled the agricultural councillor at the French embassy, Mr. Jean-Jacques Benazit, to write to this week's edition of the Farmers Guardian invoking the precautionary principle because beef on the bone is banned in this country.
Mr. Brown: I shall have something to say about local authorities and beef later. As for a link between the ban on beef on the bone—which is at the extreme end of the precautionary measures in this country—and the date-based export scheme, no such link exists, because the date-based scheme relates to deboned beef. There is no question of any beef on the bone going into the export market through the scheme.
I can confirm again that I have received advice from the United Kingdom's chief medical officer, Professor Donaldson, that it would be safe to lift the ban for the purpose of retail sales, including sales through catering outlets. I have made it clear to the House repeatedly that I want to lift the ban as soon as I can, but I want to do so in an orderly way throughout the United Kingdom. That will require the consent of the devolved authorities that have competence in Scotland and Wales. I hope to be able to obtain their consent soon, and in any event before Christmas.
Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
Mr. Nigel Jones rose—
Mr. Brown: I will give way to the hon. Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). After that, given the imposition of a 10-minute limit for speeches, I will make some progress in order to protect the time allowed to other Members.
Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister, who has behaved with typical courtesy. Does he appreciate, however, that Conservative Members and many of our constituents are concerned with the timetable question? The Minister lifted our hearts when he spoke of November, but if what he is actually saying is that he has no means of protecting the industry against months, perhaps years, of legal wrangling, by the time that is resolved, many of our constituents will be out of agricultural production, and the nature of our countryside will have changed. Has the Minister nothing to say about dealing with that problem?
Mr. Brown: With the greatest of respect, let me say that I think that the hon. Gentleman is overstating his case. Our remedy is through the institutions of the European Union. After all, the date-based export scheme is their scheme, and that is the right approach for us to take. All
1120
the other suggestions—including the suggestion that we should initiate a trade war by behaving illegally ourselves—seem to me to be absolutely wrong. I think that they will cause much harm and misery to many people in this country as their jobs are put at risk—and hundreds of thousands of jobs are involved.
Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for giving way. He has made some powerful comments, and I congratulate him on keeping his head during the crisis while many others have been losing theirs.
The Minister said that France was isolated. It is, within the European Union; but the United States of America is still imposing a ban on British beef. Is the Minister engaging in negotiations with the aim of getting the ban lifted in the United States? Which does he think will happen first, the French allowing in our meat or the Americans doing so?
Mr. Brown: I do not want to set time scales, or to put events in an artificial order. I have regular bilateral meetings with our friends in the United States and with officials at the United States embassy here, and of course those matters are much discussed. Let me, however, say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the United States has some grievances about beef trade issues in regard to the European Union, and naturally we discuss those matters as well.
I recognise, and I know that the House will recognise, the real difficulties faced by agriculture and the wider rural economy as a result of the depressed level of farm incomes. In recent years, there has been a dramatic fall in those incomes, which has affected the whole industry but which is felt particularly in the livestock sector.
The reasons for the fall in farm incomes are well known: the strength of the pound; the implications of the BSE crisis for the beef sector, and BSE-related controls that have impacted on the whole of the livestock sector; and the loss of overseas markets with recession in the far east and collapse of the Russian economy.
As for the Government's response, we believe that there is a good case for a common agricultural policy in the European single market. However, as currently structured, the common agricultural policy does not serve our agriculture well. The Government's policy is to secure a more competitive and sustainable industry with a stronger market orientation. We want to reduce agriculture's reliance on subsidies based on production. We also want to encourage restructuring for long-term sustainability, and to promote development of real markets for our products, less distorted by the CAP. That was the philosophy behind the United Kingdom's support for the Agenda 2000 reform proposals.
The House should not underestimate the fact that the Agenda 2000 agreement represents an important step in moving the common agricultural policy in the right direction. The changes will help agriculture to meet the challenges of further trade liberalisation, including our ambitions for European Union enlargement and the upcoming World Trade Organisation round. A significant shift from price support to direct payments was agreed, and will reduce the economic distortions of the common agricultural policy.
We have also created an integrated European Union rural development policy. For the first time, measures for agri-environmental schemes, early retirement, marketing

1121
and energy crops are providing within the CAP the basis for a welcome shift in emphasis, from production support to future environmental and rural economy measures.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Within the framework of the CAP, and as trade barriers are lifted, does the Minister accept that meat hygiene charges are an additional burden for our farmers and a factor in making them less competitive? Other hon. Members have already mentioned the United States model of farming. In recognition of the public safety aspect of meat hygiene, the United States Government pays meat hygiene charges, which amount to $800 million annually. Might the United Kingdom Government be minded to go down that route, and recognise that, as a public safety measure, meat hygiene should be a charge on the public purse?
Mr. Brown: The Government cannot fully go down that route as, like other European Union members, we are obliged to recover some of the costs from the industry. However, some issues are unique to the United Kingdom, such as the recently created BSE safeguards. I shall say something about those issues in a moment. We are also looking very hard at the operation of the Meat Hygiene Service, about which I shall also have something to say. Although the hon. Lady is on to a very strong point, the answer is in the detail. It is not possible for me or for any Minister to waive all the charges.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does that mean that there is no question of compensation being offered? I ask that because, as we know, the United Kingdom egg industry is subject to much closer and more rigorous examination than the egg industry of any other western European country. When a flock ceases being productive, for example, all the cages must be replaced, and that is a very expensive proposition. Bearing in mind the extra burden borne by the United Kingdom egg production industry, is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that there is no question of compensation to help them overcome that additional cost, so that we may at least be assured of a good supply of healthy eggs? I recall that, when it came to grubbing out apple orchards, there was some compensation for apple growers.
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to talk about the difficulties of the egg and the poultry meat sector. As he will know, the European Union regime for both the poultry and the pig sector is a light one—in other words, it does not provide any avenue for specific support payments of the type that he described. It also—this is perhaps less well understood, but is right—prevents member states from introducing new egg regimes of their own. I shall say something later about how we should deal with those circumstances. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman is on to a good point, which he raises at the right time. There is no question but that the sector is going through very difficult times.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Minister mentioned energy crops and I have made the point before that there is an anomaly in the situation in which arable area payments can be converted into support payments for energy crops, but livestock payments cannot. That is
1122
discriminatory between sectors, and also between regions and parts of the UK. Is not that wrong; will he undertake to put it right; and how long will it take?
Mr. Brown: I cannot give an undertaking to reshape the schemes to meet the anomaly that the hon. Gentleman points out, but I am an enthusiastic supporter of energy crop production in this country. It has great potential and I shall do what I properly can to help. The rural development announcements are only weeks away and they will offer a potential way forward.
Agenda 2000 provides member states with discretion on how to implement aspects of the CAP reform agreement. That was the subject of my recent consultation. I invited views from everyone with an interest in the countryside on using the options available under Agenda 2000 to achieve a competitive, flexible and diverse industry. I am in discussions with the Treasury about the long-term future of support for agriculture in the UK in the light of the sustained problems that our farmers have been facing.
The problems that UK farmers face are problems for the whole food chain. As Minister with responsibility for both agriculture and food, I have from the outset been keen to bring together all parts of the food chain to address common problems. The different parts of the industry have much to learn from each other. The food chain group, which I set up, will report soon and I hope that its report will engender not only discussion but action—in a spirit of partnership—to address some of the issues facing the whole food chain. I am grateful for the help that has been given to that important initiative by retailers.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister please emphasise the extraordinary area of dispute caused by the appalling prices paid to the producer—who must be important in all this—by supermarkets which seem to make large profits in the middle? While those talks are taking place, would it not be a good time to point out to the distribution system that it might be nice if the housewife and the producer benefited from a more sensible system?
Mr. Brown: I am very keen on getting all parts of the industry—the retailers, the distributors, the processors and the producers—to realise that they have interests in common. I am also opposed to the improper exercise of market power to enable the strong to prevail against the less strong. The Competition Commission is now considering the issues, which include the profit margins of the retailers, their relationship with consumers, and the working of the entire supply chain. We will have to await its report, which will of course be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
I welcome the initiatives that have taken place, although more has to be done. The Government recognise that special short-term measures are needed—exceptionally—because of the current pressures. That is why I announced on 20 September extra support to hill livestock producers in recognition of the particular difficulties that they face. Some £60 million extra will be made available in 1999 and a further £60 million in hill livestock compensatory allowance payments in 2000.

1123
The payments under Agenda 2000, from 2001, will be made on a different basis, and I expect to issue a consultation paper on that next week.
Mr. Tim Collins: I hope that the Minister will be able to answer a specific point put to me in the past half hour by a representative of the Cumbrian NFU. It is rumoured that the consultation that the Minister has just mentioned will close on 19 November, but the paper will go out next week. Is that true, and if so, will it be possible to extend the consultation period, so that hill farmers in grave difficulty have more time to think about the serious implications of the change?
Mr. Brown: That is a fair point, but I want to reflect on it over the next 24 hours as I do not want unduly to delay making the payments. The longer the time allowed for consultation, the later the new scheme will be introduced. Both those factors must be borne in mind. There has been some discussion with farmers' representatives already, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point and I promise to give the House an answer within 24 hours.
In the same package, I announced the deferral of charges for inspections of specified risk material from cattle and sheep carcases until the year 2002–03, at least. That in part answers a point raised earlier by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). In the present depressed state of the market, and given that those costs do not fall on our competitors, it is right for the Government to continue to meet the charges from public funds. Similarly, and for the same reason, I announced that the charging of farmers for cattle passports would be deferred at least until 2002–03.
The Government also have an important part to play in setting the right regulatory framework—for both the farming industry and the wider public—and in recognising the burdens that legislation imposes. I shall do all I can to relieve farmers of unnecessary bureaucracy. We have already implemented, as far as we can, the efficiency study on reducing paperwork burdens on farmers. We already seek to help farmers by pre-printing forms, for example, and we are trialling the use of electronic communication.
However, we must do more. That is why we have set in hand a review of the regulatory burdens. Also, to ensure that we tackle the matters that the industry considers to be unnecessary or oppressive, I have asked the industry to tell me of its top concerns. I have asked teams of informed individuals to look radically at the priorities chosen by the industry. Those priorities cover slaughterhouse regulation—another point rightly raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton—meat hygiene rules, integrated administration and control system and inspections and the workings of the intervention system.
I have asked the different working groups to advise me of ways in which we could do things better. That is not the end of the story: other matters remain to be examined.
Mr. Paterson rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
Mr. Alan Duncan rose—
Mr. Lembit Öpik rose—
Mr. Brown: I shall give way in turn to the four hon. Gentlemen who have indicated that they want to intervene but then, although I do not want to be discourteous to the House, I must make progress.
Mr. Paterson: What has the Minister done since last weekend's revelation that the Meat Hygiene Service, from the £40 that it charges an abattoir, gives £8 to a vet, takes £8 for administration fees, and gives £24 to private contracting companies such as Eville and Jones of Leeds?
Mr. Brown: That is precisely the type of issue that the review body is examining. However, for completeness I should tell the House that, in addition to the review body that I have appointed, the Meat Hygiene Service has also implemented an efficiency exercise. The outcome of that exercise will be reported to the main review body.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister ask the review body to examine a specific problem that has irritated a number of my constituents? That is that simple administrative errors—on IACS forms, for example—can result in huge and disproportionate penalties.
Mr. Brown: At present, I seem to be the review body, as hon. Members set out hard cases. As far as I can, I look very closely at such cases, as some of them seem hard to me as well. Although the European rules that constrain us are very tight, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point; I have seen some cases that I think are very hard, and there clearly would be justification in having another system to check that we were not being harder than the rules required. However, the scope for ministerial discretion is very limited.
Mr. Duncan: Farmers in my constituency try to export sheep carcases to France. That is a lucrative market when it works, but the Government requirement that the spinal column be removed does not suit the sale of such carcases. If that simple and unnecessary stipulation were relaxed or rescinded, the French market would be opened up again. That would benefit my farmers, who want only to trade sensibly. Will the Minister undertake to change the rule, as there now seems to be no need for the requirement on safety grounds, and its removal would make all the difference?
Mr. Brown: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I am looking very hard at that matter. However, the constraint is a recommendation from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and the Government cannot lightly put it to one side. I am examining the matter closely, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks today.
Mr. Öpik: Is the Minister saying that he would be willing to reduce the amount of paperwork and inspection that farmers suffer at present, if that were to be the consensus recommendation from his experts in the review process, as it is from the industry?
Mr. Brown: I take the review process very seriously indeed. It is a joint initiative undertaken by myself and Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers Union.

1125
A range of industry interests are involved in it. I have participants to report to me crisply, and where I can I intend to act as soon as possible.
Mr. Mark Todd: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is an international dimension to the review? That would allow us to be aware of the performance of our competitors in ensuring that regulations are complied with, and to know the compliance costs that they commit to that exercise.
Mr. Brown: I have asked our agricultural attachés in the European Union to look at what is done in other member states. I know that the Meat and Livestock Commission has also looked at the matter closely. Both sets of information are in the public domain, and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred earlier to what happened in the United States. It is right to compare our performance with that of other countries, but such comparisons serve to show that we have an incredibly good tale to tell about our domestic safeguards and our industry. I think that that tale should be told more loudly.
The initiatives to which I have referred are being undertaken over the next few weeks. I am also seeking the help of other Departments, where the concerns about unnecessary bureaucracy arise in relation to non-agricultural policies. If we can do things in a better way without endangering consumers, the environment or taxpayers' money, we will. I assure the House that, if I have to make a case for changes in law in Brussels, I will do so.
I still believe that more needs to be done. The way forward lies not in devising schemes that supplement the supply-side measures of the CAP, but in doing more work on the demand side. We must develop distinctive brands of British farm produce that meet the needs of consumers and command a premium in the market place. Yesterday, I attended the National Farmers Union's event celebrating great British food. I welcome the work that the NFU is doing in partnership with elements of the supply chain, including processors and retailers. I support the idea of a British produce kitemark. We have a good story to tell, and the pig industry provides a good example of that.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I thank the Minister for his patience in the debate. He has given way many times, and hon. Members of all parties appreciate that. In September, he announced a tranche of aid for private storage for lambs, applicable in October. If another tranche were made available for November, it might not have a dramatic effect but it would offer some help to the industry. Will the Minister say whether the Government are likely to apply for another tranche of that aid for November?
Mr. Brown: To aid the upland industry, which was in crisis, I raised HLCAs by £60 million. I recall saying that last year's increase was a one-off, and I am obliged to say that this year's is as well. The hon. Gentleman is right to
1126
say that a very small amount of money is still available for intervention, but I cannot promise the House that I will be able to draw it down.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Brown: I would like to make some progress on the pig sector, which has a particular call on our support.
The British public urged Members to pass legislation outlawing stall-and-tether production systems in pig farms on animal welfare grounds. We have high health and hygiene standards, and other clear quality advantages. Not surprisingly, many people recognise that and want to buy British. Consumers should be able to do so and should not be misled by labelling.
I am particularly concerned at the development of products with labels that have British-sounding names, but which market imported pigmeat. I am determined to tackle the issue of misleading labels, and yesterday put out for consultation new, strengthened guidance to trading standards officers to act on cases of misleading British brand names or geographic associations given to imported produce.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Brown: I should like to set out my objectives, but, given the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in these matters, I shall of course give way to him later. He may wish to hear in full what I propose before he intervenes to accuse me of not doing what I am about to announce.
I have three objectives. I want to give clear, unambiguous information on the real place of origin, not place of processing or place of slicing; I want to clamp down on misleading place of origin descriptions; and I want to make further progress by lobbying the European Commission and other member states for a system of clear country of origin labelling. I am seeking to have this issue raised in the Codex committee on food labelling because of the international nature of these arrangements.
Although a clampdown on misleading labelling would help, the pig sector requires further assistance. I have written to Commissioner Fischler formally requesting the reopening of aids for private storage for pigmeat as well as the restoration of export refunds. It is also my intention to see what can be done about the additional costs on the industry arising from BSE-related public safeguards.
Mr. Gill rose—
Mr. David Curry rose—
Mr. Brown: That matter was raised, perfectly properly, earlier in the debate, but I should like to finish my point before taking interventions.
As it stands, there is a complete ban on commercial uses of pig meat and bonemeal, which was formerly sold for use in animal feeds. The ban is in place because SEAC recommended it. I agree with SEAC—the Government's advisers on this issue—that same-species recycling is wrong. It is a positive advantage for the UK pig sector that it does not recycle.

1127
SEAC also has justified concerns about the risks of cross-contamination and fraud if the Government were to permit the use of pig meat and bonemeal in the feed of other farm animals. I want to re-examine that issue with SEAC to see if there is any way that pig farmers can get a commercial return on their meat and bonemeal, while retaining a high level of public protection.
Earlier this year, I received assurances from retail chains that they would be sourcing British pigmeat. I want to reaffirm those commitments. Because of the grave difficulties facing the sector, I have appointed an official in my Ministry—Mike Roper—to serve as designated co-ordinator for all the efforts that my Department is making with respect to the pig sector. That will include making progress in the Ministry's pigmeat verification efforts to ensure that retail and catering suppliers are playing fair. Mr. Roper will report directly to Ministers.
I have had three meetings with representatives of the pig industry this month. I attended the Meat and Livestock Commission's British pig executive meeting this month, and will attend next month's meeting. I strongly support the MLC's British pork mark, but there is need for a renewed effort.
Members of Parliament have a particular responsibility. That is not a party political point as we also have an equal responsibility. We voted for higher welfare standards, and the higher costs that go with them. If times were good, the industry could bear the costs, but times are not good. That is why we have a special responsibility. I have written to all English major public purchasers—local education authorities, health authorities and prison wardens—to draw their attention to the high quality, hygiene and welfare standards of British pork products. My Scottish and Welsh counterparts are doing the same, as is Lord Dubs in Northern Ireland. I have also written to each Member of Parliament. I call on all Members to follow up that initiative—part of the broad campaign through which I am slowly taking us—with their local authorities, health authorities and prisons. If they receive a letter from me and the local Member of Parliament—none of us is without influence in our constituencies—there may be a real impact. I urge the House to treat my initiative in the bipartisan spirit in which I offer it. All of us can do something to help the pig sector.
Mr. Gill rose—
Mr. Curry rose—
Mr. Brown: I have more to say, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman to wait until I have finished my announcements.
I have also written to all LEAs about beef, emphasising the quality and safety of British beef. Last week, I met an all-party delegation of Northern Ireland representatives—including the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), who is present, and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley); I hope that I can describe the latter hon. Gentleman as the other's hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I am never quite sure. The delegation met my noble Friend Lord Dubs to hear about the particular problems facing agriculture—notably the pig sector—in Northern Ireland.
I am keen to strengthen the marketing skills of British farming and to provide much needed assistance to the pig industry. I announced in September that £1 million would
1128
be made available for that purpose, but, in view of the severe continuing crisis in some sectors, the Government are making available an additional £5 million in marketing aid. I am aware of how acute the position of the pig sector is, particularly in those parts of England and Northern Ireland where the industry is concentrated. I intend the pig sector to have a first call on that new money, and I hope that it will help to strengthen the sector's competitive position in future.
Mr. Gill: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said about labelling, as I did when he addressed the National Farmers Union's great British food conference yesterday morning. Does he regret that while the House has the power to make legislation on animal welfare, we cannot legislate to make it mandatory for all producers to label British products as produced in this country? What does he intend to do about that? I see him going into a minefield as he tries to legislate in other ways that would avoid stating so categorically that a product was made and produced in Britain.
Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman reads the statement that I have issued, which I am happy to make publicly available, he will find that I am trying to tiptoe through that minefield. I support the MLC-assured British labels, which give quality assurance. I support the NFU's idea of a kitemark. I am clamping down on misleading labelling, including on pictures or even product titles that imply that a product is British when it is not. Guidelines have been issued to trading standards officers and it is up to them to enforce the law through the courts. Tightening the guidelines to trading standards officers shows the Government's clear intention to ensure that consumers are not misled.
Mr. Curry: When the right hon. Gentleman has finished his personal boycott and can once again set foot in a Carrefour supermarket in France, will he look at the beef on sale and notice that it is all labelled "né, elevé et abattu en France"—born, reared and slaughtered in France? Would not that be a good model for British labelling? Is it legal?
Mr. Brown: There are all sorts of tempting replies to that. I am happy to look for the Meat and Livestock Commission's label in the shops and to purchase to the assured British standards in which I have confidence. I know what the beef is being fed, for example.
Mr. Hayes: When the right hon. Gentleman considers labelling, will he take into account the wholesale, catering and processing industries, among others, as well as the retail industry, which are consuming more and more pigmeat and should be brought into the examination? It is one thing if people buy pigmeat for themselves from the shops, but if they are consuming it in another context it is difficult for them to ascertain its origins. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Select Committee on Agriculture looked into those matters and those industries are the growth sectors for the purchase of pigmeat.
Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman looks into marketing, will he consider the fiscal regimes that are faced by farmers? It is not merely pig but arable farmers who are in desperate straits. In many competitor countries,

1129
the fiscal regimes and hidden subsidies offered make it easy for farmers to borrow and to invest in marketing and other areas of business expansion.
Mr. Brown: On the second range of issues, if we believe that the European Commission ought to look into some matter, we draw it to its attention and it acts on our requests. On the catering sector, the hon. Gentleman is right—almost one third of all UK food is now consumed through catering outlets rather than retail sales and preparation at home. I will pay particular attention to catering in the continuing talks that I am having with the industry—the retail and catering sectors and those who supply caterers. The hon. Gentleman, although perhaps for these purposes I may call him my hon. Friend, is on to a good point and I hope that my verification officer will also be able to pay particular attention to that area.
Mr. Tom King: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has completed the pig package that he trailed in the House last week, when he said that he would have something substantial to say. What forecast have his officials given him of the likely value to the industry of the measures that he has announced today? I told pig producers in my constituency that an important package was coming. The background there is that they are on a deadline and I think that substantial producers are about to shut down. If this is the total package, we are on the brink of a major collapse of the pig industry. What is plan B? Other countries would have such a plan and would not allow their industries to go like this. Among other things, the collapse of the sector would be a huge setback for welfare in the pig industry.
Mr. Brown: I entirely agree about the setback for animal welfare if we lose a significant part of the industry. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am constrained by the state aid rules. I am trying to do everything that I can within the rules and the law, but we will get those in our domestic industry through only if we get them that premium in the marketplace for the quality product that they produce. That is the only way forward. We have to get consumers on our side. We need to market our way out of the problem. I cannot invent supply-side measures to supplement the common agricultural policy because that would not be lawful.
I have no forecast of the impact of these measures, but I appeal to every hon. Member to try his or her best, as I am trying my best, to get the industry through.
Mr. Robert Key: We must also get the supermarkets on side. Will the Minister explain a little more about the interface in competition policy between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, with so many of our pig farmers in particular on the brink of bankruptcy? Supermarkets are in a positive frame of mind, but they have to a large extent been responsible for the type of agricultural production on which they have insisted from farmers in the name of the consumer. They underestimate their role in creating a demand for different products. If we want to create a better value product for
1130
British farmers to sell, supermarkets must abandon their lowest-cost production technique and start to market British produce at a fair price.
Mr. Brown: That is exactly why we are making extra public money available to encourage marketing and the explanation of the specific benefits—welfare benefits and quality—that sit alongside the domestic industry. I hope that retailers will be willing to help. We have a good story to tell and it is one that the public wanted us to tell. We should say so loud and clear. The Government have a responsibility, but there is also a responsibility on each and every one of us as individuals.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the Minister on this new form of Question Time that he is instituting. Seriously, does he accept that there has to be a plan B, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said? It will not be enough to market or label our way out of the pig crisis as it is far too deep for that—it is an emergency and one that none of us has experienced before. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reads carefully the Hansard report of the debate to which his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) replied yesterday, when a number of hon. Members put specific questions. At one meeting with sector representatives on 5 October, he said that there was a real chance not merely of Government but of European Union funding in particular circumstances when public health was at risk. That is the situation that faces the pig sector because the BSE spillover into the sector has caused it huge additional costs. That is the principal reason why pig farmers in my constituency and in many others that are represented here today are going to the wall as the right hon. Gentleman speaks.
Mr. Brown: I want to do everything that I can to help and I will not close any door until it is shut so firmly that even I cannot open it again. However, I must not hold out the prospect of hope where that does not exist. Any state help to the industry would almost certainly be struck down by the EU as an unlawful state aid.
Mr. Tyler: Why?
Mr. Brown: Because other people do not do it either. The consequences would not only be that we would have to repay the money—we would have to reclaim it from the industry, which would really impose an extra burden.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Brown: I will give way, but then hon. Members must allow me to make some progress because we are eating into the time of other hon. Members.
Mr. James Paice: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between paying public compensation for specified offal removal in pig abattoirs, which costs about £5 per pig and is done on a public health basis, and the compensation that Belgian farmers got for the dioxin crisis?
Mr. Brown: That is not the cost, but the MLC estimate of everything involved in the new meat and bonemeal

1131
constraints that were put on the industry in 1996. The position in Belgium is different because there was a specific public health crisis that related to dioxin. That is not the case in the United Kingdom. No public health issue is involved. Essentially, the issue is one of markets. Even if I could get the money, which would be extraordinarily difficult, if I tried to introduce some new supply-side package of assistance it would be struck down under the state aid rules. That is the answer to the question.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: When negotiating country of origin labelling, will the right hon. Gentleman take a flexible view of the meaning of the word "country"? I can think of several quality exports from the Scottish agriculture sector, such as beef—and whisky, which is basically an agricultural product—whose producers and manufacturers would not necessarily think it to their advantage if they were forced to label them as the produce of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Brown: I mean this kindly—I think that we have a good regional food story to tell as well. The component parts of the United Kingdom—the regions of England as well as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—can all tell their own tales. I want the industry to make more use of the EU regional food description rules, so that we can boast about the things that we do well. The hon. Gentleman has a fair point.
Now, I want to make progress as I have more to say and I know that the House will be interested to know that the Government are also making available an additional £10 million for organic farming. This Government have been a strong supporter of the organic movement. We have already more than doubled support for conversion since we came to office as well as providing £2.2 million this year for organic research and development. We have found demand among farmers for conversion very strong indeed—so strong that the organic farming scheme became oversubscribed. I want this new money to help to clear the backlog of applicants waiting for conversion aid. As hon. Members will already know, the Government are conducting, with representatives of the organic sector, a review of the organic farming scheme to establish how best the Government might continue their support for farmers wishing to move into organic production methods. In the meantime, I can announce the extra £10 million.
On 7 July, I announced to the House that we were consulting milk producers in England, Wales and Scotland about extending the remit of the Milk Development Council. I can today announce the result of that consultation. A substantial majority of producers who voted favoured extending the council's remit to cover the generic promotion of liquid milk. There was also strong support from the farming unions and the dairy trade. The dairy sector as a whole has chosen to spend around £10 million on an 18-month promotion campaign. I welcome this initiative and, therefore, intend to propose the necessary changes to the legislation, once we have agreed the detailed arrangements with the dairy processing industry for it to provide matched funding. I am placing the full results of the consultation exercise in the Library of the House.
I have described a very difficult set of circumstances facing the industry. Understandably, the main public focus at the moment is on beef exports. Although it is clear that
1132
the Government must pursue that and ensure that there is free trade under European Union rules, a solution will not solve the problems of agriculture. These are deep seated. I have described a measured, realistic, Government response to the crisis. I commend it to the House.
2.42 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: It is only eight days since the House last debated agriculture—eight days in which much has happened and much has not happened. I welcome the debate. It is the first in Government time since either the Minister or I have been in our posts. I congratulate him on his speech. I want to be as positive as I can and, certainly, I welcome a number of aspects warmly.
In essence, however, today's speech is the same speech that the Minister has made to the House half a dozen times during the past year: he is sympathetic, extremely courteous and quite understanding. We get warm words in abundance, but tangible action remains, even today, scarce. He touched on a number of long-term issues that I want to follow up because great uncertainty surrounds the future of British agriculture.
Contrary to the Minister's claim on 11 March that he negotiated:
"The most radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy since its inception",
the reforms were so limited in their scope that the issues will certainly have to be revisited before European Union enlargement takes place, and they may barely survive the forthcoming World Trade Organisation round.
There are other issues, such as the pace of consolidation within British agriculture, the balance of power between farmers and retailers, the shift of taxpayer support away from production-related payments, and the role of farmers in looking after the environment and the countryside. Unfortunately, it is not possible to explore these important long-term themes today because British farming is engulfed in a short-term crisis. In the time available, I want to concentrate on some of the short-term issues that will determine how many British farmers survive in business long enough to be around the next time that the Government decide to call a debate on agriculture in Government time.
One such issue is labelling. I welcome the Minister's announcement of proposed new guidance, but I regret that it has taken a long time to appear. The issue has been raised in every agriculture debate in which I have taken part in the past year. The Conservative party has been calling for honesty in labelling for the whole of that time and, indeed, longer. [Interruption.] I was sure when I made that point that it would produce exactly the reaction that it did. Hon. Members intervene from a sedentary position and I name the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who never attends one of these debates without displaying his appalling ignorance of the facts of farming life. Such interventions simply underline how little the Labour party understands what is going on in the countryside. If there were a single farmer whom I had met in the past year who would say that he would rather be where he is today than where he was three years ago,

1133
I would be delighted. I challenge those who mock what I am saying about the urgent need for honesty in labelling to find such a farmer.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman remind us who, in a minority of one in the European Commission, opposed the labelling of food containing genetically modified food?
Mr. Yeo: There is an old saying: when in a hole, stop digging. The hon. Gentleman has simply reinforced my point. He fails to recognise that agriculture today is in a state of acute crisis. One way of improving matters—for once, without resorting to the Treasury because no taxpayers' money would be involved—would be to introduce honesty in labelling, which we have been calling for, as agricultural incomes have slumped month after month. Although I welcome the guidance that the Minister issued yesterday, it is a pity that it has taken so long to come.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give an honest answer to this question: is he or is he not advocating that this Government break the law by imposing a ban on the importation of French meat? If he were a Minister, would he perform that illegal act?
Mr. Yeo: I shall deal with that subject in detail later in my speech.
When the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate, I hope that he will explain to the House the status of the guidance on labelling, what sanctions are available against those who do not follow it, whether the Government have support for their proposal from retailers and food manufacturers—given that this is not a new issue, I am sure that there has been discussion about it—and when the guidance is likely to be introduced.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the difficulties that prevented honesty in labelling from being introduced at any time during the past 20 years? He said that he had campaigned for it for several years.
Mr. Yeo: Even the Minister understands the difference. As recently as this time last year, British pig farmers were not required to rear their pigs to standards not required of pig farmers abroad. That changed circumstance alone, effective from 1 January 1999, is an overwhelming reason for what we have been calling for. Oddly enough, even the Minister would accept that.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: Is the hon. Gentleman admitting that when his Government were in power they did not understand that their legislation would have such an impact?
Mr. Yeo: One of those who recognised the point was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who made a speech on exactly that point when the measures were going through in the early 1990s. Nevertheless, if the incomes of pig farmers have collapsed, it is appropriate for us to look at ways in which the situation might be improved. I welcome the fact that the Minister
1134
seems to be doing that. I do not question the detail of his proposed guidance in any churlish spirit. I recognise that he is a decent man. He has travelled up and down the country listening to farmers in the past year, and he has charmed many of them.
Mr. James Paice: But not the Prime Minister.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend anticipates me. However, I fear that, after two months in the job, the Minister suffers from two shortcomings. The first is that he no longer enjoys the support of the Prime Minister. The second is that, for all his decency and charm, he does not seem to be strong enough to do the job and stand up for British consumers and farmers who look to him for a lead. Recent events have made both shortcomings painfully apparent.
In our debate eight days ago, the feeding practices of French livestock farmers were not mentioned because hardly anyone in Britain was aware of them. Last Friday, however, we learned that some French cattle, chickens and pigs had been fed with sewage sludge. So that the House is in no doubt, let me explain that the term "sewage sludge" includes the solid waste removed by filters, material resulting from the chemical and physical processing of waste water and residues resulting from the biological treatment of waste water.
The European Commission inspectors found that in some French plants, not only animal and industrial waste but human waste was incorporated into the sewage sludge subsequently used in animal feed. The existence of that practice was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health or 10 June 1999. In the four months that followed, Ministers took no action whatever to warn consumers in Britain that French chicken, pork and beef sold here had come from animals fed in that way.
Mr. Nick Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: In a moment. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for almost an hour. I will let him intervene, but I want to finish this important point.
The failure of Ministers to take action is disgraceful. It is made more so by the fact that the Prime Minister himself told my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 16 June:
"Of course we are trying to do something about it".—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 392.]
Yesterday it became clear that the Prime Minister had done nothing about it.
The Minister's silence during those four months is also disgraceful because his official advisers have told him:
"The practice of using sewage sludge is both unacceptable from the consumer's point of view and illegal under European law."
Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: In a moment. I did not intervene once on the Minister and I should be allowed a few minutes to make a point.
Some, perhaps all, the British consumers who have bought and eaten illegally fed French meat in the past four months might have wished that the information that the

1135
Minister received in June had been drawn to their attention. They might have wished it even more if they had known that Professor Hugh Pennington, appointed by the Labour Government to investigate the E. coli outbreak, believes:
"There is potentially grave danger in eating animals that have been fed on treated sewage".
They might have liked to know that Professor Mac Johnston, an adviser to the European Union scientific veterinary committee believes:
"If the French farmers are actually doing something that is illegal, then in my opinion that makes the food produced from these animals unfit for human consumption … I think here one has to adopt a precautionary principle, where the first thing is that you put a hold on it, you withdraw it from the food chain until you are satisfied that it is safe."
Professor Philip Thomas, the chairman of the Government's Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs, believes:
"It is potentially possible that there could be contamination into the food chain through these sources."
Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: In a moment. We are not going to leave this point. The Minister must not get too excited.
Despite that advice, the Minister did not think that it was necessary to issue any warning to consumers. Even when the scale of public concern became apparent in the past six days, he still did not feel it necessary to act. So unconcerned was he that he has not even spoken to his French counterpart during the crisis. When it was suggested to him yesterday that he might do so, he dismissed the idea as nonsensical.
Livestock farmers in Britain, almost crippled by regulatory burdens imposed on them by Brussels and Whitehall and almost driven out of business by unfair competition from abroad, might have hoped that, in the wake of the public exposure of illegal and disgusting French animal feeding practices, Britain's Minister of Agriculture would talk to the French Government.
Mr. Brown: The truth is that we are working on this issue through the Commission. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it has come as a surprise to everyone, but it was commented on in the press over the summer. Had he felt so worried about it, he could have raised it on any of a number of occasions. He has not done so. He says that I should have warned the public. He partially quotes the full advice given to me by the Government's professional advisers. I have put it all in the public domain. It is available to everyone to read. He does not quote the conclusion, which is that there is no risk to human health. It would be on such a conclusion that the Government would act.
As there is no risk to health, the Government have not introduced a ban. The hon. Gentleman is trying to distort the evidence to justify a protectionist position. That is the difference between us. He wants to use any evidence that he can find against our partners in the EU because the Conservative party is opposed to the EU and our partners within it.
Mr. Yeo: The Minister is saying that when he and his officials are warned that French meat is fed on human
1136
sewage—a practice that is unacceptable to consumers and illegal under European law—the Government should do nothing for more than four months to bring the matter to the attention of British consumers. He is saying that when British livestock farmers are struggling for survival, undermined by illegal foreign competition, the Government should do nothing to establish a level playing field. He is saying that when a leading scientist, Professor Pennington, on whom the Government rely for advice on hygiene, says that there is potential grave danger in eating animals fed on sewage, the Government should do nothing to require labels to disclose whether food has been produced illegally. He is saying that when a crisis threatens to engulf Anglo-French relations, and the French farms Minister cancels a planned visit to London to go to the Caribbean, it is not the Minister's job to pick up the telephone and have a chat with him.
The Minister stands condemned more out of his own mouth than by anything that I could say.
Mr. John Greenway: Apropos the question that I put to the Minister earlier, is not the case for a meat and bonemeal ban across the EU now so formidable that even if the Government are not prepared to impose a unilateral ban, at the least they should ask the European Commission to impose one? If we have to have the ban, it must be because there is a risk of cross-contamination and a risk to human health. If the problem arises in Britain, it must surely arise on the continent, especially in France, where the number of BSE cases is rising. I put that point to the Prime Minister. It justifies action by the Commission.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. We have clearer and clearer evidence daily that the most appalling double standards are being operated when it comes to food safety and hygiene in different countries in the EU. We know that the Government are washing their hands of any responsibility to deal with the problem. I have to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I believe that in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends, farmers and consumers will feel badly let down by the refusal of the Minister and the Government to act.
This scandal demands a proportionate and targeted response—a precautionary ban on the import of potentially contaminated French meat until the French Government explain what they are doing to end those illegal practices and to eliminate food produced by them from the food chain.
Miss McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend help the Minister and me by confirming the fact that it is a principle of European law that, if an item has been produced by illegal means, it is illegal for that item to be available? It can thus be prohibited throughout the EU—not only in this country. Items produced by illegal means—such as produce from this disgusting sewage—should not be allowed anywhere in the EU.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. She raises the important question of why no one is prosecuting those French plants which are using those illegal methods.

1137
It would have been encouraging if the Minister had spent even one of his 59 minutes in telling us that he would press the EC to take such action.
Mr. Todd: As the hon. Gentleman has set out fully the selection of scientific advice that he received, will he also set out the legal advice that he has been given on the proposal that he has put before us?
Mr. Yeo: If the hon. Gentleman underwrites my costs in consulting the lawyers, I shall be happy to obtain the most detailed legal advice. It is clear to me that these illegal practices should be stopped; if the Government will do nothing about them, it may be left to organisations such as the National Farmers Union to bring legal actions. I deplore the fact that Ministers are washing their hands of responsibility for taking any action at all.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister misled Parliament when he said that the ban that we called for would be illegal. Every EU country has the power to ban imports if human health is endangered. As I have already explained, many leading scientists believe that human health is endangered.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to say that the Prime Minister misled the House—as the hon. Gentleman has just done? I thought that such an expression was unparliamentary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is not in order for an hon. Member directly to accuse any other Member of misleading the House, but such remarks must be taken in the context of the cut and thrust of debate.
Mr. Yeo: The precautionary ban—
Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: Yes.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. For completeness—so that we can all understand the professional advice to the Government—I shall read it out. The advisory committee continues to advise on the basis set out—that is, the points to which the hon. Gentleman referred—that
"there is no immediate public health risk and therefore no basis for seeking a ban on French products at either a community level, or unilaterally."
Mr. Andrew Robathan: You eat it.
Mr. Brown: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting, "You eat it"; he knows full well that I do not do so.
Mr. Yeo: The Minister has read out the conclusion of the advice that he received—I have a copy of the same document. My point is that, if the Government thought that human health in this country was endangered, there is a legal basis for the introduction of an import ban.
1138
The Prime Minister was wrong to say that such a ban was illegal. It would be perfectly legal to take such a step if there was a danger to human health.
Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend believe that, if the boot were on the other foot and we had been feeding our cattle or sheep with food that had sewage in it, the French would take no action at all?
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point in his own way. Many people who listen to the exchanges on this matter will ask why that process is illegal, if it is so wonderfully safe and poses no danger to health.
The precautionary ban for which we have called would have a legal basis.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: No, I must make some progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) asked whether the illegal feed is heated sufficiently to make it safe, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked about the Government's powers to prevent British farmers from doing what the Government think it is unnecessary to prevent French farmers from doing. The Minister's refusal or inability to answer those questions simply strengthens the case for the ban.
The Government's failure to act is leading us to the kind of trade war that they claim to want to avoid. British consumers shun French goods—not only meat—French farmers blockade British exports, while the Government do nothing. Four weeks ago, after France announced that it would continue to block British beef exports, the Minister responded—in a fashion that might be described as tit for tat—with his own one-man boycott of all French goods. Instead of a policy to deal with the problem, he has produced a feeble, ineffective and irrelevant measure—one, incidentally, that even his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointedly refused to support.
Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: In a moment.
By contrast, the Conservative party believes that the French ban on our beef and the scandal of contaminated French meat are wholly separate issues.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman invites me to ban those products. Is he still eating them himself?
Mr. Yeo: I have made it clear that I certainly eat no French meat from animals fed with human sewage. I much prefer to eat British meat at all times, but, as the Minister is aware, those of us who frequently have to eat away from home, in catering establishments, often have no idea where the meat comes from.
Mr. Brown: My personal gesture, which the hon. Gentleman so derides, is an act of solidarity with this

1139
country's hard-pressed farmers, who are being unfairly treated by the French. Why does not the hon. Gentleman join me?
Mr. Yeo: Because I believe that a personal gesture by the man who is supposed to be in charge of making policies to protect British consumers and farmers is a pathetic cop-out from his responsibilities.
Mr. Brown rose—
Mr. Yeo: NO—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".]—No.
I have set out our approach on contaminated French meat. I shall now deal with the beef export ban. Almost a year ago, the Minister told the House:
"We have achieved a major objective of our policy towards Europe in the lifting of the beef export ban."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 190.]
On 17 December 1998, the Minister claimed:
"That was a major breakthrough reflecting months of dialogue within the European Commission and with our European partners."—[Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 1091.]
Seven months later, the Minister was able to announce a date for the resumption of exports—1 August. He told us that this had been achieved by
"Labour leadership in Europe … our constructive approach towards our European partners has clearly been shown to succeed."—[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 405.]
The Government, the Prime Minister and especially the Minister have learned that, as the Prime Minister put it so clearly yesterday, there is a
"difference between an easy headline and a good policy."—[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 1011.]
Two months after 1 August, the French Government announced that they would not accept British beef. It appears that, despite the Minister's confidence about the lifting of the ban, before he made his claims in this House, he had not even bothered to check with either France or Germany that they were ready to agree to the deal. As France abstained on the matter at the November 1998 Agriculture Council, the Minister was already on notice that the French might be less than wholehearted in their support of the Commission. Against that background, any remotely competent or responsible Minister would have phoned his French counterpart. However, we know that this Minister is not in the habit of doing that—whatever the gravity or urgency of the matter.
I have traced the history in detail because, this very day, the Scientific Steering Committee is meeting to decide whether to reject the French so-called "evidence" on which their decision to continue blocking British beef exports is based.
We read in the press of a possible compromise: France may drop its illegal ban on British beef if we accept yet more controls on British cattle and British slaughterhouses. I make it clear that the Conservative party believes that demands for more controls are outrageous and unjustified. Under no circumstances should Britain accept any further intrusion into the way that British beef is produced. Our cattle are among the most carefully scrutinised creatures on earth and, if the British Government allow any tightening of the way in which beef production is regulated, they will prove once again that they do not have the guts to stand up for what is right. Weakness on this issue, at the very time that
1140
France has been exposed as being guilty of disgusting and illegal practices in its own backyard, would simply add insult to injury.
Mr. Blizzard: Even given all that the hon. Gentleman has said, will he accept that we are much further forward than his Government reached with their ridiculous policy of non-co-operation in Europe, which got us absolutely nowhere? As things stand, the ban has been lifted in the European Union and all but one country are observing it.
Mr. Yeo: I will not make the mistake of giving way to the hon. Gentleman again.
During Agriculture questions last week, the Minister said:
"Under the Conservative Government's stewardship of this issue, Britain was isolated within Europe. Under our stewardship, France is isolated within Europe."—[Official Report, 21 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 573.]
For the sake of Britain's beef farmers, I hope that the Minister is right. I suggest, again for the sake of our beef farmers, that the Minister should boost confidence today in their product by taking the advice of the chief medical officer in London and lifting the ban on beef on the bone. Why is the Minister too weak to do that? Why do unelected bureaucrats in Edinburgh and Cardiff now make the policy for England? Does the Minister not understand that his Labour Government kept telling us that devolution would mean different policies in different parts of the United Kingdom? When will he understand that, if the British Government have less confidence in honestly grown British beef than in meat from animals fed with human sewage, it is not surprising that the French Government take the same view?
Mr. Thompson: Is it not a fact that, if the Minister lifted the ban on beef on the bone in England, other countries would quickly follow suit?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) responds, I must point out that there have been many interventions this afternoon. Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and, if there are many more interventions, a lot of hon. Members will be disappointed.
Mr. Yeo: I shall try to speed up my remarks.
The crisis in the pig sector is so urgent that there is a danger that our industry will disappear. The size of the British sow herd is declining while the Danish, Spanish, German and Dutch herds are increasing. United Kingdom pigmeat imports from the European Union are rising and Britain's pig farmers are losing £3 million a week. I welcome the Minister's allocation of £5 million in marketing aid and his public support for the Meat and Livestock Commission's pork mark. The Minister has recognised that offal disposal regulations are an extra cost on pig farmers of about £5 per pig, which is not borne by our competitors abroad.
Given the severity of the crisis, I hope that the Minister will find a way of absorbing some of those extra costs into the public sector—bearing in mind that they arose originally because of BSE. The Minister also recently showed his willingness to absorb cattle passport charges

1141
and specified risk material removal charges for a limited period. I hope that he will do the same with offal charges for pig farmers.
Conservative Members often refer to public sector purchasing. I believe that all public sector meat purchases should come exclusively from sources that match British production standards. I was shocked to learn that the Liberal Democrat-controlled Devonshire county council is still buying French chicken burgers to feed to the children in its schools. That is in marked contrast to the Conservative-controlled Kent county council, which acted promptly to look after the interests of the children in its schools.
Mr. Burnett: I do not believe that a United Kingdom company tendered for the Devonshire contract. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that?
Mr. McLoughlin: Well that's all right then.
Mr. Yeo: Exactly. I am not sure that the lack of a United Kingdom company tender will necessarily reassure those parents who now know that their children are being fed products that were produced illegally in another country.
On 1 July, the Minister said:
"I have on my desk draft letters waiting to go out to the major public authorities … urging them to source products of the highest welfare and animal hygiene standards".
I asked the Minister last week how many letters he had sent and how many replies he had received. I hope that that information will not be too difficult to come by: if the letters were ready to send on 1 July, some replies must have been received by now. I hope that the struggling pig farmers who are keen to be reassured that the Minister is doing all that he can will hear now that those letters have been sent.
Mr. Brown: I have only just sent the letters because I wanted them to be part of a concerted campaign that we have launched in discussion with farmers and the industry. As I said in my address, we all have a part to play. I invite the hon. Gentleman, in a completely bipartisan spirit, to join me in the campaign to urge public authorities to purchase British because of the welfare and production advantages of so doing.
Mr. Yeo: It is a question not of my joining him but of his joining me. We pointed out last November in our document "A Fair Deal" that one of our four key aims was to raise public sector purchases of meat to that standard. The Minister has just revealed the sequence of events. On 1 July, he said:
"I have on my desk draft letters waiting to go out".—[Official Report 1 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 422.]
I reminded the Minister of that response last week. We asked him whether any letters had been sent, and his reply was evasive. I assume that the letters were not sent until he was prompted to do so by the Opposition. He delayed for almost four months after giving that assurance at Question Time.
Mr. Brown: I have already explained that I wanted to send the letters as part of a concerted campaign with
1142
farmers. There has been a range of discussions about this matter, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in the campaign. The hon. Gentleman claims that it has been his policy since last November. What public authorities has he written to and what responses has he received? Let us do this together.
Mr. Yeo: The facts will speak for themselves and the record is now clear: the Minister would have done nothing if he had not been badgered, week after week and month after month, by Conservative Members.
Mr. Gill: It may assist my hon. Friend to know that the Minister gave that answer on 1 July because, in frustration, I had asked him what he had done or what influence he had with his colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to whom I had written in my capacity as president of the British Pig Association weeks before that exchange in the House of Commons. So the situation is much worse than my hon. Friend describes.
Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I agree entirely with the verdict of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). Those pig farmers who are calculating from week to week whether to stay in business or to close down will be very disappointed with the overall impact of the Government's announcement today. The Minister must understand that there is a strong possibility that his tenure at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will cover the period when a large chunk of the British pig industry closed down. Thousands of small businesses, which have been built up through years of hard work, will be destroyed.
I shall leave to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who will wind up the debate for the Opposition, our concerns about dairy farmers, bovine tuberculosis and the difficulties that have been imposed on Milk Marque by the Government's dogmatic decision not to allow it to invest in processing until it has been broken up into smaller units.
I shall pass over our concerns about last week's reports about the Cabinet Office paper recommending that prime agricultural land should no longer be maintained in food production. I am not sure what message that sends about the Government's long-term intentions for agriculture. I shall also pass over our concerns about the proposal to add burdens to farmers in the form of a pesticide tax and a climate change levy. Those measures will not achieve the environmental gains that are claimed for them, but they will certainly help a few more farmers to go out of business.
The Government's announcement about organic production is extremely welcome. I welcome the fact that the Minister has responded to the heavy demand by organic farmers for assistance with conversion in the current year. That will be appreciated by everyone who is interested in organic food.
I was concerned by the rumour yesterday about a U-turn on the timetable for the commercial planting of genetically modified crops because that seemed to be a tactic to divert attention from the main issue of the day. If the Government have seen the light on GM crops, I welcome that. I support any decision to delay the commercial planting of GM crops until the research that

1143
is under way has demonstrated that those crops are environmentally safe. A designated period of three years would be artificial; we need to proceed on the basis of sound science. I urge the Government to increase significantly the buffer zones that surround trials of genetically modified crops to protect neighbouring conventional and organic farms.
British agriculture is in crisis. The Government's response has veered from irrelevance and hostility at worst to complacency and inaction at best. The Minister has lost the confidence of the Prime Minister and it seems, from the almost empty Treasury Bench, that not many members of his Cabinet support him either. For all his sympathetic manner, he is in danger now of losing the confidence of the farmers too. His speech, which lasted almost an hour, contained little of substance that will reassure consumers or producers in this country that their interests will be protected.
The Government will have the full support of Conservative Members whenever they act in Britain's interests, but as long as they continue to let down Britain's farmers and fail to protect British consumers, they will stand condemned not only by all those hon. Members who are concerned about the future of the countryside, but by all the British people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute time limit on all Back-Bench speeches in this debate, and that that applies from now on.
3.23 pm
Mr. Russell Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate on an issue of great importance to my constituents. There is little doubt that most hon. Members, especially those who represent rural constituencies, are concerned about the difficulties facing the agriculture sector.
My constituency lies in the region of Dumfries and Galloway, where a third of the population lives in wholly rural areas, compared to some 10 per cent. of people in Scotland as a whole. That is reflected in a heavy reliance on agriculture, with an agriculture work force of more than 7,400, which is four times greater than the Scottish average. Subsidies to Dumfries and Galloway are four times higher than the Scottish average. About 25 per cent. of the part of the gross national product that comes from Dumfries and Galloway is produced by the agriculture sector.
Since 1981, however, there have been almost 1,500 agriculture job losses in the area. Not only have farmers in my constituency had their incomes fall by up to 75 per cent. in real terms over the past two years, but several sectors have been affected at the same time. As we well know, sheep farmers have, as a result of over-supply, seen the market price fall dramatically to as little as £1 per head. Dairy farmers continue to watch milk prices fall. The pig sector, as we have heard this afternoon, has declined by 12 per cent. over the past year, and there has been continued downward pressure on prices as other European Union herds expand. The beef industry still suffers prices that are 20 per cent. below pre-BSE levels.
1144
When the agriculture industry faces difficulties, so does the wider rural community. There is an impact on the oft-forgotten low-paid agriculture workers, local shopkeepers in our villages, small firms who supply our farms, agriculture engineers, auction markets and vets. We need to be clear that the causes and, therefore, the solutions, are more complex than some Conservative Members might try to make out.
I have met farmers in my constituency regularly, and they know that they face a combination of unprecedented factors such as the collapse of markets in south-east Asia, the fall in the value of common agricultural policy support payments, the over-production of certain commodities in much of Europe, cyclical downturns and, of course, the aftermath of the Tory BSE crisis. The Government often have little control over those factors.
I welcome the fact that throughout these difficult times the Government have made a realistic level of assistance to farmers one of their priorities. I said that my constituency relies heavily on agriculture. By definition, therefore, it benefits substantially from any support that the Government give the industry. On three occasions since the general election the Government have given the agriculture industry in my constituency substantial additional aid.
Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Brown: I should like to give way, but I must move on because time is short for everyone this afternoon.
In February and November 1998, support worth more than £10 million came to Dumfries and Galloway. The region is set to receive a further £7.5 million from the aid package announced by the Government on 20 September, which is almost 5 per cent. of all the moneys and 20 per cent. of Scotland's stake. Farmers in my constituency are grateful for that support, which they would not have received from the Conservative party.
The Government's support for the industry contrasts sharply with the policies being pursued by the Leader of the Opposition, which have fallen off the back of a lorry and are part of his right-wing revolution. They include his calls for a ban on French chicken, pigmeat and beef, not on health grounds but simply because they are French. If the Tories are not prepared to listen to scientific advice when making their decisions, why should they expect the EU Scientific Steering Committee on food and animal health to do so today?
Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said, quite reasonably, that he would not give way because of the 10-minutes rule, but I understand that the clock is stopped to permit interventions during speeches made under that rule. Is that the case?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The clock is stopped for the duration of the original intervention, but is started again when the hon. Member who is on his feet replies.
Mr. Brown: The Tories' policy would lead to a trade war, destroy thousands of jobs and put at risk our multi-billion pound a year exports to France. Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers Union, described that

1145
policy as illegal, and Jim Walker, the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, described it as outrageous. I suggest that not even the Leader of the Opposition's own party can stomach it.
I have here a copy of my local newspaper, the Dumfries and Galloway Standard, from Wednesday 27 October. The headline says,
"Council says 'non' to ban on French beef'.
A motion was put before the council on Tuesday which called on the council to consider banning French goods. Councillors rejected the very call for a ban by some people. The Tory group on the council said that any boycott or ban would mean that
"the only losers would be Scottish farmers."
Yesterday, The Herald featured an article by Struan Stevenson, who was the Tory candidate defeated by myself and the votes of people in rural Dumfries.
Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not odd that in a debate in which Back-Bench speakers are under such pressure, as you have already pointed out, a Member for a Scottish constituency should speak first from the Back Benches on matters that are properly the responsibility—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to challenge the Chair's selection of speakers.
Mr. Brown: I was explaining that Mr. Struan Stevenson was defeated by myself and the voters of rural Dumfries at the election. As his punishment, he finds himself a Tory agriculture spokesperson in the European Parliament. In his article in The Herald, he does not hide his complete contempt for the policies of the Leader of the Opposition, and warns:
"In our enthusiasm for kicking the French, we seem to have forgotten that they are perfectly capable of kicking us back."
Mr. Stevenson also calls for cool heads to sort out the French ban on British beef, which certainly rules out the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), and makes it clear that the responsibility for taking action against the French rests with the European Commission.
The immature nonsense of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday showed that the Tories have learned nothing from the BSE-inspired war on Europe three years ago. Then, they promised to block treaties and directives, but the only thing that they blocked was the lifting of the export ban on British beef, demonstrating Britain's lack of influence in Europe under the Conservatives.
As for the Tory party's other policies on agriculture, its call for more labelling is already being pursued by the Government through the implementation of tough new laws. Indeed, more were announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister. They will ensure that shoppers can tell clearly whether the products that they buy are British, and that consumers may show their support for British farmers, as I do, by purchasing their products.
Also somewhat belatedly, the Tories have called for reform of the common agricultural policy, something that is already being pressed for by the Labour Government, and which, during their 18 years in power, the Tories made no serious attempt to achieve.
1146
If we were to embark on the trade war that the Tories are advocating, perhaps an Opposition Member could suggest how I would explain to workers in the slaughterhouse that is less than three miles from my home that we were closing down the marketplace in France—that same marketplace on which more than 90 per cent. of their lamb production and their very livelihoods depend.
3.32 pm
Mr. David Curry: Small foreign wars have always been a traditional distraction from large domestic problems. The French conflict is one such matter. It is an illusion that we are about to bury the French market under thousands of tonnes of beef, ban or no ban. If the problem were solved today, or had never begun, it would have no immediate impact on problems in the United Kingdom.
The French have dug a pit for themselves and fallen into it, and I have precious little sympathy with them. We should concentrate on isolating them, piling the pressure on in the European Union and making their position untenable.
I have no sympathy for the call for a ban on French products, and I shall tell the House why. I cannot imagine a single action more calculated to extinguish the last flicker of life in hill farming in north Yorkshire than encouraging a trade war that puts at risk £136 million worth of live lamb exports to France and leaves the farmers' ferry—a courageous initiative among British farmers to export their lambs—vulnerable to pressure. We should not be in the business of trying to out-gun The Sun when it comes to attacks on our European partners, however wrong they are in this instance.
We have not helped our cause by maintaining the beef on the bone ban. The Minister must knock some heads together in Scotland—I know that he would like to do so—because, otherwise, the tail will be wagging the dog. The ban is a wonderful pretext for the French.
The article in the New Scientist about contamination of carcases by brain tissue during slaughter did not help either. It was, of course, faithfully reproduced in the French press. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail says that we are heading for "a stitch-up". I hope that it is right, because a stitch-up is better than a shoot-out in practically all circumstances.
Two years ago, I said that the hills in my constituency were bleeding. That haemorrhage has not stopped. I shall refer to Skipton auction mart, because I have taken the trouble to find out what is happening immediately and locally.
The first big gimmer lamb sale of the year—for those who do not know, a gimmer is a female sheep—is in September. In 1997, gimmer lambs were fetching £74 a head. In 1998, they sold for £46 a head. At the most recent sale, they fetched £25.13 a head. The hill farmer is the one who suffers. His draught ewes—ewes that have had three or four crops of lambs—are usually sold down the hill to the lowlands, where they may continue productivity in slightly easier conditions. Three years ago, they sold for between £50 and £60 a head. Last year, the price was £35 a head, and today it is £20 a head. Shearlings—sheep that have been sheared once—were fetching £60 in 1998, but now sell for £38.
At the end of September, 659 old ewes were sold but 689 were given away. In one pen, in which there were 41 ewes, one was sold for £1 and the other 40 were given

1147
away free with it. The problem is the requirement to split sheep. Ewes could be worth £8 to £10 for export without that requirement which we have imposed. I hope that the Minister will review that urgently.
I took the precaution of talking to the man in my constituency who probably knows most about cattle—the knackerman at Bentham. He has an enormous constituency of his own, which covers north Lancashire, Craven and Cumbria, and even stretches into Scotland. Normally, at this time of year, Mr. Robinson is called out for the casualty kill of about 200 calves a week. At the moment, he is being called out for about 530 to 600 calves a week. Of course, those calves are shot for nothing. The knackerman takes them off and gets a fiver for the hide, and the farmer puts them down as stillborn because there is no price for them. A few—the better end of the Friesians—are kept on.
As for the sheep, some are taken by traders to the ethnic markets in west Yorkshire, where there is a demand. Others are shot for £8 on the farm and thrown straight into specified risk material because there is no market for them.
Bentham mart is tiny; we would normally expect about 150 calves a week to go through it. At the moment, 30 are going through. The mart is in the habit of paying farmers' sons about £4 an hour to help manage animals. Now, farmers who are 50 years old and more are queueing for those jobs in order to supplement their incomes because they are receiving so little from their stock.
Nationally, one would reckon at this time of year that about 13,000 calves a week would be presented for the processed aid scheme—that was last year's figure. Now, if we estimate that perhaps 7,000 are retained on the farm and about 3,000 are going into veal, that leaves 3,000 to 4,000 that are being killed on the farm because there is no future for them, and farmers do not want to pay the cost of tagging such animals.
At this time of year, cull cows are put forward. Under the maximum weight of 560 kilos, they are fetching 51p a kilo. So the maximum price for a calf culled from—probably—one of the suckler herds is £285.60.
Seven dairy herds in my constituency have been sold at the Skipton mart alone since mid-summer. The smaller farmers are selling weekly as the animals calf. Because it has been a good year for forage, grass has been good and the quality of feed high, people have overestimated quotas of milk production, resulting in 1 million litres of milk being sold a few days ago at Skipton mart. It was leased for an average of 6.53p a litre, rising to 7p. That is for farmers who will receive perhaps 17p a litre for the finished product.
As my hon. Friends have said, the situation is worst in the pig sector. I have talked about livestock because such production is the predominant form in my constituency. There are offal and bonemeal disposal costs. I am pleased that the Minister is seeing whether he can return some value to that product.
The threat of the new integrated pollution prevention and control regulations has been mentioned. By charging for the new sheep-dip regulations, the Environment Agency is already making itself extremely unpopular. We have been told that a unit of 2,000 finishing pigs or 750 sow places could cost £12,000 a year in inspections, with a registration fee of about £18,500. I hope that the
1148
Minister will be able to give some indication of what is intended, and, even better, that he will defer whatever he was intending in that regard.
We ought to be careful in one regard when talking about pigmeat. It is true that pigmeat is imported, but the largest supermarkets that are importing almost invariably require the same conditions in the pigs imported as they do for those that have been raised in the United Kingdom. We should not give a false impression that, somehow, every pig that is imported has been raised in ghastly conditions, but that every UK pig has been living in pristine surroundings. The salmonella count might correct that.
What is the Government's response? The Minister, like some slightly unctuous parson from a Jane Austen novel, wrings his hands over the open grave and tells the family how he quite understands their grief, but that, at the end of the day, we are all in the hands of the Lord—or at least the Treasury.
Government action has been largely to defer new burdens on farmers—such as abattoir charges or cow passports—to defer cuts in support, which, admittedly, the Minister increased, but which he would otherwise have decreased, and then to brandish the new burdens. It hardly relieves a farmer's present hardship to be told that an extra burden will no longer be imposed.
I mention, simply for the record, that so far the cost to the public of the BSE inquiry is £32 million, half of which has come from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food budget. Where it will end, no one knows. I shall be interested to see what the positive outcomes of that are.
We accept that there are things that the Government cannot be held responsible for, or cannot influence. The level of the pound is a major handicap to the industry. We can talk ad infinitum about the Government setting out their perspective on economic and monetary union, but we have had that debate before and it obviously will not coax them into more positive action. What can we do? It is important to lift the beef on the bone ban, because by doing so we remove the last pretext for those who do not wish to import our beef. We must also make it clear that no new charges will be imposed in the present crisis.
The Minister should end the requirement to split sheep carcases. He should also pursue his inquiries about the means of helping the pig producer by giving some value to the products that he now has to discard—offal and bones.
We need to know—I am pleased to hear that we shall shortly hear—how the Minister proposes to remodel the hill livestock compensatory allowance, the upland payments that make up the entire net farm income in my constituency. I hope that he will also consider company specification in the pigmeat sector, which his officials have discussed, and whether it would be more transparent to move to a national specification so that farmers at least know what is happening to their pigs in the slaughterhouses.
As I am sure the Minister knows, a way of life is under threat. Farmers in my constituency are, by and large, over 50. They have no heirs, or no heirs who want to take up the business. They have precious few skills. It is illusory to talk about bringing new businesses into that

1149
environment. It is a particular environment—a very special environment; if we do not have the farmers to maintain it, the ultimate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
3.42 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson: I confess that I have been boycotting French beef for about 20 years—but as I have been boycotting everyone else's beef for about the same period, I am sure that the French will not take it personally. In so far as the Minister may be moving in the same direction—towards non-meat consumption—I would welcome that, but it does not bother me if he is not.
The important aspect of all this is that, really without our permission, the United Kingdom is now well and truly involved in a long-overdue debate about safe food. In only the most perverse sense is it to the credit of the Tory party that we are holding this debate. We need to remind ourselves that, for all the attacks that are made on the Minister, he was not in office at the start of the BSE crisis. Labour was not in office at the start of that crisis. The only credit that the Tories can claim is that they were, and that they got us into the mess. For all the mock anger and furore that they throw at the Labour Government, we would not be in this mess had it not been for the catastrophe of the Conservative party's approach to agriculture.
Those who proclaim a new-found interest in the precautionary principle could not be seen for dust when that principle should have been applied to the process of questioning what we were feeding livestock in the UK. At that time, the Tories were involved in little more than a dash for crap that they could feed to cattle as long as there was a cash return at the end of it. That is why we are now paying such a huge cost.
As a consequence of that period, we must now completely reassess our agricultural and safe food agenda. The British public have a right to demand that of us. It is important to set down the benchmarks—not the costs of moving from where we are, but the costs of getting out of the mess that we have got ourselves into. Already, the crisis in relation to BSE has cost us about £4.6 billion and about 40,000 jobs, and has had an unquantifiable cost in the loss of more than 40 lives. No one is prepared to put a ceiling on how many lives that disaster will take, but everyone knows that there will be significantly more.
Mr. Paterson: May we get it on to the record that there is no proven scientific link between BSE in cattle and new version CJD in human beings?
Mr. Simpson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a Conservative Minister who admitted in the House that that was the most likely cause of the BSE crisis. The House would do well—
Mr. Paterson: It was not proven.
Mr. Simpson: It is all very well for Members to shout from a sedentary position that it was not proven. They are
1150
now, belatedly, saying that the precautionary principle should drive our policy. I favour the precautionary principle, but they have caught up with it a bit late in the game. Had they applied it, we might not have been in this situation.
I hope that there will be a willingness to apply the precautionary principle in relation to another aspect of the debate—the desire of the food biotechnology industry to transform the agricultural system, not necessarily to feed the world but to take ownership of the food chain. I remind the House that, of those who would seek to regulate the development of GM crops, the Labour Government and Labour Ministers have been the most committed to introduce a regulatory framework where none previously existed.
Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simpson: No. I do not think that I can give way in a 10-minute time space.
I want to give positive support to two aspects of the Minister's speech. I welcome the support for organic farming but, if we are to refocus the food debate to catch up with the public, who are leading it, we must set ourselves more ambitious targets and more generous budgets for that transformation. The sums allocated have already been taken up. That problem is a measure of the popularity of the Minister's intervention, and that problem is in fact a success story.
As I understand it, about 100 farmers a month are offering to convert to organic farming, at about the rate of 10,000 hectares a month. They are dead keen to produce foods that the public are dead keen to buy. When we are on such a winner, we would be well advised to go with it. Doing so would require additional funding from the Treasury or, at least, a relocation of the current subsidy system, which would allow us to take some of the £3 billion a year that we put into agricultural subsidies—especially those parts that we pay for a pause in an unsustainable agricultural system—and redirect it into the creation of a sustainable agricultural system.
If the Government are serious about that, I urge the Minister to read the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill, presented to the House on 26 October. It suggests that it is quite feasible for the UK to set targets for 30 per cent. of farmland and 20 per cent. of food consumption to be taken up by organic farming processes by the year 2010. That would cost about £150 million a year—about 5 per cent. of the current subsidies to agriculture through the common agricultural policy system. That shift would be welcome in general policy terms and overwhelmingly welcomed by the public.
I congratulate the Minister on his part in supporting the Prime Minister in discussions about a moratorium on commercial approvals for GM seeds and GM crop production. That is extraordinarily important, but it is equally important to ask the Minister to consider the framework within which the moratorium will apply. I know that he is still keen for field and farm trials to take place, but I ask him to examine carefully the research published first by "Newsnight" at the end of September, then by Friends of the Earth, which showed that the current buffer zones of 50 m are simply nonsensical. It was shown that airborne GM pollen from oilseed rape had migrated 495 m, and that it had been carried 4.5 km by bees.

1151
The prospects of genetic pollution must be taken seriously and must be reflected in the buffer zones set for the trials that continue. It is extremely important that the Minister adds Government support for the public action that is leading the refocusing of the safe food debate. The issue affects not only existing organic farmers, but all the farmers who seek to convert to organic farming, as they are asking how they will be able to assert that the crops that they produce are GM-free, when neighbouring fields and farms are involved in GM trials.
If the Minister would re-examine my Bill from the standpoint of GM foods and producer liabilities, he might pre-empt the discussions that some of us are already holding with civil liability lawyers, and tell us that it is not necessary for us to go down the path of class actions for damages, driven by the public and the private sector. Safe food policy should be driven by Government lead, rather than by public lead.
I hope that the Minister will be enthusiastic about catching up with that momentum. We should extend the safe food agenda into local areas, perhaps through local food commissions. We should extend kitemarks to allow us to identify organic foods and targets, and we should reward those who shorten food miles, strengthen product accountability and give us food that the public consider safe to feed their children.
3.52 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: It is said that a week is a long time in politics, although I have not found that to be true. A week ago, hon. Members in all parts of the House expressed their deep concern about the escalating crisis in all sectors of the farming industry, yet matters have only got worse since then.
Prices have fallen further, and more farmers have gone out of business or are considering doing so. France is engaged in deeply damaging illegal action, which not only has the potential to escalate into a full-blown trade war, but is undermining the confidence of consumers in countries that have lifted the ban in accordance with European Union scientific advice.
Politically, it would be attractive to catalogue events over the past 10 years, to remind ourselves of the context of the present position, to indulge in the exact science of hindsight, and to rehearse once again the breathtaking inadequacy, complacency and sheer incompetence of some Ministers and officials during those years of the Tory Government.
However, third and fourth-generation farmers in my constituency are going bankrupt, losing their business, their livelihood and their homes, and not only making themselves redundant, but putting their family members out of work. I, for one, am not prepared to stand in the Chamber and score petty party political points, or to jump on the nearest Euro-sceptic bandwagon in an effort to use this tragedy to fuel your own prejudices—[Interruption.] I deplore those who try to do so, and I hope that the constituents who are listening to you—[Interruption] will recognise—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot let the hon. Gentleman go on making accusations about what my policies might be.
Mr. Breed: I hope that the constituents of hon. Members will listen to all that they say. It is a pity that
1152
we did not hear more of the common-sense approach of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). In his 10-minute contribution, he spoke volumes more than the official spokesman for the Opposition.
Despite the great scope for pessimism and the disastrous lack of confidence that abounds, we in the House should be giving hope to our farmers and taking the lead to generate the conditions that will enable the industry to trade its way out of the present crisis.
It is important to make it clear that agriculture has been, and will continue to be, a vital economic and social activity in this country. It provides the home-grown food that has sustained the country for centuries, and it will continue to do so if we tackle the crisis urgently.
At a time when the pig industry is on the brink of collapse, with prices below break-even level since April 1998—
Mr. Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the charges for offal removal and the costs to the pig industry are directly related to BSE, and therefore that some form of compensation should be available to the pig industry as a direct result of that?
Mr. Breed: I strongly agree. The point was made earlier, and I endorse it.
The egg sector faces a bill of £625 million to meet new UK standards, only to have its produce rejected in favour of cheaper, lower-grade produce. The beef industry is still facing an illegal French ban. Nevertheless I, and I hope other hon. Members, remain adamant that we are not prepared to see the industry wither away under unfair and illegal competition. Nor do we want to see it limp from one crisis to the next, for ever seeking special treatment or emergency aid.
The industry needs a clear strategy for each of its sectors, to provide short-term stability and long-term security. If we expect our farmers to stay in agriculture, we must offer them a future that will be worth fighting for and investing in. Without that, more and more farmers will simply leave the land voluntarily, and get out while they still have some capital left. That will further reduce our productive capacity and invite ever more imports. The decline will accelerate and the disastrous downward spiral will be difficult to halt.
With regard to short-term stability, we cannot continue to load on to farming costs—my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) provided an apposite example—that it cannot support, however well intentioned and whatever the merits.
Some of the quality assurance hurdles and inspection systems that we have imposed must be re-examined in the light of present trading conditions and the post-BSE era, to see whether they can be undertaken more economically or whether they are needed at all, always ensuring that compliance with requirements continues.
We need to review farm inspections. Why do several different inspectors call on our farmers almost every week for one inspection or another? Why cannot one inspector perform multiple inspections?
We need to re-examine the Meat Hygiene Service, to see whether the system can be made more efficient. I welcome the Government's action to secure relief for the low-throughput abattoirs from the need for veterinary

1153
supervision at post mortem inspections, but we should consider whether more can be done, especially to save those low-throughput abattoirs. To force them to close would be no real economy. It would just mean greater transport costs for farmers. Furthermore, we would lose the facilities to produce specialist goods, which fetch a premium in the marketplace and should be encouraged.
I am pleased that there will be an investigation into the operation of the MHS. When it reports, we must ensure that costs are kept to a minimum. In the wake of the Pratt report, we must ask why our costs are at the top end of the scale.
We must remove the threat of the re-introduction of charges such as those for cattle passports. I welcome the fact that those will not be considered until at least 2003. I hope that that will instil confidence for the future. In the mean time, we should review the figure of £7 per passport. Should it cost that much?
We must address the over-capacity in some sectors. Price stability in the market must be restored. A calf disposal scheme or a properly funded scheme to produce home-grown veal, as proposed by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) last week, is needed to address the bull calf problem. We cannot continue to sit by and expect our farmers to shoot their calves.
The banks must play their part, but before they can do so they, too, need some confidence in the future. They need to believe that agriculture has a future and that the Government will support it now and in the long term. Many bank managers have provided sympathetic support, particularly as they still believe themselves to have some security but, the more the overdrafts rise, and the more land values fall as receivers move in and put farms on the market, the more there will be no alternative but to call in the loans.
I welcome the labelling regulations that are to be introduced. I do not want to go into that, only to say that the supermarkets have made a business of undermining brands. They have increased their own brands to about 40 per cent. of sales. Ask any manufacturer of branded goods what they think about supermarkets selling their brands. In the long term, I agree with the Government that the strategy must be based on demand. To continue to bolster up the supply side is not a long-term solution.
Sir Robert Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Breed: I would rather carry on so that other hon. Members have a chance to speak.
The long-term strategy must be, first, to reinforce success, and, secondly, to develop new initiatives to build upon existing markets and develop new ones.
Clearly, organic production has been a success. It is one area in which premiums are being paid and sales are increasing, but we still import more than we grow. This is a sector which demands much more support, investment and encouragement, and I am delighted that the Government are providing that. Such support is not a subsidy but a true investment, which will yield real dividends for agriculture, the environment and the country.
1154
Many anxious farmers, such as Jim Candy in my constituency, are in the middle of their conversion, and more are just about to start. They need to know urgently whether they are eligible for the additional funding. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide detailed advice as a matter of urgency. The Government's announcement is a positive start, but it is unlikely to be enough. The present scheme is massively oversubscribed as, I suspect, will be the next tranche.
It would be unwise to increase production rapidly because of the possible effect on market prices, but I suspect that there is a long way to go yet before we reach that position. Where there is an obvious demand, we must ensure that there is a potential British supply.
Farmers markets, of which I was an early supporter, are another part of the way forward. I am delighted that they are growing in number and frequency, but they are still in a fledgling state and largely run on an ad hoc, semi-craft basis. That is not acceptable for the future. If they are to be part of the long-term strategy to improve the demand side, they must be much more robust. It is important that farmers markets become a real source of competition to the fresh meat and produce counters in the local supermarkets.
When I published my report on supermarkets last year, it was abundantly clear to me that it would be impossible to take on the might of the supermarket sector, but it would be possible to attack selected departments of those stores by appealing to the consumer in a sophisticated way and through direct marketing. Marketing is crucial. We welcome any money that the Government put into helping farmers to market their produce, in particular the significant increase to £5 million, but I hope that farmers will be able to get at it. One farmer told me that he found it difficult to obtain and complete the forms. Often, money is made available through schemes, but it is still difficult to get it to those who need it.
Farmers markets offer the opportunity to win back consumers to local quality produce, but that will not be achieved through selling on trestle tables in village halls every other Saturday morning. The aim must be to create a small parade of shops or a viable street market selling genuine local produce, properly presented, complying with all the necessary food standards and health and safety regulations. That would be a real challenge and an alternative to the local supermarket. Meat from locally reared cattle; organic vegetables with the soil still on them, picked that day instead of sterilised, shiny, vacuum-packed produce that looks good but tastes of nothing; British pork that we know is British, not just packed in styrofoam here; and fresh eggs from hens kept in conditions that we know are acceptable could all be sold.
I suspect that local authorities will have to set up and run such markets, but they will need legislative support and, undoubtedly, some assistance with the capital requirements, but if we are to offer a real future to our smaller family farms and local producers of fruit and vegetables, we must provide the means for that to happen. Markets are too fragile and rely too much on individuals' good will to survive in the long term. Supermarkets will never provide such a market. Their distribution network is alien to that.
As the Minister said, the catering industry is a significant purchaser of fresh and processed food, and we need to win it over to the benefits of quality,

1155
British-produced food. The restaurant and pub food business is expanding rapidly and consumers should be able to know what food they are ordering. When ordering a steak, they should be able to ask its origin and demand information about where other food on the menu was grown or produced. Descriptions of food on menus must be accurate.
I have already called upon local authorities and Government Departments to insert clauses in their future contracts requiring them to source meat and meat products which meet the UK's standards for quality, hygiene and animal welfare. We cannot insist that they buy British because that would be anti-competitive in European terms, but we can demand that they source their products according to certain standards. That would boost domestic production and encourage European competitors to raise their standards if they wished to be considered for such contracts.
It is strange that, while there is a constant stream of cooking programmes on television and cookery books are always among the best sellers in the book lists, fewer and fewer people are cooking and eating at home. We need to look at what we are teaching in our schools. I hope that the Minister will have a word with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Food technology may sound far more important than cookery, but we need to remember what is important. Eating is supposed to be one of the pleasures of life, yet we confine food to a science subject, and seem to accept that stuffing a hamburger in one's mouth while walking down the road is all that we need to know about eating as an experience. It may be a matter for the long term, but we need to educate our children about food and how it is produced so that future scientific reports, from wherever they come, can inform the decisions of sensible people, not act as titbits to hungry tabloid scaremongers.
We must help farmers to develop additional forms of income, and tourism is an obvious one. Planning regulations are not helpful in developing farm tourism. We should be fighting for a fairer share of the rural development funding available under the common agricultural policy. At present, we receive 3 per cent. of the budget, the equivalent of Portugal, while France and Germany enjoy 16 per cent. each. We have fallen to 15th in terms of spending per hectare, so we receive £12 per hectare while countries such as Finland receive £175. That funding could support a number of new rural initiatives and bring real additional income to farmers, particularly those family farms under such enormous cash flow pressures. There are so many positive ways in which to look to the future of farming and change things so that crises, such as the one that we face, do not recur. We need long-term, positive solutions.
Before I finish, I must pause to reflect on the events of the past week. This week has been one of great negativity. The farming industry has faced more blows—things have only got worse, Minister. The news of sewage sludge in French feed seemed to add insult to injury to Britain's farmers. I make no bones about condemning those who have used this foodstuff, which is not only repugnant, but illegal. We need to be more honest about what is going on. It is not just France that is affected. Products from animals in contact with this feed are also being supplied by Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany.
1156
The EU has been far too timid. Where it issued recommendations to France that such producers should be stopped, it should have issued directives. The 15-day period within which to remove such feed from the food chain should not have been recommended but insisted upon. We should have been informed that the EU veterinary committee had condemned France for its lack of risk assessment. If we are to restore consumer confidence, we need to be more open in sharing information between all European Union states. We also need more rational consideration of the facts.
The French beef ban continues despite the fact that our beef has been cleared. We have invested money and brought up our standards. Before the BSE incident, the majority of our exports to France were beef on the bone from cows over 30 months old. We are not asking the French consumer to buy such beef again—our date-based export scheme rules out that possibility. The scaremongering must stop. The panic should be over. Patriotism is about supporting British agriculture, not alienating its customers.
I return to the point that I have been making all along: we need to be long-termist and positive. We cannot go around inciting trade wars and imposing unilateral bans. We need positive measures to promote the high standards that Britain's farmers already meet and we should do that by insisting on clear labelling of origin and content, fair inspection costs, direct marketing to consumers, encouragement for thriving sectors such as organic farming and new initiatives, aided by research and development for sectors such as the pig sector, to exploit emerging markets such as fast food and convenience meals.
Last week, we all agreed that time was of the essence. I remind the Minister that another seven days have elapsed, confidence is even lower and losses are mounting. If the Government are to act, they must certainly do so now.
4.11 pm
Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the sensible stance he has taken on the French beef crisis and the many helpful statements he has made today about support for farming.
Mine is an inner-city constituency where few people have direct experience of either farming methods or farm animals, yet in common with people throughout the country my constituents are deeply concerned about the food they eat. Anxiety about genetically modified foods is as strong in Lewisham, Deptford as it is elsewhere. On a recent official visit to my local Tesco store, I learned that it has the fourth-highest sales of organic food for that company in this country.
Concern about what we eat is primeval. Most people have an innate sense of what is good, but what exercises them now is their sense that, despite higher standards of hygiene and packaging, some forms of food production have become so unnatural as to create serious potential risks to human health. The catalogue of disasters that culminated in BSE has changed public perceptions for ever and resulted in an unprecedented exercise of consumer power.
The desire to avoid genetically modified food has given an enormous boost to organic produce and there has been a 40 per cent. increase in sales over the past year.

1157
The revelations on the feeding of French cattle will only increase that pressure for organic produce. If there is a crisis in agriculture, there is also great opportunity. That is why on Tuesday, with 11 all-party sponsors, I presented the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill, which would place a duty on the Government to draw up targets to ensure that, by 2010, 30 per cent. of agricultural land and 20 per cent. of food consumed should be organic.
Given that only 1.5 per cent. of land is currently in organic production, those targets could appear to be wildly ambitious. They are not. The Bill was drafted by the Soil Association, which is the acknowledged expert in this field, as part of a coalition including Friends of the Earth, the Henry Doubleday Research Association, the Pesticides Trust, a number of unions and others. Furthermore, within a day of presenting the Bill, I was contacted, unsolicited, by Sainsbury, which pledged its support for the Bill, adding that organic food was its fastest-growing area with 500 lines already developed. It added, as is the case with all supermarkets:
"The company would like to offer its customers more British organic products but is unable to because of the shortfall in UK supplies."
This morning, Waitrose pledged its support, saying it believes that it is in the best interests of consumers and agriculture to develop organic farming.
These market opportunities must, I believe, be underpinned by Government targets. I am sure that Ministers have taken note of the recommendations of the House of Lords inquiry report, "Organic Farming and the European Union". The report, which is otherwise very supportive of organic fanning, rejects targets as being too much outside the control of Governments. I trust that my hon. Friend the Parlimentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will comment on that point when he replies to the debate, because I believe that it is mistaken. Some of the most important factors influencing the development of the sector are in the control of the Government, namely agricultural policy, the percentage of the total agri-environmental budget spent on organic farming and the amount spent on organic research and development.
On the external factors, I believe that we should expect the Department to make a considered judgment, as is done in other Departments when they are seeking to build a sector of the economy. We know that demand has increased 40 per cent. in the past year, and we can expect it to continue to grow, and that 70 per cent. of organic produce is being imported by suppliers. Countries as far afield as the United States and New Zealand are developing organic production specifically for the European market. European competitors have overtaken us: Austria already has 10 per cent. organic production, and the figure is 50 per cent. in certain sectors; Denmark has set a target of 50 per cent. by 2010; and even the newly created Welsh Assembly has a target of 10 per cent. by 2005.
This year alone, twice as many farmers registered for the Government's organic conversion scheme as could be funded by the whole of the 1998–99 and 1999–2000 budgets. I am absolutely delighted, as I know so many people throughout the country will be, that my right hon. Friend has confirmed today that an extra £10 million is to be put into the scheme while the review is under way.
1158
I encourage him to seek substantially more funding during that review, because I am certain that the money will run out as so many farmers are prepared to convert. We estimate that about £30 million is required to meet demand for the organic farming scheme and that about three times that amount would be needed to meet the targets in my Bill.
The Soil Association estimates that overall expenditure of about £150 million a year over 10 years would enable targets to be met for the UK to convert and have 30 per cent. of land in organic production. That represents a huge increase on current support but, if put into context, only a small sum. The annual cost of UK agriculture is put at about £3 billion, but if we apply joined-up Government thinking, for which we are becoming famous, the overall cost of conventional farming becomes much higher and the cost of support for organic farming conversion and maintenance becomes more attractive.
Conventional farming is one of the major sources of pesticide pollution of drinking water and its removal costs about £120 million a year. No Member of the House needs reminding that BSE costs us £4 billion and about 37,000 jobs. Increasingly, health problems are being traced to pesticide pollution and food poisoning incidents continue to cost millions every year. Antibiotic resistance and allergenicity are other major concerns to be weighed in the balance.
Organic farming methods and certification guarantee that no artificial pesticides, fertilizers, hormones or antibiotics are used in food production. The list of prohibited substances for animal feed under the organic rules makes chilling reading as someone somewhere—not only in France, but, I believe, in the United States—thinks these substances suitable for animal feed. The list includes:
"Materials which have been subject to solvent extraction …
Animal by-products or manures … meat, offal, feather meals, poultry manure …
Sawdust"
and urea. The list goes on, and it is horrifying.
I believe that the post-war consensus on farming and food production has broken down, and that a new framework for sustainable agriculture is long overdue. I also believe that the Government's reforms provide the basis for a much-needed way forward. The advantages of organic farming methods lie not only in the quality and safety of foods produced, but in better animal husbandry, reduced damage to the countryside and increased rural employment. I am confident that the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill campaign will gather support throughout the country—and in the House, as early-day motion 902 is already. I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to engage in their valued dialogue with the Soil Association and others, in order to explore every possible means of increasing organic production.
4.21 pm
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate on agriculture. The subject is critical to vast numbers of my Eddisbury constituents whose lives are, directly or indirectly, wholly dependent on agriculture and its future.
First, let me pay a warm tribute to my predecessor Sir Alastair Goodlad, who represented Eddisbury from 1983, and before that, from February 1974, the old

1159
constituency of Northwich. Over 25 years, he served his constituents and the House with dedication and great distinction, most notably as Chief Whip in the last two years of the previous Administration—a testament to his skills, and to the significant contribution that he made as an effective parliamentarian.
I am in no doubt about the fact that Sir Alastair inspired the respect and affection of the House in the fullest measure. As he now prepares to take up his appointment as the United Kingdom's high commissioner in Canberra, I know that I am joined by all the many Members on both sides of the House who knew him well in wishing him and his wife, Lady Cecilia, every happiness and success in Australia as they serve our country on an even wider field.
The name Eddisbury is taken from Eddisbury hill near the famous Delamere forest. Eddisbury is, in fact, the name of the original Hundred which, in part, covered my constituency, the largest seat in area in Cheshire. Subject to the Library's verification, I believe that Eddisbury may be the only "live" seat that is exclusively named by its original Hundred. It is to be distinguished—I say this most emphatically, as a Member who has only just arrived—from the Chiltern Hundreds. I am proud to have the opportunity to serve all the constituents of this special seat.
The constituency, which is effectively south-west Cheshire, with its 67,000 electors mirrors in many ways the interests of the country as a whole. Nearly half its electors are in the town of Winsford, a third are in the rural villages and the remaining sixth are in the agricultural communities. For my family, it is a wonderful part of the country in which to live, and for me it has provided a welcome return to the county where I was raised and, at various times, educated.
Winsford is by far the largest town. It has expanded rapidly over the last four decades, and continues to expand, with many people coming to live there from the nearby large cities of Liverpool and Manchester. It is, rightly, a proud town, famous for its rock salt mines; and it is now dependent on many small and growing businesses.
I dare say that all Members arriving in the House hope that their experience on the outside, as it were, will be of some value to the House over time. Those of us who had the opportunity before entering the House of having industrial careers—in my case, centred on the built environment and transport sectors, here in mainland Britain, in many countries around the world and, most proudly, in Northern Ireland—and those of us who are now of the generation that is luckily unblighted by the travails of the 1960s and 1970s workplace, have come to know what makes prosperity, and what destroys it.
As I visit the many small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency—notably in Winsford—my own experience is reinforced. The prosperity of those businesses is primarily dependent on less government, less tax, less interference and, above all, a release from the stranglehold of regulations, choking as they do a business's ability to compete and an entrepreneur's incentive to take the risk, and sapping the morale of those who work in such businesses. It is a free framework that Winsford, its people and its enterprises need, and in which it will thrive.
Beyond coming to this House with an industrial background, there is no higher forum than this Chamber in which to nurture my passion for our country's
1160
constitution and its traditions. I believe that those traditions are worth conserving. Without, I hope, straying into controversy, is it not a sad irony that, having arrived in the Palace of Westminster, I found myself spending Tuesday night at the Bar of the House of Lords witnessing the closing of a 700-year chapter of its unique quality, character and inestimable service to the proud independence and wise government of our nation?
I am proud and humbled to be wearing my remembrance poppy as I speak for the first time in this House—the very House that is proof, above all other, of the freedom for which my great-grandfather and countless others fought and gave their lives in 1916 on the Flanders fields. The legacy of his sacrifice, and of all those who have died fighting for our country's liberty during this century, is the reason I—we—can be here today.
Let me now come to the subject of the debate. I recall vividly seeing, as a boy, the horrendous sights across the Cheshire plain—and the stench—of the burning pyres of foot-and-mouth diseased dairy herds. Our farmers have suffered grievously in the past, but is not today's farming crisis, the plight of farmers as individuals, and the plight of their families, on an altogether different and desperate scale? Knowledge that there is a crisis—and hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledge that—is surely no substitute for an understanding of the current appalling plight of beef and sheep farmers, dairy and pig farmers, farmers with laying hens, arable farmers, hill farmers and all the ancillary businesses and activities that support farming. Only a true understanding will lead—urgently—to a reverse in the precipitous decline of the agriculture sector.
To put it most simply, what farmers in my constituency are crying out for is not special pleading. They want to be freed from red tape, burdensome regulation and form-filling. They want a level playing field in relation to their competitors, both from within the European Union and outside it, so that there is a prohibition against unfair imports of food that do not match the standards of rearing and processing that are legally expected of the farmers and processors in my constituency.
Eddisbury's farmers are surely typical of all British farmers whose commitment to, and attainment of, product quality is second to none. In relation to pig farming, I associate myself wholeheartedly with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), who led yesterday's Adjournment debate on the British pig industry. I have now read the report of the debate in Hansard, and apologise for not being present to hear it.
All families are affected by the crisis, including mine. My brother-in-law is a cattle and sheep hill farmer, on the most marginal land, on the very edge of the heathland of Dartmoor. I know of the intense pressure that he faces every day for the survival of his meagre livelihood to support his young family.
As I mentioned earlier, my constituency is characterised by its grasslands, farmed since time immemorial. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) the largest milk field in Europe. Is it not right for us to challenge the justice for those dairy farmers of the, at most, 18p a litre they receive for their milk at the farm gate—that litre is sold for 54p in Tarporley high street—while a litre of bottled water sells for 76p? Dairy farm incomes in my constituency have fallen by at least a third in cash terms in the last two years.

1161
On publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on milk in July this year, at the very beginning of my by-election campaign, the Government's acceptance of the argument that milk prices had been kept artificially high by the operation of Milk Marque beggared the belief of Eddisbury's dairy farmers. That is not the reality on the ground. I also believe that farmer-controlled milk co-operatives should be allowed to integrate vertically, as in the rest of Europe, by investing in processing facilities that enable value to be added to the basic product.
I am aware that the Government have rejected that argument, but in today's—not yesterday's—circumstances, I ask the Minister what assurances he can give dairy farmers in my constituency that he is listening to them, that he is reconsidering the actual circumstances of today, and that he is prepared to review urgently the Government's decision to deny a competitive opportunity to Milk Marque and, now, to its successor bodies.
Eddisbury typifies the danger of us all being over-sentimental about the countryside, which is a delicate balance between nature and the economy. The arguments that surround the countryside need also to be balanced, not hijacked by single-issue interest groups. If we are honest with ourselves, the countryside idyll—for visitors, an idyll it is—is rightly treasured. However, those idyllic rural areas are no accident; they are almost all influenced, if not wholly fashioned, by farmers. In using the term countryside, are we not in danger of slipping into the dreamworld of a chocolate-box picture?
The hard truth is that Eddisbury—like so many other areas of the United Kingdom, represented by hon. Members from all political parties—has a hard-nosed, hard-pressed rural economy, with cash flows, balance sheets, and profit and—now all too familiar—loss accounts. The health of Eddisbury's rural economy starts and finishes with farm incomes. If they are not viably sustained, the knock-on damage to our whole rural way of life—which is surely a very British way of life—will be untold.
I conclude by asking the Minister, in his reply, to say what assurances he can give to the farmers of Eddisbury now to alleviate their current plight.
4.31 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), and congratulate him on a very high-quality maiden speech. I congratulate him also on his by-election victory in July. He and I have at least one thing in common—we both have fairly obscure constituency names. My constituency was named after a river, whereas his was named after a hill. I had the pleasure of spending several days in his constituency just before he was elected, and hope that he has now settled in to a delightful area and made the transition from Chichester.
A Government's mettle is tested in times of crisis, when it is very important to keep a clear head, to show resolve and to stay calm. That is exactly what our Government are doing. Their actions in dealing with France, its beef and our beef ban have been exactly right. If a country wants to be taken seriously and to uphold its credentials as a constitutional democracy, it should stay
1162
within the law, and its decisions should have a sound basis. In the current case, that basis has to be found in science. Using the twin pillars of law and science, we shall achieve consistency. That is what the Government are about.
Today, the official Opposition are publicly advocating law-breaking and disregarding science. However, if we take a pick-and-mix approach, we shall only lose credibility. The official Opposition's proposals have not impressed the National Farmers Union, and have shown the official Opposition, in their actions, to be no better than the French. Moreover, in yesterday's Prime Minister's Question Time, I noted that the Leader of the Opposition lacked the spine to admit, in full public glare, that he was advocating law-breaking.
Why are we having a debate on such an issue? It all stems back to BSE. When that crisis started, the then Government showed us precisely how not to handle such an affair. They tried, first, sweeping the matter under the carpet. Secondly, they warned people that there might be a problem—then that there might not be a problem, and then that there probably was, but then again, and so on. All that did was to protract the crisis, permitting a long period in which so-called experts argued it out on the media, leading to uncertainty and a loss of confidence both in British farmers and in the previous Government. Eventually, when the revelations were made, the home beef market collapsed and a worldwide ban was imposed. It is no wonder that Conservative Members have today said that they do not like the official BSE inquiry.
Let us compare the previous Government's approach in addressing such issues with that of the current Government. When the current Government received evidence that there was a risk, albeit a small one, of eating beef on the bone, they acted swiftly and decisively. Beef sales were hardly dented, but a strong message was sent that the Government take food safety seriously. In my constituency, the main concern of the independent butchers who came to see me was that they should be able to cut beef off the bone in their own shops, as they have been able to do. I have had very few complaints about the Government's action on beef on the bone, other than from some fox hunters, who tried to link the issues of fox hunting and beef on the bone.
Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blizzard: No, I cannot; I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes.
The way in which the current Government have been acting in lifting the European and worldwide beef ban also contrasts starkly with the behaviour of the previous Government. The policy of non-co-operation in Europe not only isolated us, but failed. The policy was also exploited by anti-Europeans, who wanted the previous Government to adopt a position forcing them either to back down entirely, or to withdraw entirely from the European Union. That is a stark contrast with the skilful and successful negotiations conducted by my right hon. Friend the Agriculture Minister—who, but for the deviousness of the French, would have succeeded completely.
Nevertheless, without the European Union machinery, we would not be able to tackle France. Without that machinery, unilateral action could break out across

1163
Europe. Without it, we would have no rules to enforce, only chaos. The official Opposition have demonstrated that they want to encourage that chaos. The road that they want to take would involve more law-breaking and a trade war that would be in no one's interest.
Ever since I was elected to the House, Conservative Members have tried to portray themselves as the farmer's friends. However, farmers themselves know where Conservative policy on the beef ban would lead, and that that policy would not be in their interest. Farmers tell me that they are in favour of joining a single currency, although not at the current rate—whereas the Conservative party would completely rule out joining, for an arbitrary period. The whole drift of Conservative policy points to a withdrawal from the European Union—from which farmers, certainly in my part of the country, gain great benefits in markets and payments.
Conservative Members are so proud to have negotiated the so-called rebate. That is fine, but, in farming debates, they fail to say that British farmers suffered for that rebate, which makes it harder for British than for other European farmers to draw down agrimonetary compensation.
The official Opposition also pretend that farming problems started in May 1997, whereas, as we all know, the real start of our problems was the BSE crisis. The cost of some of the controls necessary to get us out of that crisis has been causing competition problems for our farmers. Conservative Members also do not say that pig welfare legislation was passed, albeit on a cross-party basis, by the previous Government. Furthermore, the United Kingdom has long had the structure—which my right hon. Friend the Agriculture Minister is now tackling—that enables supermarkets to enjoy huge mark-ups, but which means losses for farmers.
We should realise that farmers around the world are having problems. This summer, I spent some time in the United States, which we tend to think of as consisting of large, prosperous farms. However, that is not so. I met people from Iowa who told me of the dire straits in which farmers in that very agricultural state find themselves. Farmers in the United States are taking the same action as our farmers, encouraging people with slogans such as, "Eat the pork produced in our county". The United States also has a national campaign to promote "the other white meat"—although American consumers buy mostly beef and chicken, farmers there are promoting pork.
The most amazing thing I saw in my trip was a television programme, called "Farm Aid", devoted to the plight of the state's farmers. Just like "Children in Need" and other British aid appeals, the programme invited people to telephone and make a pledge, in this instance to help farmers. Although I do not know how many people made a pledge, or how many would do so in the United Kingdom if we had such a programme, it demonstrated that there are problems in the United States, as there are around the world.
As has already been said, the BSE problem has so far cost £4 billion, and the figure is rising. However, at least we have now installed the controls to give us an opportunity to make a return on the outlay. We have the safest and best-quality farm produce in the world, and we must capitalise on that fact in the home market. Today's announcement on new, clear labels will give us the opportunity to promote British farm produce and to promote a recovery.
1164
Today is a critical day. The integrity of the Scientific Steering Committee of the European Union is at stake, as is the European Union's machinery in its response. I hope that the French will see sense. People in this country are incensed. I am, and I have not been eating French food. I support the approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister, which is not inconsistent with the Government's. The Government should not break the law, but individuals can exercise consumer choice. We should not hide our feelings.
What the French are doing is in no one's best interest. It is not in the interests of the European Union and is condemned by everyone in this country. However, the French are doing what the Opposition would like us to do—take a pick-and-mix approach to Europe, full of opt-outs, inconsistencies and disregard for the law, that would undermine order and create chaos in Europe.
4.41 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: It is a great privilege to be the first Conservative Member to be called to speak after the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). By any standards, it was a fine maiden speech and we all look back on our own and wish that we had done half or quarter as well as he did today.
I speak today as Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture and also as a Back Bencher. I hope that it will be clear when I am wearing which hat. I am sorry that we face a 10-minute rule, because as Chairman of the Committee I feel a certain obligation to touch on all the issues facing farming, much as the Minister did in his opening speech, but I do not have that opportunity. I also apologise in advance for the fact that I will not be able to give way or respond to interventions.
In the Agriculture Committee's first report of this Session, published in December, we highlighted the crisis in farming, which was then the worst since the 1930s and was, uniquely and disastrously, affecting all sectors of farming. Sad to say, our report published today can note only that the situation has not improved. The desperate downturn continues. For example, I attended a meeting in the Vale of Evesham last week, where I was told by one of the country's leading apple growers that he expects half of all English apple growers to go out of production next year. What a sad way for horticulture to celebrate the next millennium.
We all know—or should know—about the dramatic collapse in farm incomes of some 75 per cent. over two years. It cannot be said too often that the minimum wage applies only to farm workers, not to the farmers themselves. If it did, they would not be allowed to continue in business.
I am glad to say that the Agriculture Committee has had several opportunities to praise the Ministry in the past year. I had intended to speak at some length on those issues, but the 10-minute rule has got in the way. However, I can say that the Committee will welcome many of the things that the Minister had to say in his opening speech.
We should highlight the action that has been taken on bovine tuberculosis. The Committee was impressed by the resolve shown by MAFF in taking forward the Krebs report and in seeking a rational, scientific basis on which to build a policy for the control of TB in cattle. I have to

1165
say to the animal rights lobby that if badgers have rights, so do cows. They have a right to be protected from bovine TB and a premature death. Farmers also have rights—the right to a policy, based on science, that will reduce or possibly eliminate the scourge of bovine TB, which continues to increase day by day.
It was not an easy decision for Ministers to accept the Krebs recommendations and we congratulate them on doing so. We offer our continued support to Baroness Hayman, who is now the Minister in charge of that policy area, in the difficult task of implementing the field trials. A democratically elected Government pursuing the right policy, as the Government are doing, must prevail over the violent protests of misguided extremists.
The Agriculture Committee has also found much common ground with the Minister on his ambitions for CAP reform. The Agenda 2000 negotiations earlier this year presented an opportunity to reform the CAP to create a system more appropriate to the needs of farmers and consumers and taxpayers of the 21st century, and one capable of withstanding the World Trade Organisation negotiations, which are the most important issue for British agriculture's long-term future today. Sadly, the opportunity was lost. The protectionist instincts of certain other EU states overcame the more reformist views of others, including the Minister and the European Commission itself. In my judgment, the action by Jacques Chirac in Berlin was much more damaging to the long-term future of British and European farming than France's illegal folly over British beef exports. We will live to regret Mr. Chirac's behaviour for much longer. It was particularly disappointing to see more milk quota going to the other side of the Irish sea, while none came here. Dairy farmers are saddened by that.
The Committee's current inquiry is into the marketing of milk. I see that inquiry as being important not only to dairy farmers and the dairy industry, but to the whole of farming. Perhaps unwittingly—and we will discover the truth when the Minister appears before us in a few weeks' time—the Government have sent a message to farmers that they will not tolerate vertically integrated farmer-owned co-operatives on the same scale as seen in the rest of Europe and, indeed, the world. I hope that the whole House agrees—and the Minister said as much in the Chamber earlier this week—that the future of farming lies in much closer co-operation and in helping farmers to capture more of the added value that currently goes to other participants in the chain.
Talking of the need for co-operation leads me logically to pigs. Much has been said, rightly, about the pig industry today and we all welcome the Minister's remarks today. However, I do not know whether his proposals will be sufficient to address the crisis in that industry. The pig industry needs to co-operate more, because it is too fragmented and that has been one source of its difficulties.
A year ago, we were just beginning our inquiry into the pig industry. In January, we published our report and the Minister will not need to be reminded that we were not entirely happy with the Government's initial response to that report. Unusually, we published a special report criticising that response, but if he had come forward then with the proposals he made today, we would have been much happier.
1166
Today, the Agriculture Committee published a report about MAFF itself. There is perhaps some poetic justice in the fact that MAFF is in considerable financial difficulties of its own. I am still worried that further cuts in MAFF's programmes are a real possibility. Will the extra money announced today for at least two specific programmes come from new money from the Treasury, not from MAFF's current budget?
Mr. Nick Brown indicated assent.
Mr. Luff: I am relieved on that score. In our report, we highlight the fact that cutting research and development expenditure seems a perverse reaction when we are fighting to increase British competitiveness, maintain food safety and reduce animal disease. I am concerned by the rumours of the break-up of MAFF, or at least the transfer of its functions to other Departments. We need a strong voice for farming, especially in order to address the WTO negotiations effectively.
I draw the House's attention to paragraph 17 of our report, which deals with the Ministry's attitude to competitiveness. We recommend an audit of regulatory activity, and I came under some pressure from Labour Members to include that recommendation. It is essential that we regulate carefully the burdens we impose on British agriculture, and the Committee is not convinced that MAFF has always been effective in doing so.
I must address the subject of beef exports. I have talked to several farmers in my area recently and they are not very keen on the idea of a trade war. They say simply that the French are better at them than we are and that we have a lot to lose. We must prevent the import of products only when we are on the surest scientific ground. A trade war could undermine our claim to be behaving with absolute integrity in the beef dispute. If France is to be made to play by the rules, we must do so too. Trade wars are also likely to be counterproductive. If the French fanners took to blockading other British exports, such as sheep, the effect could be disastrous for British farmers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made clear.
I think that the Government could have done a bit more. I know that the date-based export scheme is about de-boned beef, but Lionel Jospin said on television that the ban on beef on the bone was one reason for the behaviour of the French. Ministers must accept that it is a real factor in the current dispute.
If the Minister has scientific advice that the ban on beef on the bone can safely be lifted, I wonder whether he is on safe legal ground in continuing it. Devolution arguments have also been advanced, but devolution is about the differences between countries. That is one reason why I was worried about it in the United Kingdom context, but in this respect I say, "Vive la différence."
My second complaint is about the Government's confused response to the crisis. The word "confusion" has appeared in many press reports describing the Government's response. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) dealt with that in his opening remarks, so I shall not labour the point now, save to say that it is regrettable that there has not been greater clarity.
It is important to emphasise that the economic significance of the beef export ban must not be overstated. Of course we must lift it and of course the French are

1167
wrong, but the Ministry has set a very modest target for the recovery in beef exports. There is a risk that the Franco-Britannic squabble could obscure the truth, which is that farming faces much more fundamental problems than this little local difficulty. The Minister is optimistic about the matter, and I hope that events will bear him out. I look forward to discussing that and other matters with the Minister when he comes before the Agriculture Committee the week after next to discuss the crisis in the livestock industry.
A great deal more should be done to safeguard the future of British farming. It needs a more strategic approach than has been managed so far. That approach should be based on securing added value for the farmer, developing new skills in farmers, freeing farmers from production-related support, maintaining competitiveness by avoiding regulation, moving away from commodities and into brands, encouraging co-operation among farmers, and on empowering consumers to make better informed choices. That is the sort of agenda that needs to be developed for farming.
I shall conclude with a more partisan note. The one thing that we do not need to do is ban fox hunting. Not only would that be bad for the rural economy, the environment and the social lives of farmers, it would be bad for farmers themselves. The Ministry rightly encouraged farmers earlier this year to use hunt kennels to get rid of their fallen stock. My own hunt kennels have experienced an increase of 100 per cent. in the culling that they are undertaking. It is regrettable that farmers, who are faced with so many great problems, should have to cope with that added insult.
4.51 pm
Mr. Desmond Browne: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on his by-election victory and on a very fluent maiden speech. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), I also visited that constituency for a couple of days before the by-election. It is an interesting part of the world, and there is a remarkable coincidence between the geography of Eddisbury and that of my constituency in Ayrshire. I listened with some care to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and was not surprised to realise that his constituency and mine have similar rural economies. The people of Eddisbury are friendly and welcoming, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will enjoy his time there. I look forward to many more interesting contributions to our proceedings.
I shall keep my contribution brief. I trust that Opposition Members will be able to stand yet another Scottish voice in the debate. I have become used to the little Englander mentality of some Conservative Members, but I was shocked at the nadir that that mentality reached today, when a Scot who represents an English constituency—the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—sought to undermine another hon. Member's contribution on the basis of the geographical origin of the person who made it rather than on its content.
I welcome the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Minister made today with regard to the agriculture industry, as will many farmers in my constituency. I also congratulate him on the law-abiding stance that he has adopted with regard to the beef dispute. The Opposition
1168
spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), was asked for legal advice by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). Remarkably, he was unable to cite the legal advice that apparently supported his position. If I understood correctly what the hon. Gentleman told the House, he said that he had received no such legal advice and that no such advice existed to support the position adopted by the those on Opposition Front Bench.
In any event, I know that the approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister enjoys great support outside the House. Only yesterday, I had one of my regular conversations with a certain constituent of mine. He was at his home back in Scotland, and we were discussing the Government's handling of the current beef crisis. I asked him what his views were on the confrontational approach advocated by the Opposition.
My constituent said to me that the last thing that we needed was a trade war banning any French food or livestock products. He recognised that that would be illegal, and said that it would inevitably lead to reciprocal action. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the French are better at such action than we are.
My constituent is a knowledgeable individual, and said that a ban would do no good. Scotland exports about £3 billion of manufactured goods to France each year. A total of £316 million of that amount is accounted for by food and drink exports, and two thirds of that consists of exports of whisky. He added that it was obvious that Scotland and its agricultural economy needed this trade, and that any move to jeopardise it would be madness. That constituent is Ian Kerr of Woodhead farm. He is particularly knowledgeable about agriculture because he is the milk committee chairman for the Scottish National Farmers Union.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said, we cannot overestimate the importance of agriculture to the Scottish economy. In fact, about one job in 10 in Scotland relies on agriculture. The landscape, traditions and rural way of life—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire would contain himself instead of making observations from his sedentary position. Perhaps if he listens, he will find out what this has to do with this place. The landscape, traditions and rural way of life are sustained by our agriculture industry. Agriculture has shaped and managed the Scottish environment, which in turn is the bedrock of a £2.5 billion Scottish tourism industry.
Farming is important to the economy of my constituency. Dairy farming alone contributes about £58 million a year to the Kilmarnock and Loudoun economy. Our 200 dairy farmers produce about 10 per cent. of the total Scottish dairy production. Over the past few years—stretching back beyond the tenure of the current Government—they have had it hard. There were a few good years because of pricing, but they have had it hard, as they knew they would. Dairy farmers have suffered a further milk price reduction of about 8p a litre, a decline in the value of their animals when they are sold off at the end of their productive life, and a fall in the value of calves to nil from £120 per beast in 1996.
The cumulative effect is to reduce total farm income in my constituency, by £12 million, which also removes that money from the local economy. Farmers short of cash have no money for repairs, and that has a detrimental

1169
effect on all other rural businesses. One agricultural engineer in my constituency has seen his annual turnover drop from £600,000 to £100,000 in just three years. The loss of secondary business has particularly affected the town of Galston and the villages of Newmilns and Dunlop.
When farmers have money they invest it, and that is obvious when one drives through the rural environment. In Kilmarnock and Loudoun, it is obvious that dairy farmers are no longer able to invest in the upkeep of their farms. The storm damage of last year remains unrepaired. Many farmers had made savings and were uninsured.
The countryside environment is deteriorating. The countryside premium scheme was introduced to help farmers—for example, to fence off ditches and make other environmental improvements to the countryside. Many local farmers considered the scheme and were attracted to it, but, as it involved a considerable capital outlay, shied away from it.
Dunlop is a typical example of a village significantly affected by the slump in agriculture. The major employer in the town, an agricultural contractor, is doing so badly that few jobs remain. That affects not only the economy of Dunlop but the whole life of the village.
Behind every one of these facts are individuals and families who are struggling to cope. I meet these farmers and their families regularly. They are not unappreciative of what the Government and the Scottish Executive have done for them. The additional aid that has been secured for them has been welcome, and despite the fact that dairy farmers still face immense problems, they do not hark back to the past. They realise that they live in changed circumstances, and they welcome the challenge that that brings. They want to work with the Government in creating the environment that will allow them a sustainable future. In the context of both Scotland and the United Kingdom, they tell me continually that it is a change to have Ministers who listen to them and respond to what they say. Tory Members may shake their heads at that, but they are welcome to come with me to meetings with farmers who tell me those things.
Dairy farmers know that circumstances have changed. Perhaps they could have coped with a strong pound, and perhaps they could have coped with a market dominated by strong buyers who effectively dictate the price, whatever the Competition Commission may say about the sale of milk; but they find it impossible to live with a combination of the two.
On behalf of those dairy farmers, I ask the Minister to hear the following points. First, if the exchange rate remains as it is until the end of the year, the dairy sector will be eligible for agrimonetary compensation thereafter. The dairy farming community expects that the Minister, who has a full appreciation of their current plight, will, when the time is right, ensure that they receive every penny of their entitlement.
Secondly, since the calf-processing aid scheme ended, dairy farmers in Kilmarnock and Loudoun have been left with calves and no market for them. Ironically, the scheme itself killed off that market. However, there are potential markets in the east of Scotland and in England where there are farms that have the ability to rear those calves. There needs to be some development of this
1170
market. The farmers have spoken to the Meat and Livestock Commission, and they want assistance with that.
Finally, Milk Marque, in setting milk prices for England and Wales, effectively set the floor price for milk in Scotland. In response to the Government's acceptance of the Competition Commission's findings in the inquiry into the marketing of milk, Milk Marque intends voluntarily to split into three regional co-operatives. There is real concern among dairy farmers in my constituency that, without Government supervision of the process of disaggregation, dominant buyers will exploit their already powerful position and force further reductions in the price of milk for the producer.
With that transition from a unified body to three regional co-operatives, dairy farmers in my constituency are concerned that the consequent level of uncertainty will further weaken the price of milk for producers. I am sure that the Minister is aware of those concerns and intends to keep a close eye on the process. I would ask him to do so on behalf of the farmers in my constituency.
5 pm
Mr. John Townend: Everyone accepts that agriculture is in the worst state that it has been in for many years, certainly since I entered Parliament. The big difference this time is that, previously, when one sector has been on the floor, another has been profitable; at the moment, practically nothing is profitable.
My constituency is one of the major pig producing areas of the United Kingdom and is therefore suffering greatly. Even the most efficient and successful producers are losing tens of thousands of pounds every week. Unless action is taken immediately, there will be a large drop in the size of the UK herd, many pig men will go bankrupt and out of business, and the UK will become more dependent on European imports, which is what the continentals want.
The major problem is that, even though our best pig farmers are the most efficient in the world, they cannot compete because there is not a level playing field. The major responsibility for that lies with politicians of all parties. They have become obsessed with hygiene and welfare standards and have imposed a greater burden on our industry than is carried by our EU competitors.
First, sow stalls and tethers have been banned in this country, but they have not yet been banned anywhere else in Europe. I talked out the original Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) to implement that measure, but the Government of the day, with the unanimous support of those in opposition, brought it back through regulations. At the time, I said that implementation should be deferred until our major competitors had similar regulations or there would be disaster for the industry, but no one listened.
Secondly, as colleagues have mentioned, since the BSE crisis, hygiene costs—especially in abattoirs—have been greater here than elsewhere. If we want higher standards than the rest of the world, we should not put our industries in jeopardy but pay the cost out of general taxation.
Thirdly, our producers are not allowed to castrate, so the demand for large pigs has to be met by imports. Fourthly, our producers cannot use bonemeal, whereas

1171
every other country in the Community can. In addition, our producers have had to carry the burden of the Government's annual penal increases in the tax on fuel, which has put up their costs.
It is time for Government action if we are to prevent the destruction of a large part of our industry. It is wrong that pigmeat, especially bacon, that has been produced under food safety and animal welfare regulations that would make it illegal here should be allowed to be imported into this country,. We should ban all imports that do not come up to the standards that we require. Then our competitors' costs would rise to our level and the crisis would be over.
The Government will say that that is against European Union rules, but I say, "Tell that to the French." We seem to be the only suckers in Europe who put the rules before our national interests. We have not started a trade war; it is the French who are breaking the regulations. No one suggests that because they are doing so they will leave the EU. Labour Members have the nerve to say that what my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said from the Conservative Front Bench would result in our leaving the EU—that is absolute nonsense.
The Government say that we have, at enormous expense, dealt with the BSE problem—I think that a figure of £4.5 billion was mentioned—and had the ban lifted by the EU and that we must build confidence in our exports. We would all agree with that. But, as has been pointed out by other colleagues, how can we expect the continentals to be convinced that British beef is safe if it is illegal for us to buy beef on the bone, yet it is legal to buy French beef produced from animals that have been fed sewage?
I understand that the English scientific advisers to MAFF say that there is now no health reason for the ban to continue, but they cannot get the agreement of the Welsh and Scottish. That is the result of devolution. It is improper that the English beef industry should be penalised because of what officials in Scotland and Wales think.
The French and German refusal to lift the ban is unacceptable. What do the Government do in retaliation? Nothing. They say that we must obey all the rules and leave it to the European Union to sort out. It will be most interesting to hear what the Government will say if the EU does not sort it out today. While the French prevaricate and keep our beef out, our export market is unable to recover.
We must admit that the French are dishonest about agriculture. In France there have been lots of cases of BSE, or, as French farmers call it, the JCB disease. When they identify a cow with BSE, they bring in a JCB, dig a big hole, bury the cow and do not report the case. Now we find that they have been introducing human excrement into the animal food chain. This revolting practice—I cannot think of a better word—could well carry with it health risks. Until we are certain of the implications, we should use this opportunity, which the French have given us, to ban the import of French meat.
Of course, the Prime Minister has refused to act in this way to help our agriculture industry. Why? Because his priority is to be a good European and popular in Brussels. He has not even got the guts to back the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is personally boycotting French produce. Unlike my Front-Bench
1172
colleague, I congratulate the Minister on making this stand on behalf of British farming and British interests. I am doing the same, although it hurts me greatly not to drink French wine at home.
Why does the Prime Minister not do the same? Why does the whole Cabinet not set an example to the British people? It is because the Prime Minister no longer sees himself as a Briton; he sees himself as a federal European. After devolution for Scotland and Wales, and once we have joined the single currency and he has made sure that this country is one of many provinces of a federal Europe, his ambition is to be President Blair of Europe. He calls Conservative Members extremists, but he is the extremist—the extreme European' who ignores the interests of British agriculture. To curry favour with Europe at our expense will cost him dear. The more he acts like this, the more likely it is that he will lose the referendum on the euro.
Finally, the French are taking illegal action against British beef. The retaliatory boycott by the British public of French produce is legal. We, as individuals, are simply exercising our freedom of choice. The subsequent retaliation by the French against that legal action—they are stopping British lorries illegally and examining their loads—is unacceptable. The French police, as we saw on television, stood by and did nothing. When reporters asked the French policemen whether this action was not illegal, they said, "Je ne sais pas." Do we really want to be part of a federal Europe with a federal police force which acts like that?
In the latest report, we learn that the French will offer a so-called compromise today. There will be a fudge. It will not benefit British agriculture one iota. It will increase the burden on British farmers, with more restrictions and tests, and at the same time it will not enable us to rebuild our beef export trade to France. It is all aimed at saving the Prime Minister's face and keeping alive his dream of bouncing us into the euro, to show that we will be part of the great European drive to political union.
My message to the Prime Minister tonight is, "When are you going to be like the French and start fighting for our interests rather than European interests?" My message to the British public is, "Continue to support our farmers and continue to boycott French produce" because, whatever happens, the French public will continue for many years to boycott British beef.
5.10 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: Naturally, this debate has been dominated by consideration of current events. I do not wish to dwell long on them, but it would be wrong not to comment briefly. I am clear that, in our dispute with the French, we have law and science on our side. Peremptory, ill-conceived bans will only threaten our £10 billion-worth of exports of food and drink to the European Union.
I have written to the Minister urging assistance to deal with the extra burdens facing the pig sector on offal disposal. I believe that the steps that he has announced today of further investigating the potential for lifting part of the ban through the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Council is commendable. However, yesterday and the day before, I had the pleasure of attending events hosted by the National Farmers Union and the Meat and

1173
Livestock Commission, at which the tone was forward-looking about the future of British food and farming.
Several key factors were rightly addressed. The first was the critical importance of quality of produce. The second was the ability to supply consistently to meet a market need. The third was the need to improve the range of produce available from British farms. It is alarming to read in today's Financial Times that Whitbread's Beefeater chain claims that it can source only 50 per cent. of its beef requirements from British producers and has to supplement the balance from Argentinian suppliers. It worries me, bearing in mind the beef crisis here, that we are not able to meet the demand of a key retailer.
A representative of Geest who spoke at yesterday's NFU event drew attention to the fact that its garlic requirements were not being met by British suppliers and that it had to import. We have heard the story of organic produce. The purchaser from Sainsbury's made it clear that 70 per cent. of the organic produce that he was in charge of purchasing came from foreign sources. Clearly, we must improve the range of produce available from our farming communities to meet customer demand.
Another issue is the behaviour and performance of our processing sector. We have to search for greater efficiency. I will not repeat the points that I made in last week's debate about the dairy sector, but they could be applied equally to other parts of our processed foods sector. There is evidence that we have an elongated supply chain that is relatively inefficient compared to that of many of our competitors. We have to integrate that supply chain better. I commend the initiative that my right hon. Friend the Minister has made so far to examine the totality of the food supply chain rather than purely the farm end of the problem.
In retailing, we need to meet the need for clear labelling. The purpose of yesterday's conference was to seek a clear branding of British food. I commend that initiative. It is right that suppliers in all parts of the food chain are undertaking it jointly rather than relying on the Government to put it together. The initiative should be producer and retailer led and focused on customer need, not bureaucracy.
We need to see more product development in the retail sector, too. It is clear that the customers of retailers are moving ahead of the provision that is available in the shops. We continue to find shortages in some areas, possibly due to a failure adequately to identify customer trends. Better quality presentation in shops of goods from British suppliers is of critical importance. Clarity of branding is most important; items should be consistently presented so that it is clear where they come from and what quality can be expected. We should build on the strengths of some of our regional brands—another issue that I touched on during last week's debate, so I will not expand the point today.
The importance of partnership was another key point that came through at the conference. I have never run a business in which I thought it a good idea to abuse my customers, yet the food sector adopts a curious approach, in which mutual abuse between those involved in different parts of the food chain is still a regular feature—one that is repeated and amplified in this House. I have never found such an approach to be helpful.
1174
There are faults in the retail sector—the supermarkets have much to answer for as a result of the way in which they have dominated the food chain. I cite a voice that is relatively familiar to Members of this House:
"We (The multiple retailing) industry has also lost valuable friends, including the British farmer. They are in crisis and we have to say—what have we really done to help? The bitter truth is not a lot."
That was said by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who also holds a position with Asda.
There is room for significant improvement in retailer performance, but that can best be driven by partnership with the producer sector. Specifically, retailers must lead in product development—in developing strong, meaningful brands. They should consider partnership funding on organic conversion, and not merely guaranteed longer contracts, which they have—admittedly—offered to those seeking conversion. There is no reason that they should not directly fund additional assistance. Government must facilitate such partnerships, and ensure that we place no greater burdens on those sectors than do our competitors. I dwelt at length on that point in last week's debate; I shall say no more about it now.
MAFF should ensure that the food sector is fully represented in regional initiatives. I shall dwell on one feature of the Select Committee report—the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), has already spoken eloquently on much of its content. From my experience in the east midlands and from comments that I have received from elsewhere, it is clear that MAFF has not fully participated in the development of economic strategies in the relevant regions. Indeed, the Committee's inquiry and our questioning of the Permanent Secretary revealed that MAFF conceded that point. That problem must be addressed. The food sector is a critically important part of the economic base of every region of this country—especially my own. To miss the opportunity to develop that important sector and to integrate it more with the performance of other related industries is foolhardy in the extreme. We should not continue to miss that opportunity.
Farming and food have a great future in Britain, although it is hard to say that at present. However, I believe that some of the earlier contributions to the debate would delay the delivery of that future through their narrow-minded protectionism—we should avoid that.
5.18 pm
Mr. James Cran: I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate, in view of the crisis in farming, especially in the pig sector. That crisis is acute in my constituency—particularly in Holderness. The Minister knows that area well; he knows what I shall be talking about. I am deeply disappointed by this afternoon's announcement on the pig sector. I know perfectly well that pig farmers in my constituency will echo my disappointment when I meet them tomorrow.
The Minister told us that he was aware of the problems of agriculture. He is an honourable man and I believe that he is aware of them—of that there is no question. However, this afternoon, he tried to anaesthetise the House; that was the aim of the exercise. As far as I could tell, he agreed with everyone. In effect, he said, "More needs to be done; I am looking at everything; there will be less bureaucracy; I have teams looking into this,

1175
that and the next thing; and arching over all that is Agenda 2000, which, tomorrow—somewhere down the line—will solve all the problems of British agriculture."
The problem is that the situation is getting worse. A pig farmer in my constituency, Mrs. Dianne Brockhurst of Burstwick, anticipated the Minister's speech today when she wrote in a letter to me:
"Nick Brown is certainly full of 'tea and sympathy' type platitudes but no solid action has been forthcoming. I now wonder if this Government is quite happy to see us 'go to the wall' rather than 'ruffle any feathers' abroad."
Whatever one thinks about the latter remark—I may agree or disagree—my constituent is undoubtedly correct: the Minister has given the impression to fanners in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom that his approach is all "tea and sympathy". If I have one message, it is that that simply will not do. Solutions must be actioned today—that is how serious my pig farmers' problems are. Even as I speak, farmers are going out of business. The Minister's words this afternoon rang hollow and I am disappointed. It makes one almost cry to hear the sort of complacency to which we have been forced to listen this afternoon. It is simply shocking.
I welcome the Minister's comments about labelling, but we had better look at the small print because the devil is in the detail. Apart from labelling, I fear that the package will be virtually worthless to my constituents. If I have got it wrong, I look forward to an explanation, in the winding-up speeches, of why I am wrong. Although £5 million is welcome—I do not deny that—it will not help any of my constituents now.
The Minister may recognise the depth of the agricultural recession, but I fear that he is doing absolutely nothing to solve it—at least, not in my neck of the woods. I keep in close touch with the NFU in east Yorkshire and I asked it to report on the current situation. I will not quote from its response extensively, but I must put some of it on the record because I suspect that non-farmers do not understand what is happening in the British countryside—especially in east Yorkshire. Farmers in east Yorkshire are suffering the
"Worst Agricultural Depression for decades."
They are not my words but those of the NFU, which clearly I must heed. I read that, on Wednesday last week at the Beverley market, calves were sold for £1 a piece—to be fair, two were sold for £2 and another was sold for £3. [Interruption.] I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not find that amusing—I do not think that any hon. Member should—particularly when I recall that calves were sold for £100 each a couple of years ago. Is it understood in this country—especially by the Minister—that the tags on calves are worth more than the calves? The Minister must know that. We must also take account of rearing costs, auctioneers' costs and other associated costs.
The price of milk has dropped from 24p or 25p a litre to 17p or 18p a litre. How can people make money under those circumstances? They cannot. It is no use the Minister of Agriculture and his team saying, "We understand it, but we are prisoners." Farmers will not put up with it for long. The NFU and farmers in Yorkshire and Holderness are not making political points: they are telling it like it is. It is a tragedy for the people whom I represent. They are not militants; they do not march through the streets—at least, not until recently. They are
1176
just hard-working, honest people, who ask for little and get nothing. The Minister knows that the pig sector gets nothing, and, in the circumstances, that is simply appalling.
All those farmers ask is that they can make a little profit, but they are not making anything. There is not a lot of profit in the land. I can see the Minister nodding his acceptance of that. I fear that the Government are transforming those ordinary, decent people into a pack of militants, and that is tragic. They are beginning to say to themselves that they must follow the French example of direct action. Whether or not I agree with such action is neither here nor there.
So desperate are some of those farmers that, yesterday, outside the House, I saw the truly pathetic sight of pig farmers hauling two sows up the middle of the road in an effort to get publicity for their parlous situation. They have found it exceedingly difficult to get publicity, or be listened to, and that makes it all the worse that the Government have failed to recognise their dire straits.
My problem is how I can convince the Minister of their case. I have concluded that he will not listen to me. He would say that I am an Opposition Member and obviously I have a political axe to grind. I shall not do that, but, even at this late stage, I shall try to convince the Minister that what he has done today is totally inadequate, by quoting from a letter that I have received. I could have brought with me 200 or 300 such letters, but I have brought just a few.
A letter from Mr. Mewburn, the managing director of Dacre Pigs Ltd. in Brandesburton in my constituency, states:
"Two years ago my son and I undertook a redevelopment programme to enable us to comply with the stalls and tether ban and to produce efficiently without the use of in-feed antibiotic medication."
That cost a cool £480,000. A swift intake of break is needed. As far as I can tell from what he has told me and from what we have heard this afternoon, that is money down the Swannee.
Mr. Mewburn says that happily,
"we are not dependent on our pig business for our livelihood, for had we been so, we would now be on the verge of bankruptcy."
As it is, they are now faced with deciding whether they should continue and sustain losses. Why should they continue? As it is, Mr. Mewburn will probably decide to get out of the pig industry, and the business will effectively be exported to another country. Where, in heaven's name, is the sense in that?
Mr. Mewburn ends by saying:
"The only financial assistance I would request would be the removal of the so called 'BSE' cost imposed on pig producers."
How small a request to make in such dire circumstances. As I said, I have many more letters from which I could have quoted.
I repeat that the problems in my constituency are happening now. Bankruptcy is happening now; unsustainable losses are happening now, and something must be done now.
5.28 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: It is a pleasure to follow the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran), whose remarks have done a good service to his constituents.

1177
I do not intend—apparently it is against the rules of the House not to do so—to refer to France. Others have done so, and the matter has been well and truly covered. I shall stick to my plan, notwithstanding the words of wisdom uttered by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who, in a speech that covered every subject in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", managed to finish on the subject of fox hunting, which I shall also avoid.
I want to say a few words about milk, which has already been referred to in other speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), in particular, addressed his remarks to that area of farming. I have always been at a loss to understand the illogical motives behind the breaking-up of the Milk Marketing Board in 1994. I know that it might be argued that we jumped before we were pushed, but I suspect that the push was quite a way off when we decided to jump. I can trace—at least in my own mind—many of the origins of the plight of dairy farmers to that decision in 1994.
From the very beginning, Milk Marque was hobbled. In what is supposedly a competitive world, it was running with both legs tied together. The restrictions and obligations placed on it in effect made it uncompetitive in the world that it faced. The first such restriction, which is beyond my ken, is that milk farmers were not allowed to process the product. As several hon. Members have said, the secret to successful marketing and business is to add value to the product; to be able to take the product through the chain so that maximum profit can be gained from it. All that milk farmers can do is sell the raw product, leaving others to take the added value and profit.
Then, there is a restriction that could be from a satire: milk farmers were not allowed collectively to advertise the product. That was almost creating the free-market economy of the Soviet Union. Milk farmers could not say, "Drink a pint of milk a day", or "What a lot of bottle", or even present dancing milk bottles to the public to illustrate their sound product.
The annual advertising budget for milk of £30 million a year in today's terms came to an end—when consumption was falling and dairy companies were amalgamating, gaining larger and larger shares of the market. Farmers were cherry-picked as the dairy companies sold them initial premiums in order to push Milk Marque into a weaker and weaker Celtic twilight—if I dare say that in the presence of Celtic Members. Milk Marque was pushed into the remoter parts of the country, where, naturally, transportation charges were greater and economies of running operations were smaller. As a result, dairy operators have gained the best markets and Milk Marque has increasingly been pushed into areas where it is difficult to compete.
Amazingly, at the same time, a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report stated that Milk Marque was undertaking uncompetitive practices. It would be reasonable to conclude that, since the inception of Milk Marque, dairy companies have been gunning for it and looking for an opportunity to hobble it even further. If we end up with weakened co-operatives competing against one another, and if for some amazing reason they do not have the opportunity to establish a processing wing, the dairy companies will corner the whole market.
1178
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) takes new Labour policy a little too far for my taste in the abolition of a conflict theory of economics. We do not want to go too far into such a theory, although we readily understand that diary companies, supermarkets and producers do not necessarily have the same interest when it comes to who makes the profit in a declining market.
I welcome today's announcement that, in a ballot, farmers voted for corporate, generic advertising—selling the product as a whole. They will of course have to pay for that themselves; the money will come from their own contributions, which I suspect will be hard to find. I welcome my right hon. the Minister's statement that he will facilitate progress in such advertising. I am a little concerned that the dairy companies 50 per cent. contribution is voluntary and will need to be worked out. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will put all good pressure on them to ensure that they co-operate in a campaign, even though the budget will be only 25 per cent. of that previously operated by the various milk marketing boards in selling the product.
Milk farmers are competing in a very unequal market. We all know that when David squared up to Goliath, he eventually won, but he was helped by having a few stones in his hand at the time.
5.34 pm
Mr. Cynog Dais: I appreciate many of the remarks that have been made about the milk industry. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made a compelling analysis, and I endorse all of it—except the references to the Celtic twilight; I do not approve of that kind of thing.
I want to speak about short-term measures and longer-term strategy. The start of my speech is anecdotal. At the end of August and the beginning of September, when the story about sewage getting into the food chain was hitting the headlines in the French press, I was in Brittany, on a twinning visit. I had a long conversation there with a Welsh dairy fanner—a neighbour of mine—and a Breton dairy farmer.
The Breton milk producer had anxieties about the future. He was producing about 250 litres per annum. He could see a trend towards larger units, and he was trying to decide whether he should join that trend. Despite his anxieties, the differences between his circumstances and those of my Welsh neighbour were striking. He was getting about 20p a litre for his milk; my neighbour was getting 17p. Both of those prices, of course, are now decreasing.
Why did the two prices differ? I identified two elements. The first was the strength of the pound against the euro. I am told that the pound is up by 7 per cent. against the euro since January—and the pound has strengthened 30 per cent. in the past three years. The other factor was the strength of the vertically integrated co-operative to which the Breton farmer belonged, which gave him strength in the marketplace. In addition, he had the advantage of being able to sell his calves and his barren cows for a good price, so he could say that he was making a good living, although it was a hard living. He was making about £20,000 a year. The contrast perfectly illustrates the appallingly unlevel playing field on which United Kingdom dairy farmers have to play.

1179
The Welsh and the Bretons are cousins, and we do not want to hear any anti-Gallic xenophobia in this place—that is the last thing that we want to feed into the situation. The UK Government are far from powerless. The high pound is, to a large measure, the outcome of UK macro-economic and fiscal policy, which is hammering the north and west of the UK—not only in agriculture, but in other sectors—and most of Wales. The UK Government could, if they wanted to, change direction on that, and they should do so. Roll on the single currency, say I.
On the sale of calves, it is time to push hard for the resumption of live exports. There is no ethical justification for not doing so. That subject is not on the immediate agenda, but it is time to open that discussion. I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government's position on that. Concurrently—they are not mutually exclusive options—we need a strategy for a UK-based and a Welsh-based welfare-friendly veal production and marketing system.
The problem of barren cows is obviously intractable, but I want to hear the Government's views on when we start to make good use of, instead of destroying, that resource. On the powerful integrated co-op, the Government's action on Milk Marque has been the opposite of helpful, as has been said. That is water under the bridge, and we must try to build on what is available to us.
When, in addition, the Meat and Livestock Commission contends that UK meat inspection charges mean that the British meat industry is seriously disadvantaged by higher costs, we start to understand why farmers are so angry—why they feel that they are treated so unjustly. All that they have been saying about the unlevel playing field in recent months is vindicated by the facts.
I shall now discuss longer-term issues and the need to lay the foundation of a new sustainable farming industry, specifically in Wales. I shall be very specific about one issue. Enlightened opinion is unanimous that the way ahead for agricultural policy is the decoupling of support from production, and the use of environmental management payments to encourage good practice and strengthen family farms. Both can be done if the schemes are properly designed, with modulation. The Minister spoke about that.
Since 1992, Wales has had an agri-environmental scheme, Tir Cymen, which is widely regarded as one of the best in Europe. However, it was available only on a pilot basis and only in some areas. It has now been replaced by an integrated national scheme called Tir Gofal, which brings together and supersedes all the agri-environmental schemes, including Tir Cymen, the environmentally sensitive areas—ESAs—and others. Properly implemented and funded, Tir Gofal could, at an annual cost of £60 million to £65 million per annum—quite a lot of money—provide a lifeline for many Welsh farmers at a time of crisis, and play a key role in laying the foundation for a sustainable future.
Professor Gareth Wyn Jones, the author of Tir Cymen and one of the great experts in the field, suggests that a full-blown Tir Gofal could bring in as many as 60 to 70 per cent. of Welsh less-favoured area farmers, and somewhat fewer in other areas. It could create 1,200 new jobs, plus a multiplier effect. By bringing on-farm woodlands into management, it might help to create several thousand jobs in hardwood extraction, processing and manufacturing.
1180
Tir Gofal could significantly strengthen green tourism strategies. It could help to improve animal husbandry and lamb quality, and be an important asset in promoting a Welsh quality product in the marketplace. Marketing quality is vital. Tir Gofal would cover part of the cost of fulfilling national—by which I mean Welsh—and UK obligations under the habitats and birds directive. It would encourage positive management of special areas of conservation and special protection areas, and protect sites of special scientific interest. With those multiple benefits, the environmental gain would be significant.
The problem, of course, is cash. The current intention is for £20 million to be allocated to Tir Gofal by 2002–03. Currently, fewer than 500 farms have been accepted into the scheme for next year, when we should be aiming at 1,500 farms per annum. European funding equivalent to 50 per cent. of the cost of the scheme should reduce the cost to the National Assembly Budget from £20 million to £10 million. However, that will not happen, because the European moneys are not additional to the Welsh block; they end up in the Treasury. The money is paid from the Intervention Board to the Countryside Council for Wales, from the CCW to the Welsh Office, and from the Welsh Office to the Treasury.
Moneys that should have been available for a vital project for Welsh farming and rural areas are being appropriated by the UK Treasury and used for general Government expenditure. The same is true of all European moneys allocated for Wales since 1992 for all other purposes, and unless things change, the same will remain true of the £1.2 billion of objective 1 money allocated to Wales for the next seven years—and objective 2 and objective 3 money also. It sounds bizarre, it is outrageous, but it is true.
In relation to Tir Gofal, we could at the same cost to the Welsh Budget—£20 million—spend £40 million and double the number of farmers coming in, but the position is better, or perhaps worse, than that. From January 2000, 50 per cent. of Welsh land area will be objective 1 designated, and thus eligible for 75 per cent. European contribution to Tir Gofal.
I must cut a long story short. Gareth Wyn Jones, in his excellent paper entitled "Funding, Fairness, Farming and the Future"—which I commend to the Minister and particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—calculates the potential loss to Wales of non-additionality in this single scheme, leaving aside other accompanying measures. He calculates that in 2002 the loss will be about £40 million. Over the seven-year structural funds period, it will be about £240 million.
Gareth Wyn Jones asserts that additionality would apply in most, if not all, other European countries and regions. For example, it would certainly apply in one of the German Länder, which develop such schemes, draw down European funding and thereby increase the number of schemes that they can implement. In the UK we do not have additionality for that purpose.
Additionality is certain to become a major political issue in Wales over the coming months. It is still not properly understood, but as it becomes more widely understood, it will become a more significant issue. If the Government want to retain political credibility in Wales, they must address it.

1181
With the agricultural crisis biting ever more viciously into the economy of rural Wales, I appeal for it to be addressed urgently—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I call Mr. David Borrow.
5.45 pm
Mr. David Borrow: Two weeks ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), I held a public meeting in the village of Rufford in my constituency to discuss the rural audit carried out by the Labour group of rural MPs. As one would imagine, it was a lively meeting, probably half of which was dominated by agricultural issues. However, unusually, the time discussing livestock issues was relatively short, reflecting the nature of that part of Lancashire. There is livestock production—mainly lamb and beef—and some dairy farming in South Ribble, but horticulture is dominant, particularly glasshouse and vegetable production. That particular sector does not, and did not in the past, rely on subsidies from Europe or anywhere else. It has always been driven by market forces, and many of the problems now faced by that sector are the result of those market forces.
A number of issues were discussed at the meeting which had been raised with me previously and which I wish to mention now. The horticultural sector has grown extensively during the past 10 years. United Kingdom production has increased in value from £463 million to £655 million, but, significantly, £500 million-worth of produce is imported. The proportion of imported horticultural products consumed in the UK has increased rather than reduced, and one issue that we need to address is the role of Government in enabling the horticultural sector to increase production and become more competitive.
Mr. Wardle: Bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman has just said, what does he think the climate change levy will do to the competitiveness of those growers?
Mr. Borrow: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue with my speech I shall deal with various issues.
During my time in Parliament, agricultural debates have been dominated by livestock issues, perhaps reasonably given the particular problems of that sector. However, in the villages of Hesketh Bank and Tarleton in my constituency horticulture has long been a major employer, and, although there has been consolidation within the industry, a number of key issues need to be addressed. One concerns the Government's taxation policy.
If the Government levy a tax they must be clear whether it is to generate income or to tackle a problem. I remain unconvinced that increasing the pesticides tax will have the desired effect of reducing the amount of pesticides used, rather, it is only likely to increase the amount of cheaper pesticides used at the expense of better and more environmentally friendly pesticides. It is important that MAFF and the Treasury should decide
1182
whether the purpose of the proposed pesticides tax is to increase tax revenue or to tackle an environmental problem.
The climate change levy poses a particular problem. In order to compete abroad, growers need to be able to heat their glasshouses. If a levy is imposed, it will do a great deal to unbalance the level playing field. Growers in my constituency have said time and again that they would welcome a free market, because that is what they are used to, but they want fairness in the EU in terms of the pressures on them as producers compared with those on the competition. They have suffered significantly from competition from Spain and Holland in recent years and they have pointed out to me examples of where the tax and support regimes in those countries differ from those in the UK. Those issues need to be tackled by the Government.
Twenty-five years ago, horticultural production was largely dealt with through the wholesale market system and the town of Preston had one of the strongest wholesale markets in the UK of market gardening produce. However, much production now goes straight from the grower to the supermarket, which creates an imbalance in the market. Although the industry is beginning to tackle that issue, and has done so quite successfully in certain sectors, we need a better marketing strategy and a coming together of producers, perhaps through the co-operative system, if the horticultural sector is to compete and even up that part of the playing field.
There is a direct role for the Government in the horticultural sector, as in other sectors, and they could help it to market itself, not only in the UK, but in the rest of Europe. One of the problems with UK agriculture is that it has always aimed at the domestic market rather than competing in Europe. Every other EU country sells a significant amount of agricultural production outside its domestic market, but the UK does not. We need to seize the opportunity. If we are to make beef a premium product, there is scope in the horticultural sector for achieving the same status and competing for a niche market across Europe. The Government should recognise the need to do that and perhaps give more attention to the horticultural sector.
I am concerned about the extent to which training and education in the agricultural sector is becoming dominated by classroom teaching in colleges. Myerscough college, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), has a base in Hutton in my constituency. It is a fine college and I visit it regularly, but we need to recognise that a lot of agricultural training needs to be carried out on the job and on the farm and we need the right training to be available locally. It is wrong to assume that people can travel 20 or 30 miles to an agricultural college to do all their training. That is a myth—it will not work.
In my constituency, Lancashire Growers, which is a consortium of farming businesses, has put together a training agency. It has done excellent work over the years, but I am concerned about the extent to which such industry-based training agencies are being sidelined and not recognised as being important. The danger is that more training will go from the farm into the classroom. There is a role for both, but if we are not careful we will fail to recognise the importance of farm-based training. That could happen because the agricultural sector tends to be dominated by small companies and their opportunities

1183
for putting their case to the Government are limited compared with those of larger companies. The same is true of any sector of the economy, but it is particularly so in agriculture.
I would like the Government to consider going into listening mode and giving more of a voice to the smaller farmers who operate in some of the niche markets. The battle in this place over the past week has been dominated by the livestock sector, which has meant that the other key agricultural sectors have tended to miss out. They are just as important and have just as big a role to play, but if we fail to listen now they could face major problems in the future.
5.55 pm
Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the opportunity to highlight yet again the particular agricultural difficulties that we experience in Northern Ireland.
I am glad that the House as a whole now recognises the serious state of the whole agriculture industry in the United Kingdom. Many Members have drawn attention to difficulties in their areas. We in Northern Ireland have those difficulties as well; indeed, we have them to a greater extent, in terms of percentage and the fact that we have more farmers per head of population. A total of £572 million has been removed from the Province's economy over the past five years, and the annual total farm income has plummeted by 75 per cent. to £82 million in that period. The agri-food industry in Northern Ireland is its largest single industry, accounting for 10 per cent. of civil employment and 7 per cent. of gross domestic product.
In 1997, the average net farm income was only £3,093, 75 per cent. of farms had a net income of less than £10,000, and 38 per cent. of farms made a loss. Farm incomes in Northern Ireland are falling at twice the rate of those in the United Kingdom. There is clearly a tremendous problem in Northern Ireland. The banks are owed some £520 million— not to mention what the feed suppliers are owed.
The Minister recently received a deputation from Northern Ireland, and I welcome that. Someone mentioned tea and sympathy; we were certainly given tea, and indeed we were given sympathy. Moreover, we were given promises that something might happen, and that something might be said today. Of course, something has been said. We find that there is to be £5 million for marketing, and that a greater incentive is to be provided in regard to labelling. Although those developments are welcome, however, they are not adequate to deal with the problems of the Province.
There is still a big problem in the beef industry, although the ban has been lifted. Because of strict procedures, very few cattle are available for export. It would be helpful if the beef on the bone ban were lifted as well. The Minister says that the advice from the hygiene point of view is that it can be lifted; indeed, he says that he would lift it if he had the support of the environmental authorities and the Parliament and Assembly in Scotland and Wales. I say this to the Minister: lift the ban immediately. If he does so, he will surely find that Scotland and Wales will follow suit very quickly. They could not possibly continue the ban in their countries if it had been lifted here. The ban has been a
1184
stick to beat our backs with. The French Government say, "They have banned their own beef; if they do not eat their beef, why should we buy it?"
I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) said about the pig industry. He expressed precisely the feelings in my own constituency. Although his comments related to pig farmers and the pig industry in his constituency, they apply equally in mine. Unfortunately, however, the pig price in my constituency is between 10p and 15p less than it is on the mainland. We also have additional costs in importing grain and in pig production generally.
I had hoped that Ministers would today announce that they are doing away with the offal disposal regulations. Such action would make a significant difference to many pig farmers, providing them with another 5p to 6p in the sale of each pig. Although it would not enable farmers to make a profit, it would help them to pay for the meal being consumed, and allow some of them to stay in business until the day comes— we hope that it will come— when they are able to make a profit. When we met the Agriculture Minister, he told us that he will approach the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. He said that again today. We want to know when he will do that and when we will see some action. We have promises, but we want action.
Many farmers in my constituency, especially pig farmers, have made great capital expenditure to build new premises to meet the new regulations banning tethers and crates. Farmers have gone to banks and borrowed money, but now are unable to pay back interest or capital. They are desperate.
If the Government introduce safety regulations that are different from those applying elsewhere in Europe, farmers should be entitled to Government compensation for the additional expenditure. When pig farmers come to me, they simply say, "All we want is a level playing field." It is all right having a common market and doing everything in common, but an uneven playing field negates the argument in favour of such a market. On behalf my pig farmers, I plead for a level playing field.
The incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland is the lowest in the United Kingdom. This year, we have had only five cases. The Republic of Ireland has twice as many cases of BSE as Northern Ireland, but, unlike Northern Ireland, it is able to export cattle. Northern Ireland should also be able to export. We should be recognised as an area with a low incidence of BSE, so that many of the restrictions may be lifted. Although I realise that such a move may not go down well in some parts of Britain, given our very low incidence of BSE, there is a strong argument for it.
The Government have agreed to request the provision of £129 million that is available from the European Union's agrimonetary compensation scheme in 2000 and 2001. The United Kingdom also has the option of providing a matching amount, but, to date, there has not been such a commitment. Even if all possible funds were made available, that would still result in a decrease in the levels of all CAP premium payments in Northern Ireland. I ask the Government to provide the £120 million matching funds in 2000 and 2001.
I understand that a proportion of the agrimonetary compensation agreed in 1997—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
6.5 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and I shall stick to five minutes to allow other hon. Members to contribute. It has been an excellent debate, and the scene for it was set by the typical calm, dignity and good sense of my right hon. Friend the Minister in his introduction. Hon. Members on both sides have addressed themselves seriously to this very serious issue. The only exception was the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) who, with his arguments shot away and the scientific and legal basis for what he was trying to say foundering, sailed on towards the French to try to start a trade war. He is a farcical Lord Nelson for our time.
We can quote all the statistics we like, but I know that agriculture is in a serious state because I have seen the effects on people in the past couple of years. We have a fine farming community in Lancaster and Wyre, full of decent people, many of whom have been marked by desperation and despair. I think of a chap whose family has owned his farm for 200 years, but now sees it all going and thinks it is all his fault. I know a farmer who has had to spend his retirement savings on propping up the business. Now he is growing older and more tired, but he can see no way out of unremitting physical toil. Some families want to ensure a future for their children in agriculture, but that possibility is disappearing. Such people have been driven into despair because their income is being driven down.
Of course farmers have to produce safe, good quality food efficiently in a competitive environment. We also have the problems caused by the collapse of markets, the strength of the pound and the legacy of BSE. Even in a context of considerable assistance to agriculture, the supermarkets and dairy companies seem to be able to dictate the price that they will pay, without passing on lower prices to the consumer. Our efforts to produce quality food to high standards of animal welfare are undermined if we do not use every legitimate and scientific means to ensure that poorer quality imports do not hit the streets; if consumers do not have the benefit of accurate labelling; and if large concerns constantly have to be cajoled and persuaded to emphasise quality, freshness and animal welfare over the lowest common denominator of price. We have talked much about what the farmers and Government need to do, but less about what the supermarkets and dairy companies need to do to emphasise the quality of British produce to consumers.
We have to consider ways to develop effective co-operatives and marketing strategies. I was pleased to hear about the countrywide approach to marketing that is being further developed, but we need to emphasise regional and local distinctiveness. I want to see a made in Lancashire label attached to all sorts of quality produce, not just traditional agricultural produce. Our local farmers market, for example, has ostrich—produced by local people—on the menu, as well as selling the finest pork burgers available. We need to build on such innovation.
The Government are giving tremendous support to agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Minister listens, cares and approaches the issue properly, but we need to do more. We need to look to the future. If we are going to have to have bigger farms, we should have a retirement scheme so that people can leave the industry with dignity. We need greater emphasis on co-operatives and collaboration. No more obstacles should be placed in the
1186
way of Milk Marque and other producer organisations, and an enabling and supportive culture should be fostered in the Ministry.
I believe that the rural community is strong and resilient. The Government have a real stake in this country's agriculture, and farming—and the young people going into it—have a real future.
6.10 pm
Mr. John Burnett: I apologise for my brief absence from the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been able to establish that, contrary to what I understood previously, a United Kingdom company was the source of French chicken burgers, worth about £40,000, that were used in Devon's schools. I apologise for my earlier intervention being therefore incorrect.
However, I must add that every year Devon county council buys food worth about £1.8 million that is produced by west country suppliers. It will be of interest to hon. Members and their local authorities that Devon county council has taken a number of constructive measures to assist agriculture. First, it has established, and is financing and supporting, the organisation Devon Food, by means of which local farmers are linked with local consumers, to whom they sell their produce. As a result, 13 new businesses and 35 new jobs have been created.
Secondly, the county council has set up and is supporting the "Made in Devon" scheme to promote local producers. Thirdly, the council has invited the National Farmers Union to join it in scrutinising Devon's purchasing agreements, and in examining ways in which quality and welfare conditions can be incorporated to ensure that our farmers operate on fair terms with their European counterparts.
The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the parlous state of agriculture. Last year, I thought that things could not get worse but, to my regret, they have. Time is short for many farmers throughout the country—they are either insolvent now, or on the brink of insolvency. Earlier, I asked the Minister about the timing of the proceedings that the European Union is likely to take after today's meeting. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary when he winds up will answer the following urgent questions.
How long will it take before the EU proceedings are resolved? Is there a fast track for such proceedings? Would it be in the interests of our farmers for the United Kingdom also to take separate action, concurrent with the proceedings envisaged to be undertaken by the EU? Finally, the French have taken unilateral and illegal action: what penalties will be sought for that breach of the law and of good faith?
6.13 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am pleased to contribute to a debate on a subject of crucial importance to my constituents. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) spoke earlier, and I congratulate him on an interesting and well delivered maiden speech. His constituency on the Cheshire plain is close to mine, but hon. Members will know that the land rises the further west one goes towards the Clwydian range. My constituency is therefore in what is regarded as a less favoured upland area, where the only sustainable form of

1187
agriculture is the raising of livestock. There are no fewer than 900 farms in my constituency, and the people engaged in that hard business are admirable and hard working. Agriculture has a particular resonance in Wales. Relatively speaking, many more people are employed in agriculture there than in other parts of the UK. Wales is more rural.
The Welsh language is particularly strong in rural Wales, which may account for the emotional charge about this issue in Wales, although that is also true of other parts of the UK. One acknowledges the strong attachment to the landscape in places in England and Scotland where farms may have been in the same hands for many generations or centuries. One pays tribute to the wonderful English landscape. The issue is charged emotionally as well as economically, but we must adopt a rational, clear headed approach to the combination of difficult problems that the Government have inherited.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for keeping his head and adopting a rational approach to the crisis. I congratulate the Government, too, on the steps that they have taken to ameliorate the situation. We must not forget that £5 billion a year is being paid directly to UK farmers under the common agricultural policy. The Government have made extra payments of £742 million, including higher hill livestock compensatory allowances and aid with meeting the costs of inspection and the extra charges resulting from BSE.
In the extremely limited time available to me, I want to concentrate on a few points. I warmly welcome the Government's embarkation on an industry-led review of the regulatory burdens on agriculture. That is a particular source of grievance among farmers in my constituency. One source of particular frustration is controls on sheep carcases, which have to be split so that specified risk material can be removed. If the Government could move on that point, it would go a long way towards improving morale.
I stress the importance of the EU's rural development regulation. Many people in agriculture believe that it has tremendous potential to improve the long-term prospects of agriculture and the rural economy. One thinks of agri-environmental schemes, steps towards proper early retirement schemes, aid for young farmers, marketing and processing grants. Unfortunately, the regulation is not properly funded in the UK. Of the available EU budget, only 3.5 per cent. has been allocated to the UK. I agree with what many commentators—including the Country Landowners Association and the Council for the Protection of Rural England—that that is ludicrously low.
I should like the Minister to address two questions: what representations have the Government made to increase that figure to somewhere near the EU average, and if that is not possible, can he suggest how resources might be shifted from market support subsidies to the rural development regulation? Under EU regulations, particularly the Amsterdam treaty, that is possible up to a ceiling of 20 per cent., and I should like to hear the Government's views on that point.
The National Assembly for Wales has had a shaky start, but it is determined to adopt a consistent and clear strategy. It seems to me and to many others—I agree, for example, with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock)—there has been a recent
1188
collapse in the post-war consensus about farming. We need clearer objectives for the industry if it is to have a sustainable future and to give hope to generations of farmers to come.
Mr. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members have not been able to speak in this debate. Given the nature of the crisis in my constituency and elsewhere, would you consider extending the debate beyond 7 pm to allow those hon. Members to speak?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am bound by the rules of the House and we cannot extend the debate beyond 7 pm.
6.20 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: First, I warmly congratulate my new neighbour, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), on flying over the first hurdle in his parliamentary career with great style by making such a splendid maiden speech.
Since the Government came to power, farm incomes have fallen by three quarters, hill farmers are having to shoot their own sheep, there is no market for calves, and dairy farmers have seen milk prices fall to their lowest level for 11 years. As for British beef farmers, the situation gets worse every day.
The Scots and Welsh are refusing to lift the ban on beef on the bone and, in doing so, are placing enormous pressure on the new devolved machinery. Is it not a little ironic that the lifting of that ban throughout the United Kingdom has been trapped in the devolution doldrums? How can we expect other European nations to accept our beef products, when we in the United Kingdom continue to refuse to allow our own people the freedom to enjoy beef on the bone, against the advice of the chief medical officer.
The Minister should take his courage in both hands, give a lead and take action on behalf of England. As the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said, the others would fall in and follow that lead. The French and Germans are following suit in this nonsense and, in the process, laughing at the European Union which sits idly by as British farming goes deeper into the mire.
Justifiably, British farmers are outraged by the unilateral ban imposed by the French Government on the import of our beef, in direct contravention of the EU ruling to lift the ban in August. What is even more scandalous is that while those countries continue the ban on quality British beef, the European Commission has exposed France and Germany as nations where animal waste and possibly human and veterinary waste have been routinely and illegally used in animal feedstuffs.
Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) gave me a note of a UECBV Secretary General's meeting held in Brussels on Tuesday 28 September—a mere month ago—which states:
"In discussion it emerged that in Germany all dead animals were collected and rendered under local authority supervision, but rendered material, including pets faeces and gut content went into animal feed. This was causing concern and conflict among meat processors and the medical profession, not least because dead animals might contain medicines or poisons used in lethal injections."
That makes disgusting reading.

1189
The UK Government might be wasting time in seeking redress, but the British public are doing their best and doing the job for them by refusing to purchase French produce and standing up for British interests.
Mr. Hayes: I know that my hon. Friend takes an enlightened and open-minded view of Europe. Perhaps she will comment on what she thinks European Governments would do if British farmers were found to be doing the sort of thing that she has described. Those Governments would use it as a way to stop British imports into their countries.
Mrs. Winterton: That is a good point. Of course, we all know precisely what they do because we have seen France in action on many occasions. They would take the action that was in their best national interest and twiddle with the rules later. That is the answer, and my hon. Friend, the House and everyone in the country knows it.
Having said that, I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his personal action in not eating and drinking French produce. It is sad that his stance is undermined because he does not have any support from any other Minister, including the Prime Minister, which shows precisely what this Labour Government think of our farmers. The Government have done virtually nothing. Let us flip the coin. To return to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), other Governments would act completely differently.
Our farmers have waited patiently for three and a half years to get top-quality British beef back on the menu across Europe. Having put our house in order and having done more than has been asked of us as a beef-producing nation, why should our beef producers suffer any longer in the face of this thinly veiled attempt by France at protectionism?
By putting off any decision on the illegal ban of British beef exports, the European Commission is colluding with French and German delaying tactics. Ever since the Prime Minister claimed to have lifted the EU ban on British beef, France and Germany have deployed a variety of delaying tactics to ensure that the ban remains in place. The situation displays much of what is wrong in the EU and certainly shows its weakness in dealing with any issue.
In the face of this inaction, we have scenes just across the English channel of a few French farmers blockading the channel tunnel and flagrantly breaching the law by breaking Customs seals on lorries, while the French police look on with inactive complicity—what an absolutely dreadful state of affairs.
The Government have also blocked Milk Marque, our largest dairy co-operative, from investing in processing. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and I represent a goodly part of Cheshire, where dairy farming is extremely important. Delays in releasing the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the future of Milk Marque and the United Kingdom dairy industry have created considerable uncertainty for all involved in milk production and processing.
Hon. Members on both sides agree that the dairy industry is experiencing a crisis. Incomes are lower than they have been for 60 years, with farmgate milk prices
1190
having fallen by nearly a quarter over the past two years. As a child I was told about dairying in the 1930s, when my grandparents were involved in it. I know precisely what the situation was like then. It is shocking that we are repeating that history at the end of this millennium.
The MMC report leaves dairy farmers with key questions unanswered. It based its conclusions on Milk Marque's market share in 1997, which was 49 per cent. of Great Britain's market. Its current market share is 39 per cent. British dairy farmers do not understand why the Government have placed restrictions on Milk Marque based on out-of-date figures in the report, which risk leaving the United Kingdom dairy industry at a disadvantage compared with its competitors overseas.
Dairy farmers' co-operatives have large market shares and are common in other parts of Europe and the world—for example Sweden, Denmark and Holland. They all have vertically integrated co-operatives with more than 50 per cent. of the market. The MMC report says that our consumers pay more for milk than they should as a result of Milk Marque—try telling that to a dairy farming family who have seen the price they receive for milk drop by more than a quarter in the past two years.
All this exacerbates the disastrous common agricultural policy reform negotiations, when Ministers agreed to give four EU countries, including Ireland, extra milk quota next year while mainland Britain's quota is frozen until 2006. What price, then, the cosy relationship between Government and the EU? It simply is not delivering. It means that increased milk imports from Ireland will further undermine British dairy fanners, and although Britain has some of the best dairy producing land in Europe, our farmers are prevented by quota limits from meeting home demand. Ireland, by contrast, already produces more than four times its domestic needs.
Further, the termination of the calf-processing aid scheme in August has resulted in a collapse in the calf market. The Government should introduce a calf disposal scheme, operating to high welfare standards, to put a floor in the market as a short-term relief. The industry itself is actively exploring the development of existing and new markets for calves, and there is a small market for the better beef calf. What could be more devastating than for a farmer to stay up for three quarters of the night to help a cow safely deliver—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. David Drew.
6.30 pm
Mr. David Drew: I shall keep my remarks short as we are approaching the summing up. I wish to make some positive comments in what has generally been a good debate. I start with two quick observations. We could all spend many hours debating the situation in the milk industry. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in his place. He has said many times that no one would have started in the present situation because the conflict between Milk Marque and the dairy companies was always unsustainable.
We have heard many theories about how BSE has caused many of the difficulties that we face. My understanding was that the ban on beef on the bone was imposed because the BSE prion was present in the dorsal root ganglia and could be present in the marrow. I hope that there will be good news and that that is confirmed

1191
not to be the case, but it took some time for science to come up with clear answers. It was right to impose the ban rather than take risks. If we believe in the precautionary principle, we should apply it.
I wish to make some positive comments about how we can take the agriculture industry forward. We have to be careful with the words that we choose, but I recognise that one of the factors that has caused so much difficulty for farmers is the loss of consumer confidence matched by excessive supply in all manner of sectors. We cannot by debating restore that confidence, but we could make it worse. I hope that the speeches made tonight have not done so, but I fear that some may have. We have to rebuild that confidence by recognising what consumers are saying. They want more access to local produce, and they certainly want organic produce. That is why the £10 million announcement by the Government is greatly to be welcomed.
Consumers also wish to know that labelling and other ways of genuinely telling what one is eating are as they should be rather than how they have been perceived in the past. On the producer side, farmers are looking for guidance and new directions. The farmers to whom I talk largely welcome the implication that they will have increased environmental responsibilities, but they want to know the detail and the amount of money that will be provided, as I said in the Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate.
We have to be clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) referred to the importance of the rural development regulations. The amount of money that can be allocated to Britain is far too low and we have to find a way of increasing it. Farmers will judge the effectiveness of schemes not just by how much money goes into them but by the psychology that backs them up, how important people will therefore perceive them to be and what they say about the direction in which the Government want farming to go.
We must look for new forms of production. Mention has been made of energy crops and reafforestation. They are important in their own right, but we must seek ways in which farmers can collaborate and, dare I say, co-operate. I stress that I am a Co-operative Member, and it is up to the co-operative movement to take a lead, but it is for all others to join in so that co-operative methods of production become the norm, in at least some sectors, rather than abnormal.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up the point that I raised last week. The most vulnerable group is almost certainly tenant farmers. I make no apology for raising again the possibility of particular help for them through the county farms, to ensure that rents are not raised or even to reduce them so that farmers can continue. We must ensure that we get it across to our neighbours across the sea, who have no knowledge or understanding of tenant farming, how important this form of production is, not just to our agriculture but to our countryside. If we take nothing else from today's debate, we should take that point: those farmers are under the greatest attack and they need the most support. On that point, I am happy to end my speech.
6.35 pm
Mr. James Paice: As has been pointed out from both sides of the House, the debate has been heartfelt: no one could conceal the crisis in
1192
agriculture. However, first I must refer to a highlight in the debate—the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). He showed the warmth and humour that we have already come to recognise; he also demonstrated his business experience and his belief in the freedom of businesses to prosper. He acknowledged, as I hope we all do, the debt and the duty that we owe to those who have gone before. He referred to the importance of the dairy industry and expressed his support for vertical integration, as did his constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). He brings a wealth of knowledge, objectivity and ability to the House, and we are the richer for it. We welcome him.
The crisis in agriculture has many causes. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recounted them and I shall not repeat them. Of course, they are not all the responsibility of the Government—the economic consequences of events elsewhere in the world cannot be laid at the Government's door. However, the Government are responsible for some of the causes; furthermore, it is incumbent on them to do all that they can to mitigate the effects of matters for which they are not responsible. We are in a desperate situation which requires desperate measures.
The Conservatives support the Government's encouragement for the demand side, and my hon. Friends will lend their support for public purchasing, as the Minister requested. However, it would be much better if Labour-controlled local education authorities were already using British beef. It will take time to improve the demand side, but our farmers do not have that time. At present, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution—an excellent charity which I know well—is receiving calls for emergency hand-outs at levels not seen since the 1930s. The charity's spending on emergency aid is already double what was budgeted for this year and is rising steeply.
Farmers are proud and independent. They work hard for long hours. They are used to facing difficulty. However, few Members of this House can understand the anger and the shame that farmers feel at asking for charity—as ask they now must. Farming cannot be immune to economic change, or from the changing needs of society and the consumer, Farmers need to work together to improve their marketing, but they deserve a chance to change. Plain common sense says that they cannot compete or be expected to thrive if they are confronted with crippling costs and regulations not faced by their competitors.
We need to know more about the Government's long-term objectives. They talk about restructuring and less subsidy, but we hear nothing about their objectives for rural communities. Does the Minister want to find a way for small family farms to continue in some of our most rural and fragile areas? He is aware that, on their own, under their present conditions, they cannot be economically viable. If they are to be supported, how is that to be done?
Some people ask why farmers should be treated differently from other industries. In an ideal world, that might be a fair question, but farming takes up more than 70 per cent. of the land of England. The landscape has been fashioned by farmers: features such as hedges, stone walls and vernacular buildings have come about because of farming. Of course, we can point to excesses—the loss

1193
of habitat and of some species—but is it not better to help and encourage farmers to maintain and improve the countryside, rather than to drive them away from it? We would be left with ever larger farms, less able to justify expenditure that does not generate an income. We want a shift away from production support towards targeted payments for specific purposes—environmental, social or other. The Minister is holding consultations; we hope that he will soon announce the results.
Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and—outside the House—the NFU have referred to a trade war. The Minister is the only person practising such a war. There are two separate issues. The issue of French meat and meat products imported into this country is a food safety issue. It is about protecting the British consumer from an illegally produced product that it should be illegal to sell. That is wholly different from the French refusal to lift their import ban on British beef. We support the Government as far as they have gone with regard to that problem, although we are concerned about Commissioner Kinnock's remarks on the radio this morning that the legal process could take some years. The Minister is probably not yet aware that Downing street has suggested that the Government might not follow the legal process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to the BSE inquiry, which has cost £32 million. Although he did not say it—but I am sure that he would agree—it is rapidly becoming clear that it is a total waste of money because Government Members have closed minds. They have spent this debate, as they spend every other, blaming the Conservative party for BSE. Why have the Government bothered to hold an inquiry at a cost of £32 million if their minds are made up?
I turn to the export ban and beef on the bone. Last Wednesday, the Minister said:
"The fact is that beef on the bone has nothing to do with the export of British beef'.
He repeated that claim today.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): It is right.
Mr. Paice: The Parliamentary Secretary agrees. If the beef on the bone ban is not connected with the French ban on British exports, why did the agricultural counsellor from the French embassy write what he did in last week's Farming News? He wrote:
"The decision of the French government invoking the precautionary principle is not the result of political manoeuvring, nor commercial protectionism. It is worth noting that the British Government adheres wholly to this precautionary principle, judging by some recent rulings, such as the ban on beef-on-the-bone."
Does the Minister not understand that maintaining the ban on beef on the bone creates the perception at home and abroad that we are not entirely happy with our own product? I suspect that the Minister understands that but is not allowed to admit it.
The Minister said that he recognised the problems experienced by sheep farmers yet, during the recess, he blamed sheep farmers for creating their own problems. It
1194
is easy to say that they were unwise to retain so many cull ewes last year, but what would the Minister or any other hon. Member have done when faced with the alternative of giving them away or selling them for £1 each?
Several hon. Members referred to the problem caused by the removal of spinal cord in sheep. Last week, the Minister said:
"I shall take a hard look at what can be done".
The Minister said "I shall", so he is referring to a future action. It is interesting to note that in that same debate last Wednesday he said on six different occasions that he would take a hard look at six different issues. We wonder what will happen. When referring to pigs, the Minister said:
"I am working very hard on it, and hope to have something new and comprehensive to tell the House in a matter of days."—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 454–67.]
I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) does not want to return to pig producers in his constituency to tell them that they have £5 million for marketing and that is it.
In the meantime, sheep producers face a bill for £1.2 million from the Environment Agency for groundwater regulations. We are told continually about joined-up government. It must amuse outsiders to hear that: has nobody told the Environment Agency or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? What about the pesticide tax, the climate change levy and the integrated pollution prevention and control charges? They are extra costs levied on agriculture when it cannot afford it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), the Chairman of the Agriculture Select Committee, referred to tuberculosis. It is two years since Professor Krebs reported, and in those two years the incidence of TB has exploded by about 40 per cent. a year and into new areas of the country. Even now, only five of the 10 triplet study areas have been identified. Professor Bourne, who is in charge of the studies, has said that the last one will not even start until 2001. We know that there are problems with intimidation and obstruction, and we condemn them, but we want to know what is happening.
I wrote to the Minister on 16 September asking for an update in the light of media stories about trials being abandoned and the testing of badger carcases being stopped by the Health and Safety Executive. Six weeks later, I have not received a reply. How many staff have been put on to TB work? Is that number higher or lower than a year ago? What is the Minister doing about farmers outside those study areas who will see no action at all for another six years, while the NFU estimates that it costs an affected farm £3,000 a month?
Does the Minister realise that the abolition of the calf-processing scheme removed the only outlet for calves from a herd under TB restrictions? Farmers who are facing huge losses cannot afford to keep animals that they would otherwise have sold, so those animals too are being shot. Will the Minister tell the House what is going on?
Even the arable sector has not escaped. It is faced with prices that are 30 per cent. lower than they were three years ago, although I accept that that has much to do with the strength of sterling. However, farmers cannot buy pesticides in Europe, where they are up to 30 per cent.

1195
cheaper than in this country because of British regulations. They are aghast at the price that they pay for machinery, compared to prices in other countries. It has been drawn to my attention that in Tasmania one can buy a combine harvester that was built in Europe for half the price that it costs in this country.
To add insult to injury, this autumn farmers are to have their acreage payments abated by 14 per cent. because of the strength of sterling. It is true that the amount will be made up in February, but they will suffer cashflow problems in the meantime. Unless the Government act, next year the payments will be only half made up, and the following year they will not be made up at all.
The last week has proved right farmers' suspicions. Everywhere I go in this country, farmers tell me that they think that the Government want rid of them and that they have no place in Labour's modern Britain. I fear that they are right. Every recent Government announcement or paper about the countryside has virtually ignored agriculture and concentrated on other businesses, leisure and the environment. Yes, there are many rural businesses other than agriculture, but most of them—the shopkeepers, the vets, the builders, the machinery dealers and the rest—depend on farming for their trade. Only last Wednesday, the Minister talked about the opportunities for regional tourism, and I am sure that we would all support that industry, but that was on the very same day that the Cabinet Office proposed a tax on tourists.
It is tempting to feel sorry for the Minister. He has been abandoned by the rest of the Cabinet, and Downing street is constantly briefing against him. Yesterday, at Prime Minister's Question Time, despite the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was directly mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, not once did the Prime Minister express support for his Minister. It is no wonder—the Prime Minister knows when he is on to a loser, and he has fingered the Minister to be the fall guy.
I can only repeat the words of the highly respected agriculture journalist David Richardson, who in last week's Farmers Weekly said:
"In spite of Nick Brown's sympathetic sounding speeches and his ability to persuade an audience of farmers that he means to try to help them, he has not delivered. Nor does he appear likely to do so."
The Minister's record of achievement is woeful. He has lost the Prime Minister's support; he has lost his way in Europe; and it seems that he has lost even his telephone. He has lost the confidence of the British farmers which he set out to nurture so carefully. It is time that he went.
6.48 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): This has been an exceptional debate, with the possible exception of the speeches of Opposition Front Benchers, including the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who apparently, in agriculture debates, cannot see a top without going over it.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made a well-balanced and reasonable maiden speech. He expressed the concerns of the farmers whom he represents, which we well understand. He referred to Milk Marque. I point out that the report by the Office of Fair Trading was independent. It was not a Government report; the Government had to respond to it. The Government are in favour of Milk Marque going into processing. My right
1196
hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not accept the report's recommendation to break up Milk Marque, but he gave Milk Marque time to decide how it wanted to reorganise itself, and it has done that. Having reorganised, it will be able to invest in processing, in line with the OFT report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) also raised the point. He mentioned marketing, too. I am very pleased to say that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, there will be a marketing scheme for milk to the value of £10 million, which comprises contributions from both sides of the industry.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dais) mentioned milk—which is very important to his constituency—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). The hon. Gentleman also asked about proceedings on the beef ban. There are no fast-track proceedings. Legally, we do not rule out any approach, although I should emphasise that we want a speedy resolution to the issue. In fact, we expect it to be resolved as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who also mentioned milk, rightly raised the issue of tenant farmers and their particular problems, of which we are well aware. We have regular meetings with the Tenant Farmers Association. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) also mentioned milk, which is of course very important to her constituency.
No one is denying that farming, especially in the livestock sector, is in particular difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) mentioned other sectors, such as horticulture. He also raised the pesticides tax and the climate change levy. We understand that, if such financial measures are introduced, there will be an impact on the industry. We are talking to those in the Treasury about such impacts, which we of course take seriously.
We also recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble about small farmers and their needs. Indeed, I recently met members of the Small Farmers Association in the west country, and have invited them to see me in London to talk about some of their concerns and plans.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for South—East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) accused my right hon. Friend the Minister of not delivering very much. My right hon. Friend has negotiated with the Treasury a package that is worth more than £500 million over the next three years. That is new money for the farmers and a very important boost. It involves such things as the rolling over for a second year of the hill livestock compensatory allowance, despite the outgoing Conservative Government making no provision for doing so. We have found that money, which I know is of particular importance to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas).
We are aware of the issue on spinal cord and are concerned about it. We have negotiated the possibility of the export of whole carcases to French slaughterhouses. There are limits, from which we want to expand.
The European Commission has made available a 3.5 per cent. contribution to rural development regulation, but I must point out that that is based on historical spending. One of the reasons why we have an unfair contribution is the record of the previous Government and their lack of

1197
spending on rural programmes. We are paying the price of that. I am glad to say, however, that we have managed to agree with the Commission that the contribution will be reviewed. We shall have the chance to make our case for an increase and a fairer contribution toward the rural development programme.
The aid package also absorbs the cost of specified offal removal and the cattle passport scheme.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), mentioned agrimonetary compensation. I am pleased to announce that we have just heard that the Commission has approved a package worth £170 million, which is more than we were expecting.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am glad that the Minister accepts my case that rural development regulation is seriously underfunded. He has gone some way to giving assurances on that. On the second point that I raised, does he concede that it would be possible directly to shift money from price subsidies to RDR?
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is talking about modulation. We have consulted on modulation regarding the Agenda 2000 package to farmers and we are giving thought to the operation of modulation and how we can put extra money into the rural development package. That includes schemes such as agri-environment programmes, which are very popular with farmers, and which I know that they want increased.
In addition to that new money, considerable resources—nearly £3 billion in total—are going into the agricultural sector. About £700 million is going to upland livestock. Of course, £4 billion is being spent to meet the cost of BSE measures. I know that hon. Members do not like it, but we inherited that problem. It is a shadow cast over the whole livestock industry and is the root of many of its problems.
Nevertheless, the beef ban has been lifted. The French position is inexcusable; they are wrong, and they are isolated. The news on sewage sludge adds insult to injury, although the allegation received widespread publicity in June. I do not know why the hon. Member for South Suffolk did not notice that. In fact, the report followed from the news in June, and the Commission has been investigating the matter. The report said that the practice was not widespread but that it was illegal and unacceptable. However, as we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister, it does not give us a legal basis to ban meat. A trade war is not in our interests. I fail to understand why the Conservative party seems to think that the way to deal with those who are acting illegally is—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is shouting across the Floor. He must not do that. Mr. Gray, you seem to be very guilty of speaking while you are sitting there, on the Benches. You should not do that.
Mr. Morley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I fail to understand why Opposition Members think that acting illegally ourselves is the right response to the fact that France is acting illegally. I am glad that several hon.
1198
Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), agreed with me on that, as did the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in a very sensible speech. The Conservative party's chances of being electable are limited as long as people of the quality of the right hon. Gentleman are kept off the Front Bench because of the party's extreme policies. [Interruption.] I am just trying to help the chances of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It was also said that Conservative Members were trying to out-Sun The Sun in their arguments for a trade war and a beef ban. They are much more extreme than The Sun; whose editorial opposes a trade ban and has supported the Government position. I was also pleased to see that this week "White Van Man", which I of course read assiduously, has been replaced by a guest, "White Tractor Man", who has given his full support to the position of the Government and my right hon. Friend the Minister. It seems that Conservative Members cannot even be in tune with the popular opinion of The Sun, which has never been slow in putting its finger on the issue.
The pig and poultry sector is in real trouble. However, there is support. There is an extra £5 million for marketing in addition to the £1 million already made available. That is very important to that sector, which we very much wanted to help.
We are considering the issue of meat and bonemeal, which is a burden on the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and the hon. Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) and for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said, labelling will certainly help. Our pig industry was obtaining a significant price premium, and marketing can help to improve those prices.
I am also very pleased about the £10 million to be spent on organics. That is very important. Members have asked about those who are in the process of conversion. We were going to deal with those hard cases even before the £10 million was announced. Our policy has been a great success.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) for the campaign that she has been running. It is important, and the targets are important. I believe that we shall discuss targets further because it is important to ensure that we meet the demands of the marketplace without setting an arbitrary target that is too high or too low.
It has been a good debate, in which hon. Members have advanced a strong case on behalf of those whom they represent. However, I was sorry about one thing. My right hon. Friend the Minister invited the hon. Member for South Suffolk to join him in a joint campaign. That invitation was rejected by the hon. Gentleman, who was more interested in making partisan points than in addressing the needs of British farmers. That will be recognised by farmers, as will the hypocrisy of an Opposition who demand labelling, yet voted against it when they had an opportunity to introduce it, and who criticise the French for illegal action, yet propose illegal action themselves. The farmers will notice who represents their interests.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Women (War Memorial)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
7 pm
Mr. John Grogan(Selby):
"Let the women of Britain come forward"
was the clarion call of wartime Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and come forward they did, in huge numbers.
A total of 640,000 women served in the armed forces during the second world war, and 55,000 served with guns, providing critical air defence of the United Kingdom in the darkest days of the war. Thousands more served in the Land Army, ensuring that sufficient food was available to keep our forces well fed. Others flew unarmed aircraft, as replacements for our Air Force. Amy Johnson was lost on such a flight. Other women spent hours dedicated to breaking enemy codes. More women worked behind enemy lines, helping to organise resistance groups and placing themselves in great peril. Many other women worked as air raid precautions wardens, munitions workers, ambulance drivers, Women's Royal Voluntary Service volunteers and nurses.
That was a huge social change. The exigencies of war meant that women were serving their country in roles that had traditionally been the preserve of men. Perhaps, all in all, more women than men were involved in the war effort. Two of those women were Edna Storr from Selby and Mildred Veal from Clifton in York. Almost 50 years after the war, they and many of their colleagues met at a wartime reunion, and swapped stories of memorials that they had seen on holiday—in Canada, Australia and New Zealand—all honouring those countries' women who contributed to the war effort in the second world war. The latest such memorial is the one at the gates to the Arlington national cemetery in the United States, which was unveiled in 1997. As a result of those reunions, the charity called simply Memorial to the Women of World War II was born.
Mildred Veal was denied entry to the Women's Royal Air Force because of her eyesight, but joined the Army on 19 February 1941, a date that she remembers clearly to this day. She was assigned her first gunsight in early 1942 and was soon gunner-in-charge of a radar station in Plymouth before and after D-Day. Later, she went to London to help in the fight against the destructive power of the Vls and V2s.
Edna Storr volunteered at the age of 17½ and was soon an anti-aircraft gunner. She was a height-finder, initially using equipment that dated back to the first world war. She also recalls doing guard duty from dawn to dusk, armed not with a rifle but with flashlights and determination. Edna recalls that because of her youth, her parents were worried that she was out on the streets after midnight. She commented to me:
"When the alarm bell rang, you forgot that you were afraid of the dark above all. You just went to your instrument and did your job."
Half a century later, Edna was asked by my local newspaper, the Evening Press, why there was a need for a specific memorial to the women of the second world war. She said:
"It is to say thank you to any lady who helped to win the Second World War. This is for the mothers at home, those in the services, nurses, doctors, civil defence workers, the women who went out at
1200
night looking for fire bombs, the WRVS, the Salvation Army, the women who worked at York station, the women who took in evacuees and the teachers who went with them—everyone."
In a few days it will be Remembrance Sunday. Hon. Members will scatter the length and breadth of the land, attending services at war memorials—some grand and magnificent; some simple, understated and dignified.
I was once organiser of a football team trip to a tournament in Holland. We got the ferry and very early one Saturday morning drove through Belgium in a minibus, bad-tempered through lack of sleep and, it must be said, through my rather haphazard arrangements. At a small town called Rijel, we got out and walked around searching for a coffee as the Saturday market stalls were erected. I wandered off on my own, and suddenly it dawned on me that the French name for this town was Ypres, and that the monument in front of me was the Menin gate, listing thousands of the dead from the first world war. I went back to get the rest of the team from the market square caf?to show them my find, all the more poignant for being so unexpected.
That simple experience helps me to understand why this group of women so desperately want a memorial. They want to take their grandchildren to—or perhaps want their grandchildren in later life to just happen upon—a memorial which acknowledges their special efforts and sacrifices in fighting against fascism and for freedom.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent choice of Adjournment debate. It is right to draw the attention of the House to the magnificent contribution which the women of Britain made to our victory in the second world war. Does he agree that such a memorial might not simply commemorate the achievements of the past, but inspire young women of today to take up careers in the armed services, where more than 70 per cent. of jobs are now available to women?
Mr. Grogan: My hon. Friend is right. I think that 70 per cent. of jobs in the Army are now open to women, 75 per cent. in the Royal Navy and 96 per cent. in the Royal Air Force. If we are to inspire a new generation of young women to take up the opportunity to serve their country, we must surely recognise the contribution of their grandmothers all those years ago.
Almost £60,000 has been raised towards the cost of the memorial: The obvious site is the empty plinth in Trafalgar square, unoccupied since it was laid in the 1840s. Future generations of schoolchildren and families on a happy day out in London in the heart of our capital would pause for perhaps just a moment and ponder the meaning of the memorial. The square is synonymous with the great celebration which took place at the end of the war. It has an international profile and is a symbol of Britain. It is surely the most fitting place to honour a generation of British women who broke new ground in the defence of freedom.
In September this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport launched a national debate on the future of the plinth and asked Sir John Mortimer to chair an advisory group to make recommendations to that end. More than 200 MPs have signed an early-day motion backing a memorial to the

1201
women of the second world war. Madam Speaker, to whom I am grateful for selecting this debate this evening, is an active patron of the campaign. I should also refer to the considerable role of retired Major David Robertson, who has helped to co-ordinate the campaign from Imphal barracks in Fulford, York, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), who has joined the debate, who first raised the issue in the House and tabled the early-day motion. I should also mention The Northern Echo for its three-year campaign to win recognition for the Aycliffe angels, the munitions workers from county Durham, who did their bit during the war only to feel ignored for years afterwards.
It is significant that the Government have now set aside 3 March 2000 for a ceremony to honour the men and women who risked their lives on the home front. The two campaigns, to honour those who risked their lives on the home front and to honour the role of women generally, are very much related. There is plenty of competition for the empty plinth. At an Evening Standard lunch to discuss the subject, suggestions ranged from Charles Dickens to Noel Gallagher to David Beckham to Red Rum. More serious candidates include Her Majesty the Queen and Sylvia Pankhurst. But I rather think that both of those would instantly recognise the importance of a memorial to the women of the second world war. As a young woman, the Queen was active in the war effort, and her mother was instrumental in ensuring that the royal family remained in London throughout the war.
Although it was often not that easy or that comfortable for them to do so, the women of Britain came forward and responded to the then Prime Minister's call. As a nation, all we need to do now is say a simple, "Thank you". If we do that soon enough, we can, in many cases, say it to them in person.
7.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on securing the debate and the quality of his speech. I recognise the wide range of support that his proposal has already gained, including, as he noted, that of an impressively large number of Members of the House who put their names to an early-day motion tabled in October 1997 by the Under—Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), who I am pleased to see on the Front Bench.
I understand that the campaign was started by the Auxiliary Territorial Service section of the Royal Artillery Association, which is based in York and holds its annual reunions there. The section had decided, earlier in 1997, to raise funds for a memorial that would commemorate all second world war service women and acknowledge the contribution of women in civilian occupations such as the fire service and the Land Army. Madam Speaker is now the patron of the charity that was established to raise funds for the proposed memorial and the Princess Royal is a vice-patron. My hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for Social Security is also a vice-patron.
We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to these women. The contribution of Britain's women to its survival and eventual victory in the second world war was
1202
immeasurable. I know that from my own mother's story. A Wren who served in the blitz in Plymouth and Liverpool, she was proud of the service that she had given to her country and I am proud that she was one of millions of women whose efforts alongside our armed forces in Europe and in the far east ensured victory in 1945.
Millions of women worked in arms and aircraft factories or laboured on farms as land girls. To use the language of those days, women manned air defence batteries, which proved so vital to London's defence in the V1 and V2 terror raids of 1944–45, and most of the harbour craft in Britain's naval ports, so releasing thousands of naval personnel for duty elsewhere. As nurses, they cared for wounded civilians and military personnel, and later the physically and psychologically traumatised survivors of Hitler's concentration camps.
Victory may not have come were it not for those women at Bletchley Park who worked to break the Enigma code and of course it was left to women to raise the children of the war—my generation—who were thankfully able to grow up into a time of peace. The women brought us here and continued to support us during the austerity of the post-war period.
Many other images of the second world war are of women. Dame Vera Lynn's efforts entertained and heartened the wartime generation and during the darkest days sustained the hope that peace would come. The Queen Mother, as Queen, famously visited bomb sites and gave her uniquely wonderful support to ordinary people in those terrible circumstances. Without the contribution of Britain's women during the second world war, Britain would have starved. Our armies would have been defeated for lack of adequate supplies of arms, munitions and fighting personnel and the country would have slipped into what Churchill termed the abyss of a new dark age.
Today's citizens of Britain owe a great debt of gratitude to the women of two generations ago for the peace and liberty that we so often take for granted. Women changed the course of the war and we should remember that the war also changed their lives, which were never the same again. Their efforts in the war strengthened and affirmed their central role in society and paved the way for greater freedoms in the years to come. Today's women owe a vast debt to that generation.
Let me now speak about the vacant plinth itself, since it is arousing so much interest and is the focus of the debate. The plinth in the north-west corner of Trafalgar square has been empty since the square was laid out by Barry between 1840 and 1845. Records indicate that the two plinths in the north-east and north-west corners were originally designed by Barry to carry bronze statues, but the estimated cost of these exceeded the budget available. The statue of George IV which occupies the other plinth was originally designed to stand at Marble Arch, and then to stand in front of Buckingham palace. It was placed in its current position when plans for Marble Arch and the palace were changed.
My Department has a dual role in regard to the vacant plinth. We are currently responsible for the physical care, control and management of Trafalgar square, which is Crown land. Under the Public Statues Act 1854, the Secretary of State must give formal approval for the erection of any statue in the Metropolitan police district of London. His approval is given on the basis of the granting of planning permission and, if necessary,

1203
listed-building consent by the local planning authority—in this instance, Westminster city council—and consultation with English Heritage.
The promoters of any proposal for the vacant plinth—such as the memorial suggested by my hon. Friend—therefore need to establish that planning permission and listed-building consent are forthcoming, and that the scheme is supported by English Heritage. They must also be able to confirm that they could fund the erection of the statue and provide for its maintenance in perpetuity.
Mr. Bob Russell: Is the Minister inviting the organisers to go through the procedure now? If they did so, would he regard that as almost a pre-emptive strike?
Let me also point out that it is possible for similar memorials to be placed in locations around the country. Only last month, ladies in their twilight years unveiled such a memorial in my constituency.
Mr. Howarth: I am speaking of the specific circumstances of Trafalgar square. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will unfold a little more about the procedures that we anticipate as we move towards being able to make a decision on the future of the vacant plinth.
That is the Department's formal position on the possible use of the plinth. Whether or not it would be an appropriate site for the proposed memorial to the women of the second world war I cannot say, although that does not of course detract from my personal support for the campaign to erect a memorial in an appropriate place.
As the House will know, the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce is currently showing a series of contemporary works on the vacant plinth over a period of two years. The "fourth plinth project", which I find enormously exciting, is very much the brainchild of the RSA's deputy chairman, Prue Leith. The project was originally intended to find a permanent solution for the problem of the vacant plinth that would have widespread public support, but, that having proved elusive, the purpose became to stimulate public interest in contemporary British art, and to stimulate debate about the long-term future of the plinth.
Twelve eminent British artists were asked to suggest ideas for the plinth, and the three works being displayed were chosen from those. Planning permission and listed-building consent were granted by Westminster city council in March this year, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave formal consent for the temporary erection of the three sculptures in April. The first sculpture to be displayed—a life-sized white marble figure of Christ by Mark Wallinger entitled "Ecce Homo"—was unveiled on 21 July. I feel a deep admiration for what has been achieved in that work. It is extremely moving and beautifully made, and stands as a striking representation of purity and vulnerability among its brasher neighbours in and around Trafalgar square. It has already become a much-discussed and greatly admired work of art.
"Ecce Homo" will be followed, in March 2000, by a challenging piece by Bill Woodrow called "Regardless of History". There is some irony in the choice of title, in the context of this debate. The final sculpture in the trilogy will be an untitled work by Rachel Whiteread, which will be installed on the plinth in the autumn of next year. Each
1204
piece will remain on the plinth for approximately eight months; then, in mid-2001, the plinth will become vacant again, unless another proposal has been agreed in the meantime to follow the "fourth plinth project".
Considerable numbers of people—their imagination having been caught by the wonderful scheme proposed by Prue Leith and the RSA—may feel that a continuing rotation of temporary works on the plinth would be preferable to a single, permanent solution. The outcome of the RSA's project, which I shall await with interest, should show whether that approach has gained public support.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby has reminded the House, on 9 April 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that, at his request, Sir John Mortimer had agreed to chair a small advisory group to be set up to consider the long-term future of the vacant plinth. Sir John's group is seeking proposals and submissions from the public and interested organisations on a fitting permanent solution to the question of how the vacant plinth should be used.
The group is taking evidence and soliciting opinions from many people who are eminent in the fields of both traditional and contemporary public art. In early summer 2000, the group will make its recommendations to the Secretary of State. The views of the public will be widely sought and considered before any final decisions are taken.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that that is the best way to try to find a long-term solution for the future of the vacant plinth. Such a solution might, of course, be to continue rotating different sculptures on the plinth, but on a more formal basis. The solution might be the proposal made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby, or it might be one of many other proposals that have been made in the consultation process. The House will understand that we cannot prejudge.
The inaugural meeting of Sir John's group was held on 29 June, and my right hon. Friend met the members of the group who were able to attend. The group is now meeting regularly, on a monthly basis.
The full membership of the advisory group consists of Sir John Mortimer, chairman; Professor Peter Clarke, professor of modern history at Cambridge university; Richard Cork, chief art critic at The Times; Bob Crowley, award-winning stage designer for the Royal Shakespeare Company and the national theatre; Councillor Bob Harris, chair of the arts and leisure committee of the Association of Local Government and deputy leader of Greenwich borough council; Neil MacGregor, director of the national gallery; Elsie Owusu, London-based architect and principal of Elsie Owusu Associates; and Baroness Rendell, the crime novelist Ruth Rendell. It is a very distinguished group, and the House can be confident that they will give fair and wise consideration to the matter that we have put before them.
I know that details of the campaign for a memorial to the women of the second world war have been sent to Sir John Mortimer, and that Madam Speaker, as patron of the campaign, has written to him commending the use of the vacant plinth in Trafalgar square for that purpose. Sir John has replied to Madam Speaker, inviting a representative on behalf of the women of the second world war to give evidence to his group. The

1205
Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) has also written to Sir John, to reinforce the case.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Selby that Sir John's advisory group will give the proposal the full and serious consideration that it merits, taking into account the range and weight of support that it has already achieved.
Many other suggestions have been received from the public and numerous organisations about what should go on the plinth, and Sir John's advisory group will need to take all those into account. The group is looking for the best solution for the plinth in that hugely important civic location, and may feel that it should not be a war memorial. There are other sites in central London where such a memorial might be placed: the vacant plinth in Trafalgar Square may not necessarily the best place for it. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that the proposal will be given fair consideration.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The debate has two parts: the first deals with whether there should be a memorial; and the second deals with where such a memorial should go. If by chance Trafalgar square is not the best place for the memorial, will the Government consider establishing a team led by Ministers to determine a better alternative?
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has made a very constructive and helpful suggestion, which I shall certainly ask my hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider.
1206
I shall conclude by reminding the House of the commitment that was made in the White Paper on London Government, "A Mayor and Assembly for London", published in May 1998, to transfer management responsibility for Trafalgar square to the new Greater London Authority. The square will remain Crown land, but day-to-day responsibility for its care, management and use will, subject to the passage of the legislation now before Parliament, pass to the new mayor of London. Clauses to effect that transfer of responsibility have been included in the Greater London Authority Bill.
Subject to the agreement of Parliament, the mayor should take over responsibility for Trafalgar square in July 2000, or soon after. I therefore anticipate that it will ultimately be for the mayor to decide what, if anything, goes on the vacant plinth once the RSA's project has reached its conclusion and Sir John's advisory group have made their recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, however, have a continuing involvement in decisions on what will occupy the vacant plinth by virtue of his responsibility to give final approval under the Public Statues Act 1854, which will not be extinguished by the Greater London Authority Bill.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby for putting forward an important case with such dignity, humour and eloquence.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Seven o'clock.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the President of the Council if she(a) has established and (b) published a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [94861]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The major Privy Council Office activity that involves the need to ensure equal treatment is the making of appointments to public bodies. The practice of my Department in relation to the representation of women on public bodies was explained in my answer of 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 707. The same practice is adopted in relation to the representation of people from ethnic minorities on such bodies.

  Millennium Compliance
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the President of the Council what steps she has taken to ensure the House is informed of progress in tackling the millennium bug during the summer recess. [94882]

  Mrs. Beckett
  During the recess, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I wrote to all Members summarising the progress for Government Departments and their agencies maintained in the monthly and quarterly questionnaire returns. I placed the full, completed questionnaires in the Libraries of the House and on the internet.

  I also wrote to MEPs in October to inform them of the EU's initiative, set up at the UK's suggestion, to set up a high level group to consider cross border issues such as ports and shipping, custom and immigration and some energy supplies.

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  (a) Actual visitor numbers

  (b) Numbers forecast at time of application (per annum)

  Arts Council of England

  Imax

  134,115 (1 May to 31 August 1999)

  204,754

  New Sadler's Wells

  317,800 since October 1998

  440,000

  Milton Keynes Theatre and Gallery

  Theatre: 39,000 (2 week period)

  Theatre: 235,751

  Gallery: 10,476 (10 day period)

  Gallery: 54,000

  Royal Exchange, Manchester

  172,840 (Projected for December 1998–December 1999)

  174,037

  Royal National Theatre

  651,000, 55,000 foyer visitors (approx)

  602,000

  in last 12 months

  50,000 foyer

  Millennium Commission

  Dynamic Earth

  250,000 since 3 July 1999

  430,000

  Earth Centre

  87,000 since 4 April 1999

  500,000

  Wales Millennium Stadium

  488,500 spectators since 26 June 1999

  Events: 800,000

  Tours: 250,000

  Functions and conferences: 100,000

  Hampden Park

  Not available

  Capacity: 53,000

  930
  I have placed in the Libraries of the House summaries of the reports of the June, July and August tracking research on public awareness of and attitudes towards the millennium bug.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the members of her departmental Committee whose work involves the rebuttal of misinformed allegations in the media in relation to millennium date change issues, together with the Committee's terms of reference and mission statement. [95675]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Year 2000 Communications' Committee supervises the Government's overall millennium bug presentation strategy and its intrinsic parts, including keeping the public informed.

  Its membership comprises:

  President of the Council (Chair)

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office.

  Its terms of reference are:
  "To ensure that all communications initiatives relating to the Millennium (Millennium Bug, 'celebrations', and contingency and emergency planning), including paid publicity, are brought together in a coherent way so that they remain focused on the core message and underlying key points agreed by Ministers; that Millennium Bug and Y2K civil contingency communication planning is integrated and tested; and that departments play their full part in responding to issues arising or likely to arise".

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish(a) actual visitor numbers to date and (b) visitor numbers forecast at the time of lottery awards, for each of the completed major capital projects funded by the National Lottery. [95116]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: According to the information received from Lottery distributors, the actual visitor numbers and the numbers forecast at the time of application for completed projects funded by the National Lottery, with awards of £15 million or more, are as follows:

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [94003]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 25 October 1999, Official Report, columns 739–40.

  Royal Armouries, Leeds
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the present financial circumstances of the Royal Armouries in Leeds. [95115]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 19 October 1999, Official Report, column 428.

  Local Libraries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, by local authority, those public libraries which(a) have closed within the last 12 months and (b) are currently scheduled for closure. [95129]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: Annual Library Plans and the data collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy enable me and my officials to monitor the public library service, including the number and opening hours of the libraries operated by each authority. However, we do not keep a definitive list of actual or potential building closures, since many are due to the reorganisation of services or the replacement of old facilities with new ones.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Occupational Therapists (Recruitment)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to ensure that the Down Lisburn Trust, Newry and Mourne Trust and Banbridge and Craigavon Trust recruit and train additional occupational therapists. [94460]

  Mr. George Howarth
  None. The levels of staff employed by HSS trusts in any professional discipline in Northern Ireland are directly related to the activity levels required by the commissioners of services. Unless commissioners deploy additional resources, HSS trusts are unable to pay for the services of additional staff.

  So far as I am aware, there are presently no difficulties in recruiting Occupational Therapists in any of the trusts mentioned, and the number of training places at the University of Ulster has been increased from 36 places to 50 places per year since 1992.

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the post of Police Ombudsman was created; when the post was first advertised and how many applications were received; what qualifications were required and in what ways all of the first applicants failed to meet those requirements; how many applications were received as a consequence of the second advertisement; how many of those applicants met the criteria set out; and if there were differences in the qualifications required by the two advertisements. [94778]

  Mr. Ingram
  The post of Police Ombudsman was created by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. It is expected that the Police Ombudsman will assume her full statutory powers next Summer. In the meantime, Mrs. O'Loan will act in a designate capacity.

  The post was first advertised both locally and nationally between 30 November and 3 December 1998. There were 18 applicants.

  Applicants were asked to describe how they met the competencies for the post. These were: leadership and teamwork; organisational awareness/knowledge; developing and maintaining networks; managing financial and physical resources; and customer service.

  Of the applications received, five candidates were subsequently shortlisted for interview by a panel which included a person independent of Government. From this group two candidates were selected for subsequent interview by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. In the event, while Ministers acknowledged the quality of the candidates, they were not satisfied that either candidate fully met the requirements of the post.

  The post was readvertised both locally and nationally and in local legal journals between the 20–25 May 1999. Forty-seven applications were subsequently received. The range of competencies for the post were identified as: legal skills; leadership/strategic planning; developing and maintaining networks; public relations and decision making. From the applications received, nine candidates were shortlisted for interview by a panel which included a person who was independent of Government. The two leading candidates were subsequently interviewed by the Secretary of State and myself.

  It would not be appropriate to discuss the merits or otherwise of individual candidates. The selection process followed the guidelines of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The underlining principle of this guidance is appointment on merit.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Irish Development Board sponsored visits of prospective incoming(a) foreign and (b) United Kingdom investors there have been to each council area in each of the last five financial years and the current year to date; and how many were carried forward to investment. [94833]
  933
  Mr. McFall
  Visits arranged by IDB to Northern Ireland District Council areas for potential investors in the four years to 31 March 1998 are detailed in the following table. The details for 1998–99 will be made available with

  IDB sponsored inward investment visits

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total

  Overseas

  UK

  Overseas

  UK

  Overseas

  UK

  Antrim

  26

  13

  5

  26

  8

  18

  3

  Ards

  5

  3

  0

  10

  0

  1

  0

  Armagh

  1

  1

  0

  4

  0

  2

  0

  Ballymore

  13

  3

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Ballymoney

  3

  1

  0

  3

  0

  2

  0

  Banbridge

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Belfast

  65

  38

  17

  48

  14

  65

  17

  Carrickfergus

  13

  6

  1

  21

  1

  15

  0

  Castlemagh

  1

  8

  0

  6

  0

  2

  0

  Coleraine

  5

  3

  0

  7

  0

  7

  0

  Cookstown

  4

  15

  2

  9

  1

  9

  0

  Craigavon

  12

  16

  0

  15

  0

  15

  1

  Deny

  18

  29

  1

  27

  5

  14

  0

  Down

  10

  2

  0

  3

  0

  4

  0

  Dungannon

  13

  9

  0

  4

  0

  3

  0

  Fermanagh

  3

  11

  0

  10

  5

  3

  2

  Larne

  6

  4

  0

  1

  0

  9

  0

  Limavady

  3

  2

  0

  7

  0

  2

  0

  Lisburn

  19

  36

  5

  30

  1

  23

  0

  Magherafelt

  3

  4

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Moyla

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  15

  12

  4

  9

  0

  4

  1

  Newtownabbey

  17

  18

  1

  21

  1

  20

  0

  North Down

  4

  9

  0

  3

  0

  3

  1

  Omagh

  2

  6

  0

  8

  0

  5

  0

  Strabane

  2

  9

  0

  9

  1

  2

  0

  Total

  265

  260

  37

  282

  37

  235

  25

  Notes:

  1 Via elements for other than inward investment purposes, such as visits to tourists attractions, are excluded.

  2 General visits to Northern Ireland not involving a specific area are excluded.

  3 Total District Council visits may exceed total visits to Northern Ireland as companies may visit more than one District Council area.

  Companies investing in Northern Ireland may have visited more than once and in relation to different projects before making the decision to invest, Information relating investment to specific visits is not available and would involve disproportionate costs to extract. The number of inward investments promoted by IDB for each of the last five years is detailed in the table:

  IDB promoted inward investment projects

  New

  Expansion

  1994–95

  7

  29

  1995–96

  10

  25

  1996–97

  11

  24

  1997–98

  12

  29

  1998–99

  21

  16

  Total

  61

  123

  Equality Commission
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of(a) the retirement of senior officials in the Disability Directorate and (b) the delay in forming the Equality Commission on the Commission's ability to enforce rights by April 2000 under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [95179]
  934
  the publication of the IDB Annual Report in mid-November. Separate figures for prospective foreign and United Kingdom investors are not available for 1994–95 and would involve disproportionate costs to extract.

  Mr. George Howarth
  None. A number of members of the former Disability Council have been appointed to the Equality Commission and several others have agreed to act in a consulting capacity to the Commission. It is intended that a draft Order-in-Council to confer the necessary disability rights enforcement powers on the Equality Commission will be laid before Parliament shortly. The Commission is making preparations to recruit and train staff to ensure that these powers are given effect from April 2000.

  Patten Commission
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of the production of the report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. [95896]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Independent Commission on Policing (the Patten Commission) issued its report, "A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland", on 9 September 1999. The Commission arranged for 30,000 copies of the report to be printed at a cost of £90,000£3 per copy.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many copies of the report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland have been requested by members of the public. [95888]
  935
  Mr. Ingram
  It is difficult to put a precise figure on the number of copies requested by members of the public as the initial distribution was handled by the Patten Commission before it disbanded. In addition to the 21,000 copies distributed to libraries and each of the district councils, and each police officer and civilian members of PANI, approximately 5,000 copies were issued by the Commission to members of the public. Since 30 September there have been 404 requests from members of the public to the freephone number announced by the Secretary of State on 9 September 1999. The whole report is also available on the internet.

  RUC
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many armoured landrovers the RUC has. [95890]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC currently have 434 armoured landrovers.

  Plastic Batons
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research, and at what cost, is currently being carried out in Northern Ireland into less potentially lethal alternatives to the plastic baton round. [95893]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is currently no formal research programme into alternatives to plastic baton rounds in Northern Ireland. The report of the Independent Commission on Policing recommended such a programme should be established and this will be addressed in the Government response to the report.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Recruitment Industry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of proposals for the regulation of the private recruitment industry (URN: 99/774) published by the Department of Trade and Industry on those buying care privately. [96060]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The consultation document published on 31 May on revised regulations to govern the conduct of the private recruitment industry contains a regulatory impact assessment covering possible cost consequences to those hiring staff through bureaux, including those buying care privately.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his officials have contacted Mrs. Gifford of Able Community Care Norwich, concerning the costs attributed by her to the VAT charges arising from the introduction of regulations for the private recruitment industry (URN: 99/774); and on what basis those calculations were made. [96062]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My officials wrote to Mrs. Gifford on 22 July and 12 August 1999. A meeting was held on 19 August and officials also spoke to her at a conference 936
  on 13 October. We do not accept that the costs which she calculates would in fact result from the proposed amendments to private recruitment industry regulation.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the working of the national minimum wage in the United States. [94273]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The independent Low Pay Commission in its First Report on the national minimum wage examined the operation of the minimum wage systems in a number of countries, including the United States.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures are proposed to ensure compliance with the minimum wage legislation. [94285]

  Mr. Byers
  Enforcement powers are set out in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. National minimum wage inspectors (comprising officials from the Inland Revenue and the Agriculture Departments) follow up complaints from workers and third parties. Since August, inspectors have also been carrying out targeted inspections throughout the United Kingdom based on risk assessments, which identify where underpayments are most likely to occur.

  Bananas
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has held with representatives of the ACP banana-producing countries concerning matters relating to the European Union's banana regime and the Lomé commitment; and if he will make a statement. [95821]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government had a number of discussions with ACP banana producers and others about further reform of the EU's banana regime in the course of this year. It is however for the European Commission to come forward with a formal proposal for changing the EU's banana regime consistent with the rules of the World Trade Organisation and with Lomé commitments. The UK has made clear that we would like to see a proposal as soon as possible which will end this dispute and address the needs of the vulnerable banana producers.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the local boundaries for the Small Business Service. [96729]

  Ms Hewitt
  In July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asked for the advice of the Regional Development Agencies and the London Development Partnership on the boundaries for local delivery of services on behalf of the Small Business Service and the proposed Learning and Skills Council. After widespread consultation in each region, the RDAs and LDP have provided that advice to us and we have given it very careful consideration.
  937
  I can now announce that the boundaries for the 45 Small Business Service local areas are as follows:

  Region

  Areas

  North West

  7

  Cumbria

  Mersey side/Halton

  East Lancashire

  West and North Lancashire

  Cheshire/Warrington

  Greater Manchester (2)

  North East

  4

  Tyne and Wear

  County Durham

  Tees Valley

  Northumberland

  West Midlands

  6

  Birmingham and Solihull

  Staffordshire

  Shropshire

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  The Black Country

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  4

  North Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  Humberside

  East Midlands

  5

  Lincolnshire (including Rutland)

  Northamptonshire

  Leicestershire

  Derbyshire

  Nottinghamshire

  East of England

  6

  Bedfordshire

  Essex

  Cambridgeshire

  Hertfordshire

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  London

  1

  (with 5 local delivery operations)

  South East

  6

  Surrey

  East Sussex/West Sussex/Brighton and Hove

  Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire/Milton Keynes

  Kent/Medway

  Hampshire/Isle of Wight/Portsmouth/Southampton

  Bracknell Forest/West Berkshire/Reading/Slough/Windsor/Maidenhead/Workingham

  South West

  6

  Devon and Cornwall

  Somerset

  Gloucestershire

  Bournemouth/Dorset/Poole

  Wiltshire/Swindon

  The Former Avon

  A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Lifelong Learning and I will be writing to hon. Members with full information about the new areas.
  938
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment are grateful to the RDAs and LDP for their advice.

  Lufthansa (Dismissals)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State forTrade and Industry what representations his Department has received concerning Lufthansa's dismissal of workers following a strike. [96244]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Department has received a number of letters urging the Government to give its support to the strikers in the Skychefs dispute. However, it is not the Government's policy to intervene in industrial disputes or be seen to take sides by commenting on the conduct of one side or the other. Disputes are a matter for the parties concerned to resolve with the assistance of the independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) where both parties agree.

  We intend to bring Section 16 and Schedule 5 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 into force by Easter next year. These provisions will extend the right of protection for those dismissed for taking lawfully organised industrial action to complain to a tribunal of unfair dismissal. They are designed to stop precipitate dismissals and to place an onus on both employers and unions to settle disputes by negotiation.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Easter Adjournment
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Council when she expects the next Easter adjournment to take place. [95941]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am not yet able, before the start of the new Session, to forecast when the House will not be sitting, but I hope to give further information nearer the time.

  Staff Pensions
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members use the Fees Office facility to contribute to pension provision for their staff; and how many staff are covered by the facility. [95654]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The information requested is as follows (and was current at 22 October 1999).

  625 hon. Members use the Fees Office facility to contribute to pension provision for their staff; and 1,276 staff are covered by this facility.

  Archival Paper
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if she will make available to hon. Members samples of the archival paper which the Committee recommends should replace vellum as the means of preserving record copies of Acts.[96313]

  Mrs. Roe
  Yes; I am please to advise the hon. Lady that I have arranged for samples of the archival paper, which it is proposed should replace vellum, to be placed in the Library.

  Private Security Services
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to use private security services in the Palace of Westminster. [95819]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  There are no current plans to use private security services in the Palace of Westminster. A new contract for security services came into force with the Metropolitan Police on 1 September this year. It is for two years with the option for annual extensions thereafter.

  Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd.
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the matter of Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd.v. The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons. [95880]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  A Judge of the Technology and Construction Court has found the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons liable for damages in relation to its decision to award the external cladding package for the New Parliamentary Building to an Austrian/British company, Seele Alvis.

  The Commission is concerned by the Judge's finding that the project team unlawfully promoted a "Buy British" policy. Given the liquidation of Harmon in March 1998, the House would have been put in a disastrous situation if the contract had gone to them. Another contractor would have to have been found which would have caused delay to the project and would have meant major financial loss, estimated to be an additional £12 million, on a project which is on time and under budget.

  The Judge has held that Harmon is entitled to recover its tender costs (claimed at not more than £438,000) and any profit it can prove it would have earned. These are to be determined at a later hearing. The Judge has said that the fact that Harmon went into insolvent liquidation during the period it would have carried out the contract, cannot be ignored.

  Advice on the grounds for appeal is being sought.

TREASURY

  Tax Havens
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the OECD's list of tax havens and its recommendations pertaining to them; and if he will make a statement. [94805]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The OECD has not yet completed its evaluation of tax havens.

  Fiscal Harmonisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those elements of fiscal harmonisation currently being discussed at EU level to which he(a) has and (b) has not raised objections; and if he will make a statement. [95225]
  940
  Dawn Primarolo
  As the joint statement made by the Prime Minister and the German Chancellor last December makes clear, the UK Government will not support proposals leading to a higher tax burden and jeopardising competitiveness and jobs in the EU. We fully support enhanced co-operation in the fight against tax abuse and evasion, and to combat unfair tax competition.

  EU Tax Ministers Meeting
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the(a) conclusions, (b) minutes and (c) agenda of the meeting of EU Tax Ministers held on 13 and 14 October at Fiuggi near Rome. [95093]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 13 July 1999,Official Report, column 182.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Optical Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in providing self-correcting spectacles in countries with limited optical services; and if she will make a statement. [94804]

  Clare Short
  We are providing a grant of £250,000 to "Adaptive Eye Care Ltd.", to assist in funding a 12 month programme in Africa and Asia, to further develop the adaptive spectacles. The programme covers market research, product field trials and local staff training.

  Aid Criteria
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what criteria her Department employs in determining whether to suspend aid to a foreign Government. [96223]

  Clare Short
  In our White Paper on Eliminating World Poverty we lay out a number of criteria for partnership in development. These include a commitment to the elimination of poverty, to good governance and to human rights. In some cases the behaviour of a government so offends against the interests and rights of their people that we can no longer work with the offending regime. Instead we will focus on those within civil society who are working for change. Our primary concern must be to continue to deliver support to the poor and to help them realise their rights.

  Serbia
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what humanitarian aid her Department is currently providing for Serbia. [96220]

  Clare Short
  Since May 1999, European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has allocated 26.5 million euros for assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), of which the UK attribution is about 15 per cent. This consists of food and hygiene assistance to up to 770,000 vulnerable people, repairs to accommodation for displaced people, psycho-social support, small-scale emergency water and sanitation projects, and support to
  941
  social institutions. Programmes are being implemented through major agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR).

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has made to the DTI in the past three months regarding the cancellation of export credit guarantee debt. [96217]

  Clare Short
  Debt is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I work closely with the Chancellor on debt and our combined efforts have enabled the Government to deliver their objectives on the revision to the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative. The new HIPC framework will deliver twice as much debt relief, and the link to poverty reduction has been greatly strengthened with the introduction of poverty reduction strategies. This provides an opportunity to make much greater progress on eliminating poverty and achieving the international development targets. My officials work closely with those from Treasury, Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), on HIPC and other aspects of the Government's debt policy, including the assistance provided on the UK's export credit debt in the context of the Paris Club of bilateral creditors.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards the World Trade Organisation discussions in Seattle. [96222]

  Clare Short
  The WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle, 30 November to 3 December, will consider the scope, modalities and structure of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations. I have called for the next WTO round to be a "development round", with a comprehensive agenda which offers all countries the chance to make solid and substantial gains. A comprehensive Round would offer important development opportunities, through increased market access and improved rules. My Department has been working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments to give a clear development focus to the EU position in advance of Seattle, and is working hard to win support for a wide ranging round.

  NGOs
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the revised funding arrangements entered into between her Department and non-governmental organisations. [96221]

  Clare Short
  I refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 26 July 1999,Official Report, columns 12–13.

  The Guidelines for the operation of the Civil Society Challenge Fund have been widely distributed and the first application round began on 1 October. The Fund will operate on a 50:50 matched funding basis. In recognition that non-governmental organisations currently in receipt
  942
  of 100 per cent. funding for reproductive health activities would find it helpful to have time to adjust to the revised arrangements, I have agreed that they should receive 85 per cent. funding in the first year of the new Fund, 70 per cent. funding in the second year, reaching 50 per cent. in the third year.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff were employed directly by her Department on 30 September. [96219]

  Clare Short
  Figures are not yet available for 30 September but as at 1 July, my Department directly employed a total of 1,728 staff including casual staff and staff on contract not classified as civil servants. In addition the Department employed a further 320 staff who are appointed in-country through its overseas offices.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Penalty Fare Scheme
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has made to London Transport concerning the operation of their penalty fare scheme. [95232]

  Mr. Hill
  In July this year LT presented Ministers with a copy of the LT/LRPC report on their review of the Underground Penalty Fares Scheme. Ministers have made no representations to London Transport on this matter since then.

  Farm Plastics
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department will respond to the consultation on the disposal and recovery of farm plastics issued by his Department 12 months ago. [95879]

  Mr. Mullin
  The consultation paper received a fairly limited response and subsequently we have been reassessing the proposals for a new industry initiative based on the Government's commitment to apply waste management controls to agricultural waste which is not excluded under Article 2 of the amended Framework Directive on waste. This means that most agricultural waste will be subject to the controls which apply to "controlled waste". The commitment was most recently confirmed in the waste strategy "A Way With Waste" which was published on 30 June. We will make a further statement in the light of this work.

  Flooding (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to require the Environment Agency to eliminate the risk of flooding, contamination and storm sewer overflow in the Ouse Burn/Jesmond Dene Stream, Newcastle; and if the effects of climate change have been assessed in calculating these risks. [95910]
  943
  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency is aware of the risk of flooding within the Ouse Burn catchment. The Agency's records identify the majority of properties which have been affected previously. In addition, a hydraulic study, carried out under section 105 of the Water Resources Act 1991, has identified the properties at risk from a 1 in 100 year flood event.

  The Agency considers that it is not possible to eliminate flood risk completely. However, the risk can be minimised by appropriate management of the river channel and appropriate development in the flood plain.

  The Environment Agency is working closely with Northumbrian Water to agree prioritisation of a continuing programme of work to improve unsatisfactory storm sewer overflows. The Government have pressed for this programme to be accelerated under the current Periodic Review of water industry price limits.

  Since 1991 estimates of rising sea levels arising from geological movements of the British mainland and from climate change effects have been built into the appraisal of options for flood defence.

  Health and Safety
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received from the Health and Safety Executive their proposals for the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Modifications) Regulations 1999; what response to the proposed Regulation 6(8) he plans; and if he will make a statement. [95800]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have not yet received proposals from the Health and Safety Commission for the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Modifications) Regulations 1999. I understand the proposals will be submitted to me by the Commission shortly.

  Rating Valuations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the latest average capital values of dwellings by tenure and region for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [95767]

  Mr. Mullin
  The latest information on capital values for all housing tenures is from the English House Condition Survey 1996. Average values by tenure and region for April 1996 are provided in the table.

  Owner occupied

  Private rented

  Local authority

  RSL

  North East

  53,282

  43,602

  26,697

  25,949

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  54,767

  36,976

  25,025

  31,107

  North West

  59,435

  42,795

  25,636

  26,085

  East Midlands

  59,818

  41,411

  28,298

  29,432

  West Midlands

  62,965

  53,363

  32,127

  33,597

  South West

  70,286

  59,036

  35,325

  42,923

  Eastern

  77,541

  54,055

  44,485

  43,905

  South East

  92,617

  67,101

  44,924

  43,687

  London

  102,143

  79,280

  48,848

  58.354

  The English House Condition Survey is based on a sample of dwellings throughout England and is carried out every five years. It provides values for all housing
  944
  types and tenures at one point in time, and not just recent transactions. Therefore, in the private sector, values will differ from other sources of information on house prices.

  Railway Stations
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the public funding available to improve the condition of run down railway stations. [95762]

  Mr. Hill
  Investment in station facilities may be eligible for funding under the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme, set up to help provide new or enhanced local and regional rail services which contribute to the Government's wider objectives for rail. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA) has issued guidance on bidding for funds for this purpose and is evaluating proposals already received.

  A decision on the first group of bids for Rail Passenger Partnership funding is likely to be announced by the SSRA towards the end of 1999 or early in the new year.

  Radio Frequency Field Exposure
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects that the study into occupational exposure to radio frequency fields will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [95717]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The Institute of Occupational Health at the University of Birmingham, in collaboration with the National Radiological Protection Board, is undertaking the study of occupational exposure to radio frequency fields. I am advised the current intention is that the study, which is funded by the industry together with a contribution from the Ministry of Defence, will be completed by the end of 2001.

  Negative Housing Subsidy Regime
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the impact of his changes to the negative housing subsidy regime. [95976]

  Mr. Mullin
  Imet a delegation of representatives from the "Negative Subsidy" authorities on 14 September to discuss the potential impact on local authorities of our proposals to change the accounting arrangements for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

  I have since written to the leader of that delegation indicating that the Government are prepared to agree in principle to provide some form of transitional measures when Rent Rebates are removed from the HRA. These will be primarily for those authorities where the transfer represents a significant proportion of their General Fund expenditure, and is long standing. The transitional measures will allow time for "Negative Subsidy" authorities to make necessary financial and procedural adjustments in preparation for the new arrangements. It is too early to say what form these transitional arrangements

  945
  might take since there are many factors which may potentially affect the level of transfers before the new arrangements are implemented.

  Train Services (Cancellations)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish weekly and monthly material available to the Rail Regulator on the numbers of cancelled train services, broken down by rail operator. [96038]

  Mr. Hill
  Cancellation data, broken down by rail operator and also, in some cases further sub-divided by route group, are published in the Franchising Director's quarterly Bulletin (Copies are in the House Library). There are no immediate plans to publish this data on a more frequent basis. The recent "Instructions and Guidance to the Franchising Director" (copies are in the House Library) would allow him to change the present quarterly interval between Bulletins subject to consultation with Ministers.

  GM Products
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's policy will be in the negotiations at the EU in relation to commercial growing of(a) GM beet produced by Monsanto and (b) GM oil seed rape produced by AgrEvo. [96231]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK vote at the EU negotiations will be based solely on the scientific assessment of the information provided in the applications by Monsanto and AgrEvo. In order to vote in favour of granting consents, we would need to be satisfied that the information provided by the companies was accurate and complete. We would also need to be confident that the information showed clearly that there were no significant risks to the environment from the products covered in the consents. This assessment of the risk would be in accordance with the requirements of the Directive at the time the applications were made. However, since the applications were made I, and my colleagues in other Member States, have decided that future applications must include an assessment of a wider range of risks to the environment, including indirect effects and impacts on bio-diversity. We are seeking assurances and commitments from industry that they will provide such assessments through post-market monitoring before any general cultivation in the UK is permitted. Our vote will therefore also be conditional on receiving these commitments.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the earliest date by which biotechnology companies could proceed to commercial planting of any GM crops in the UK. [96230]

  Mr. Meacher
  Before any genetically modified (GM) crop can proceed to commercial planting in the UK, up to four statutory approvals are required. These are: Part C (marketing) consent under European Directive 90/220/EEC, food safety approval under EU Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulation (258/97), National List of approved seeds, and pesticide approval to cover, where necessary, the use of a pesticide in different circumstances on the new GM crops.
  946
  The crops nearest to gaining all the necessary approvals for commercial planting in the UK are GM herbicide tolerant oilseed rape and GM herbicide tolerant maize. These crops are currently being assessed in the Government's programme of farm-scale evaluations to determine whether or not commercial cultivation would harm farmland bio-diversity. These evaluations are due to be completed in 2003.

  Leylandii Trees
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress his Department has made regarding measures to control the planting of leylandii trees around boundaries. [96210]

  Mr. Mullin
  The voluntary code of practice on the information to be provided on the sale of hedging plants, drawn up by the Leylandii Working Group, was launched to the horticultural and landscape industry on 15 June. Otherwise, the position remains as set out in the reply given to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on 17 November 1998,Official Report, column 473.

  Blackwall Tunnel
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the creation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel. [96000]

  Mr. Hill
  No final decision has been made on whether to proceed with a trial scheme for a high occupancy vehicle (car sharing) lane on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel. We will consider the traffic effects of the extensions to the Jubilee Line and Docklands Light Railway before deciding on whether to introduce a scheme.

  London Underground Services
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the London Underground line closures and service reductions planned for(a) October 1999 to March 2000 and (b) April to September 2000. [96001]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Transport. However, I understand that the following line closures and service reductions are planned:

  (a) Between October 1999 and March 2000:

  Date

  23–31 October

  Location

  Queen's Park—Harrow and Wealdstone (Bakerloo Line)

  Purpose

  Railtrack track replacement works on Silverlink and Bakerloo shared lines

  947
  (b) Between April 2000 and September 2000:

  Date

  April 2000 (provisional)

  Location

  Victoria—Brixton (Victoria Line)

  Purpose

  Track works to replace life-expired cross-over at Brixton

  Date

  May—August 2000 (provisional)

  Location

  High St Kensington;—Earl's Court (District Line)

  Possible re-routing of Wimbledon-Edgware Rd service via

  Gloucester Rd, and no Olympia service.

  Purpose

  Strengthening covered way.

  These works are still provisional as London Transport is finalising the details of its work programme and of specific projects. In doing this they will seek to minimise disruption to passengers.

  Fuel Source Development
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish revised planning guidance for on-shore oil, gas and coalbed methane development. [96523]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have today issued draft guidance on on-shore oil, gas and coalbed methane development for public consultation. The consultation period will run until 7 January 2000. While the guidance on oil and gas updates that previously contained in Circular 2/85, the proposed guidance on coalbed methane is the first that has been prepared in respect of this potentially important new energy source. Copies of the consultation draft are available in the Library.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) which body is responsible for determining which signals are to be fitted with train protection warning system devices; [95954]

  (2) what percentage of all signals are to be fitted with train protection warning system devices; [95955]

  (3) what plans he has to fit train protection warning system devices to freight train loop lines; [95956]

  (4) if signal SN 109 outside Paddington railway station was scheduled for the fitting of a train protection warning system device within existing plans. [95958]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: The Railway Safety Regulations 1999 require a train protection warning system to be fitted at all signals on a railway where a train could collide with another oncoming, converging or crossing train. These are estimated to account for 30–40 per cent. of all signals. As required by the Regulations, Railtrack is developing a train protection installation programme which must be approved by the Health and Safety Executive. Signal SN109 outside Paddington station falls within that programme.

  Parts of a railway which are normally used only for the carriage of freight are excluded from the scope of the Regulations.
  948
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many signals passed at danger there have been in each of the last five years on tracks between(a) London Paddington and Oxford and (b) Oxford and Evesham. [95988]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: Information is not held in the form requested. I have asked the initial Capital Chair of the Health and Safety Commission to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of. State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice on railway safety he received before announcing the phasing-out of slam-door trains. [95986]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: The announcement of the phasing out of slam-door carriages without central locking was made after careful consideration of the Health and Safety Commission's formal recommendations.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many recorded incidents of diesel fuel tanks becoming separated from trains there have been in each of the last five years. [95990]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: The Health and Safety Executive does not record this type of information and is therefore unable to supply any data.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the reporting stages for signals passed at danger from trackside to Secretary of State; and if he will make a statement. [95987]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: Incidents of signals passed at danger (SPADs) are required to be reported monthly under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 to the Health and Safety Executive (Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate). They are reported monthly by the Safety Managers for the individual Railtrack zones and then submitted by Railtrack to HMRI. This information is published in HMRI's Annual Report on Rail Safety.

  Following the tragic accident at Ladbroke Grove on 5 October, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Health and Safety Commission to arrange for him to be sent a weekly report on the number of signals that had been passed at danger (SPADs) in the previous week. The information is collated and tabulated by HMRI and submitted to the Deputy Prime Minister every Friday. He has received two of these reports so far.

  The Deputy Prime Minister has also requested the monthly analysis of SPADs. This report is due at the beginning of November and will be published.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the safety record of(a) diesel multiple unit trains and (b) trains hauled by a diesel locomotive. [95993]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: The Health and Safety Commission, with the operational assistance of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), monitor and review the safety performance of all types of rolling stock including that of diesel multiple units and trains hauled by diesel locomotives. Details of train

  949
  accidents caused by technical defects affecting all types of locomotives and multiple units are published in HSE's Annual Report on Railway Safety.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions since September 1998(a) Ministers and (b) officials have (i) met and (ii) corresponded with (1) train operating companies and (2) Railtrack plc regarding signals passed at danger incidents; and if he will place the resulting minutes and letters in the Library. [95982]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: The lead responsibility for dealing with signals passed at danger rests with the Health and Safety Commission and Executive.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) signal failures and (b) signals passed at danger there have been since the accident at Ladbroke Grove. [95991]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: The information requested on signal failures is not yet available. Railtrack is required by law to report on a monthly basis incidents of signals passed without authority (commonly known as a 'SPAD') and failures in the signalling system where they endanger or have the potential to endanger the safe passage of trains. In addition my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked for weekly reports of SPADs which will be collated and publicised monthly. The first report will be available in early November.

  The relevant report for signal failures following the accident at Ladbroke Grove will not be available until mid November.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when random testing for alcohol and drugs was introduced for train drivers. [95989]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: Random testing for frontline railway staff, including train drivers, was introduced by regulation made under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The regulation came into force in December 1992.

DEFENCE

  School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which contractor is responsible for the training of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers at the School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Borden; what penalty clauses are contained in the contract; and if they have been invoked. [95672]

  Mr. Spellar
  The contractor responsible for the majority of training at the School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering is Vosper Thorneycroft. Contract performance is regularly monitored and there is an annual review of the contract price, which can vary depending on the number of courses run or the number of students trained during the year. There are no specific penalty clauses in the contract, but full payment depends on the 950
  contractor meeting the required performance standards. To date there has been no reason to consider reducing payment on these grounds.

  Helicopter Command
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence service personnel are serving with Joint Helicopter Command Headquarters; from which service areas they are drawn; and if he will make a statement. [95794]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Joint Helicopter Command Headquarters is established for 84 Service personnel. The actual strength as at 25 October 1999 is 82. The Service areas from which they are drawn are as follows:

  Service

  Established strength

  Actual strength

  Royal Navy

  12

  12

  Army

  48

  48

  Royal Air Force

  24

  22

  Total

  84

  82

  RAF Honington
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of converting the east hangar at RAF Honington for use by the new NBC regiment. [95802]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost of refurbishing 'E' Hangar at RAF Honington for use by the Joint NBC Regiment would be £1.33 million plus VAT. However, no financial decision will be made on the requirement for this refurbishment until the long term location of the Joint NBC Regiment is known.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed in Scotland by executive agencies responsible to his Department in total; and where those staff are located. [95278]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: As at 1 July 1998, there were 8,448 staff employed in Scotland by executive agencies responsible to the Secretary of State for Defence, as detailed in the table. This is the last year for which figures are available. The MOD has since restructured and a number of the Agencies mentioned in the table have ceased to exist and other new Agencies have been created.

  Scotland

  Total

  Service

  Civilian

  Total

  8,448

  2,288

  6,160

  Meteorological Office

  165

  —

  165

  RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency

  3

  —

  3

  Queen Victoria School

  67

  —

  67

  Defence Postal and Courier Service

  6

  —

  6

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  147

  —

  147

  Defence Secondary Care Agency

  1

  1

  —

  Ministry of Defence Police

  860

  —

  860

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  156

  143

  13

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  81

  42

  39

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency

  1,023

  912

  111

  Defence Communications Services Agency

  75

  55

  20

  951

  Scotland

  Total

  Service

  Civilian

  Defence Estates Organisation

  71

  —

  71

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency

  4,016

  840

  3,176

  RAF Logistics Support Services

  5

  5

  —

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  59

  —

  59

  Disposal Sales Agency

  3

  —

  3

  Defence Clothing and Textile Agency

  2

  —

  2

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency

  34

  —

  34

  Defence Dental Agency

  55

  48

  7

  Medical Supply Agency

  7

  —

  7

  Defence Codification Agency

  107

  —

  107

  Army Personnel Centre

  1,256

  227

  1,029

  Ships Support Agency

  171

  15

  156

  Defence Vetting Agency

  7

  —

  7

  Specialist Procurement Services

  71

  —

  71

  Notes:

  1. The data cover UK regular forces and UK based permanent civilian personnel counted in official Ministry of Defence civil service figures. Civilian figures are full-time equivalents, where part time staff are counted in proportion to the hours worked.

  2. The data exclude all Defence Evaluation and Research Agency Staff and the UK Hydrographic Office, on whom reliable data is not available on the same basis.

  It would not be possible to give the location of each member of staff without disproportionate cost. However the locations of the Agencies which employ the majority of staff in Scotland are as follows:

  Queen Victoria School—Dunblane, Perthshire;

  Army Base Repair Organisation—Forthside, Stirling;

  Defence Codification Agency—Glasgow;

  Army Personnel Centre—Glasgow;

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency—Glencourse;

  Ship Support Agency—Rosyth;

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency—Rosyth and Greenock;

  Naval Bases and Supplies Agency—approximately 2,800 of the 4,016 staff employed in Scotland by the Naval Bases and Supplies Agency are based at Faslane, with the remainder located at a number of different sites throughout Scotland;

  Staff employed by the Meterological Office and the MOD Police are located in a number of different sites throughout Scotland.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state for each of the executive agencies responsible to his Department, the(a) total number of staff employed and (b) wage costs in (i) England and (ii) Scotland in the last year for which figures are available. [95279]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The table gives details of the number of staff employed by each of the agencies responsible to the Secretary of State for Defence, in England and Scotland as of 1 July 1998, which is the last year for which figures are available. However, the MOD has since restructured and a number of the Agencies mentioned have ceased to exist, while other new Agencies have been created.

  England

  Scotland

  Total

  73,297

  8,448

  Meteorological Office

  1,771

  165

  Military Survey

  1,001

  —

  RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency

  1,563

  3

  Service Childrens Education

  10

  —

  Duke of Yorks Royal Military School

  99

  —

  Queen Victoria School

  —

  67

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  115

  —

  Defence Postal and Courier Service

  507

  6

  952

  England

  Scotland

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  2,427

  147

  Defence Animal Centre

  171

  —

  Defence Secondary Care Agency

  2,118

  1

  Ministry of Defence Police

  2,666

  860

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre

  472

  —

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  4,288

  156

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  8,683

  81

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency

  24,236

  1,023

  Logistic Information Systems Agency

  225

  —

  Defence Communications Services Agency

  1,237

  75

  Defence Estates Organisation

  969

  71

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency

  5,688

  4,016

  RAF Logistics Support Services

  888

  5

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  841

  59

  Disposal Sales Agency

  27

  3

  Defence Clothing and Textile Agency

  377

  2

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency

  3,620

  34

  Defence Transport and Movements Executive

  182

  —

  Army Technical Support Agency

  1,066

  —

  Defence Dental Agency

  644

  55

  Medical Supply Agency

  250

  7

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  811

  —

  Defence Bills Agency

  668

  —

  Defence Codification Agency

  1

  107

  Naval Manning Agency

  275

  —

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre

  522

  —

  Anny Personnel Centre

  25

  1,256

  Ships Support Agency

  2,510

  171

  RAF Personnel Management Agency

  437

  —

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  285

  —

  Defence Vetting Agency

  324

  7

  Medical Training Organisation

  575

  —

  Specialist Procurement Service

  723

  71

  Notes:

  1. The data cover UK regular forces and UK based permanent civilian personnel counted in official Ministry of Defence civil service figures. Civilian figures are full-time equivalents where part-time staff are counted in proportion to the hours worked.

  2. The data exclude all Defence Evaluation and Research Agency staff and the UK Hydrographic Office staff, for whom reliable data are not available on the same basis.

  It would not be possible to give the wage costs for each Agency without disproportionate cost.

  UN Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to contribute to UN peacekeeping operations in(a) East Timor, (b) Sierra Leone and (c) Congo. [96229]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK already contributes two military liaison officers to the UN Mission in East Timor; 15 Service personnel to the UN Observer Mission in Sierra Leone; and six military observers to the UN in the Congo. We will consider any UN requests for further contributions to these operations in the light of other commitments.

  Procurement
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the procurement budget is to be spent through European joint procurement structures. [96226]

  Mr. Hoon
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Belize
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Ministers in his Department visited Belize in each year between 1990 and 1997; and what support his Department gave Belize in each year. [96212]

  Mr. Spellar
  As far as available records show, Belize received official visits from the following Defence Ministers between 1990 and 1997.

  January 1990:

  Archie Hamilton (Minister of State for the Armed Forces).

  October 1990:

  Lord Arran (Under Secretary of State for the Armed Forces).

  September 1993:

  Jeremy Hanley (Minister of State for the Armed Forces).

  May 1994:

  Malcolm Rifkind (Secretary of State for Defence).

  The MOD maintained a small garrison in Belize until September 1994, and has provided support to the Belize Defence Force through the Defence Policy and Military Assistance Funds. The amounts provided in support of the Belize Defence Force in each Financial Year between 1990 and 1997 are set out in the table:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  787,195

  1991–92

  721,808

  1992–93

  670,000

  1993–94

  792,775

  1994–95

  806,120

  1995–96

  834,927

  1996–97

  502,105

  1997–98

  283,967

PRIME MINISTER

  Foreign Affairs Committee
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government have responded to the Eighth report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Standards and Privileges on the premature disclosure of reports of the Foreign Affairs Committee. [96614]

  The Prime Minister
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Committee, on 14 September 1999 to indicate the Government's intention to abide fully by the Committee's recommendations. Copies of my letter and its attachments have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total number of people aged(a) 60 to 74, (b) 75 to 79 and (c) over 80 years living in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) Wales whose weekly income is £10 above the income support level. [94198]
  954
  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Couples and single persons with income between the income support level and £10 above the income support level in April 1999 in the United Kingdom

  Thousand

  Age of eldest partner

  Single person

  Couple

  All single persons and couples

  60 to 74

  60

  20

  80

  75 to 79

  140

  40

  180

  80 and over

  90

  10

  100

  All 60 and over

  290

  70

  360

  Notes:

  1. Due to small sample sizes, separate estimates for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not available.

  2. Income is defined as net income before housing costs.

  3. Incomes are derived from the 1996–97 Family Expenditure Survey, uprated to April 1999 using the retail prices index. Therefore this analysis assumes that the real value of pensioners' incomes is the same in April 1999 as in 1996–97.

  4. The levels of income support are based on April 1999 rates for singles and couples, taking account of age-related increases in rates. The analysis does not take account of other increases in rates, such as disability-related premia. Therefore some people identified in the analysis may be eligible for income support at a higher rate.

  5. Estimates should be treated with caution since they are based on small sample sizes.

  6. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000 but are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the number of claimants receiving Income Support at the end of August 1996 in each local authority area in England; [95738]

  (2) what was the number of dependent children of claimants receiving Income Support at the end of August 1996 in each local authority area in England. [95736]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the additional expenditure by his Department on housing benefit subsidy in respect of rent allowances paid to local authorities in each of the years from 1989–90 to 1998–99 in respect of tenants of registered social landlords created as a result of large scale voluntary transfers. [94345]

  Angela Eagle
  The only estimates made are projections for transfers of funds from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to this Department for the three years following each tranche of large scale voluntary transfers. The Rent Allowance expenditure relating to transferred properties cannot be identified beyond this three year period because the
  955
  Housing Benefit data does not distinguish between Registered Social Landlord tenants in transferred properties, and those in other Registered Social Landlord

  Projected increases to rent allowance subsidy at the time of transfer

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Year of transfer

  1991–92

  3.9

  4.5

  5.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  28.9

  42.7

  47.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  29.1

  30.4

  27.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  42.5

  52.7

  58.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995–96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  42.9

  45.9

  47.8

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23.6

  25.3

  26.9

  —

  —

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  49.1

  50.6

  51.8

  —

  1998–99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66.7

  69.6

  72.4

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage and number of pensioners are

  Take-up of income related benefits by pensioner benefit units 1997–98

  Income Support

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Total

  Average number of recipients (Thousand)

  1,470

  1,830

  2,600

  5,870

  Numbers entitled but not receiving benefit (Thousand)

  530 to 870

  0 to 250

  640 to 1,190

  1,170 to 2,310

  Percentage non take-up rate

  27 to 37

  0 to 12

  20 to 31

  17 to 28

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey.

  2. Estimated numbers entitled to, but not receiving benefit have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 cases. The sum of the individual benefits) may not add up to the total due to rounding.

  3. A pensioner benefit unit is defined as a single person aged 60 or over or a couple (not necessarily married) at least one 60 or over.

  4. The estimates under "total" in the table refer to the total of Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit regarded as rough estimates only because they count recipients of more than one benefit more than once and count those e receiving more than one benefit more than once.

  SERPS
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the basis on which the estimate of the cost of SERPS changes was made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, reported in the House of Lords Official Report of 11 October 1991, column 31. [95532]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the Written Answer my hon. Friend, the then Minister of State, gave the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 103.

  Chief Child Support Officer Report
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the Chief Child Support Officer's annual report for 1998–99. [96728]

  Angela Eagle
  The annual report of the Chief Child Support Officer for the year 1998–99 is published today. This report provides information, based on monitoring of decision making in the Child Support Agency during 1998–99, on standards of decision making and levels of accuracy in the assessment of child support liability. The report indicates that, although substantial progress has been made there is still cause for concern about standards of decision making in child support. The Chief Child
  956
  properties. The estimates for each three year period from 1992–93 are set out in the table. Our records do not extend back to cover transfers before this date.

  entitled to but not receiving one or more of (a) Income Support, (b) Housing Benefit and (c) Council Tax Benefit. [95632]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is as follows:

  Support Officer's analysis of the causes of the inaccuracy in the scheme is a valuable contribution to the process of reform. In particular the report highlights the damaging effect the excessive complexity of the current maintenance formula.

  The report shows that, of the assessments examined in 1998–99, fewer than one in five were definitely wrong in cash terms. In a further 22 per cent. there was insufficient evidence to tell whether the assessment was right or not. Overall, 60 per cent. were definitely correct in money terms, a slight rise from the 59 per cent. achieved in the previous year.

  We expect to see continuing progress both as the result of continued efforts by Child Support Agency staff and as the provisions in the Social Security Act 1998 are implemented. It is clear that radical reform is the only real solution and the White Paper "A new contract for Welfare: Children's Rights and Parents' Responsibilities" sets out our proposals for a simple straightforward and transparent child support scheme.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what help will be available from the benefits system for people exercising the right to parental leave. [96730]
  957
  Mr. Bayley
  New rights to unpaid parental leave will be introduced from 15 December 1999. Under existing benefit rules a lone parent who is working will be able to qualify for Income Support while taking parental leave from their employer provided that they meet the normal qualifying conditions. This will also be the case for parents who are able to qualify for Income Support on sickness or other grounds. Some parents may be able to qualify for other benefits such as Housing Benefit or Jobseekers Allowance if they can meet the normal conditions. Precise numbers of people who claim in these circumstances will depend upon how many people decide to exercise their right to take up parental leave. We estimate there could be around 8,000 people per year who will claim under existing benefit rules, at an additional cost of some £10 million.

  We also propose to change Income Support rules to make Income Support available for couples who would not otherwise qualify while on parental leave. The change will apply to couples on a low income who are exercising the new rights to statutory unpaid parental leave to care for a child who lives with them. Income Support will be available when the only earner is taking unpaid parental leave and the family is in receipt of either Working Families Tax Credit, Disabled Persons Tax Credit, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit on the day before the parental leave is taken. (Where both members of the couple work, Income Support will be available if both take statutory unpaid parental leave at the same time). Our latest estimate is that about 1,000 people per year will claim Income Support under these new provisions, at a cost of £1.5 million.

  We are committed to helping families achieve a balance between their home and work lives. This measure will support the new parental leave entitlements in the Employment Rights Act and help low income families take up their statutory entitlement.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral answer on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 698, how many parents with care his Department anticipates will have their entitlement to maintenance reduced under the proposed changes to the CSA; and by what amount. [96057]

  Angela Eagle
  The purpose of the reforms is to get maintenance flowing more regularly to more children. Overall more than 1 million children will be better off as the changes take effect.

  If all existing cases moved to the new scheme today, average maintenance liability for non-resident parents in work would fall from around £38 now to an estimated £30.50. On this basis about 350,000 parents with care, whose non-resident parent is in paid work, would have a lower maintenance assessment as a result of the new child support rates. The average reduction would be about £17 a week. 190,000 parents with care would have a higher assessment, with average increases of around £11.50 a week1. Changes will be phased in for existing cases.
  958
  But assessments bear little relationship to amounts paid. Fewer than half of those using the CSA's collection service are paying everything that is due. Overall only around 66 per cent. of maintenance due is collected. We expect this to rise to 80 per cent. or more.

  In addition all parents with care who are on Income Support, for whom maintenance is being paid, will benefit from the child maintenance premium. Over time, we expect the number in this position at least to double as a result of the new simpler scheme. Parents with care receiving Working Families Tax Credit will have any maintenance payments fully ignored.

  Taking these factors into account the effect of the reform will be to make around 85 per cent. of parents with care better off at the point they first come to the CSA than they would have been under the previous arrangements.
  1 New scheme maintenance modelled on August 1998 five per cent. scan of Child Support Computer System. Caseloads calibrated to forecast 'A' day levels, and rounded to the nearest 10,000. The average change in maintenance entitlement is rounded to the nearest 50 pence.

WALES

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additions were made to the Welsh Block in respect of 1999–2000 after the announcement of the last CSR settlement; and to which expenditure heads within the Welsh Block such additions were allocated. [94790]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by my predecessor on 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 391.

  Match Funding
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what requests he has received in relation to match funding for EU Structural Funds from the First Secretary. [96554]

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

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he(a) has established and (b) published a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [94863]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Government are committed to ensuring its policies are fair and inclusive, and focus on public service users, not providers. This aim is contained in guidance (published in 1998) which helps Departments consider the impact of their policies on gender, ethnicity and disability. In addition to considering impact, the guidance encourages consultation with women's groups and others where appropriate and action
  959
  to deal with any differential impact if this appears appropriate. The CPS applies the principles enshrined in the guidance in developing its policies. For example responsibility for providing a co-ordinated service to witnesses is shared by all agencies in the Criminal Justice System.

  The Crown Prosecution Service works together with others in the Criminal Justice System to implement the Trial Issues Group National Standards of Witness Care in the Criminal Justice System via Local Service Level Agreements to ensure the special needs of witnesses are catered for.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Leave to Remain
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average processing time for applications for indefinite leave to remain by people seeking settlement in the United Kingdom. [95549]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not available.

  The time taken to process an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom is affected by a number of factors, including the complexity of individual

  Decisions1 on applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, July to September, 1999

  Number of principal applicants

  July

  August

  September

  Total

  Decisions

  2,940

  3,075

  2,680

  8,695

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  610

  245

  245

  1,100

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain

  105

  200

  205

  510

  Total refusals

  865

  990

  915

  2,770

  Backlog clearance exercise2

  Granted under the backlog criteria

  1,275

  1,380

  910

  3,565

  Refused under the backlog criteria

  85

  265

  405

  750

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2 Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum backlog

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the total number of outstanding asylum applications and (b) the targets of his Department for clearing the current backlog. [95686]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of asylum applications outstanding at the end of September was 90,685. We are committed to meeting the targets set out in the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" of deciding asylum applications within an average of two months, by April 2001. To do this we must eliminate the backlog. We are developing new procedures to speed up the consideration of both new cases and those in the current backlog. We are also recruiting around 250 new staff to deal purely with asylum applications, and training more of our existing staff in asylum skills.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the backlog of asylum claims which will be awaiting initial decision at 31 December. [95443]
  960
  cases. About half the applications for variation of leave, which includes applications for indefinite leave to remain, can be dealt with as "fast track" cases. Such cases are at present being determined within six weeks, but applications where further inquiries are needed may take considerably longer. Streamlined procedures are, however, being introduced throughout the Integrated Casework Directorate to speed up the consideration of all applications.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum applications made prior to 1 January are outstanding from citizens of(a) Somalia, (b) Afghanistan, (c) Iraq and (d) Kosovo; and if he will make a statement; [95688]

  (2) how many asylum applications were processed in the months of (i) July, (ii) August and (iii) September from citizens of (a) Somalia, (b) Afghanistan, (c) Iraq and (d) Kosovo; and how many were (1) agreed and (2) refused. [95689]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information for July to September is given in the table and relates to the general breakdown of decisions that have been taken. A breakdown of asylum decisions and the number of cases awaiting an initial decision by nationality is not currently available.

  Mrs. Roche
  The current figure for the backlog of asylum claims which were awaiting an initial decision at 30 September 1999 was 90,685. The backlog at 31 December will depend on a number of factors including the levels of new asylum applications and asylum initial decisions over the next three months.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were awaiting initial determination at the end of each of the last five years for which figures are available. [95442]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information covering the period 1994 to 1998 is given in the table.

  Asylum Applications1 awaiting initial determination, excluding dependants

  Year

  Number

  1994

  55,255

  1995

  69,650

  1996

  57,405

  1997

  51,795

  1998

  64,770

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five

  961

  Persons1 removed or departed voluntarily under port or enforcement procedures, 1996 to 1998

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total number of persons removed or departed voluntarily from the United Kingdom

  26,840

  31,150

  34,900

  Of whom asylum2,3 applicants

  4,840

  7,160

  6,890

  Total number of persons removed or made a voluntary departure as a result of deportation action being taken against them

  2,000

  2,070

  1,710

  Of whom asylum2,3 applicants

  400

  450

  350

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

  2 Asylum removals and voluntary departures excludes dependants

  3 1998 figures are provisional

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to 10

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of persons whose asylum applications are awaiting initial determination with whom the authorities have lost contact. [95441]

  Mrs. Roche
  Figures are not collected centrally on this basis.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been made in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available. [95440]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information covering the period October 1998 to September 1999 is given in the table. Information on the number of asylum applications received in 1999 can be found on the Home Office internet site at http://www
  homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants

  Number

  1998

  October

  5,010

  November

  4,620

  December

  4,770

  1999

  January

  4,700

  February

  4,185

  March

  5,060

  April

  4,905

  May

  5,370

  June

  6,130

  July

  6,440

  August

  7,120

  September

  7,355

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  Immigration and Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he proposes to take to re-establish contact with(a) failed appellants under immigration law and (b) asylum seekers who are awaiting an initial determination; [95445]

  (2) what mechanisms exist whereby (a) his Department and (b) other authorities maintain contact with (i) failed appellants under immigration law and (ii) asylum seekers who are waiting an initial determination. [95478]

  Mrs. Roche
  The onus is on applicants and their representatives to keep the Home Office informed of their whereabouts. In general, asylum seekers bring themselves 962
  to the notice of the Home Office and it is in their interest to maintain contact so as to be aware of the outcome of their applications. Asylum seekers will usually be issued with a Standard Acknowledgement Letter (SAL) which demonstrates their immigration status for the purpose of claiming benefits, if an asylum applicant is claiming benefits, the Benefits Agency would be able to provide information about their whereabouts. Immigration offenders who seek asylum will often be required to report to the police or the Immigration Service.

  Exceptional Leave to Remain
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases he granted exceptional leave to remain within the past 12 months for which figures are available. [95447]

  Mrs. Roche
  Data for the period from September 1998 to August 1999 are given in the table.

  Grants of exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom1

  Number

  Asylum applicants

  Refused asylum but granted exceptional leave to remain

  2,570

  Granted exceptional leave to remain2 under backlog criteria

  7,030

  Non-asylum applicants

  Granted exceptional leave to remain in view of the internal situation in country of origin

  1,670

  Other grants of exceptional leave to remain

  570

  1 Excluding dependants

  2 Includes persons granted exceptional indefinite leave to remain or exceptional limited leave to remain under measures aimed at reducing the pre-1996 backlog, as announced in the White Paper 'Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum' published in July 1998

  Overseas Electors
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by parliamentary constituency, the number of overseas electors included in the 1998–99 electoral register, together with totals for each constituent part of the United Kingdom. [95437]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of overseas electors included in the 1998 register was 17,315 and in the 1999 register 13,677. A table showing a breakdown by parliamentary constituencies and constituent parts of the United Kingdom has been placed in the Library.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allocate the £35 million for extra police officers to each police authority. [95753]

  Mr. Straw
  The money will be allocated through the Crime Fighting Fund. Forces in England and Wales will be invited to bid for the money. Bidding guidance is being prepared and will go out shortly.

  Deportations
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to deport from the United Kingdom those whose(a) immigration appeals and (b) asylum applications have failed. [95446]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government have made clear their commitment to remove from the United Kingdom those persons who have no lawful basis of stay; this includes people whose immigration appeals have failed and who do not otherwise qualify to remain.

  In order to effect a person's removal or deportation, it is often necessary to overcome a number of barriers such as a lack of documentation, further representations, absconding or the refusal of the person's home country to accept them back. The Immigration Service has instituted a range of measures aimed at addressing these difficulties and streamlining the process as a whole. Among the steps already taken are the establishment of a specialist documentation unit to liaise with issuing authorities, the tasking of a dedicated absconder tracing team and bilateral discussions with source countries.

  In addition, the Immigration and Asylum Bill currently before Parliament contains a range of measures to tackle delays in the removal of failed asylum seekers and others whose appeals have been dismissed. These include provisions to create a new combined appeal process that will limit the scope for failed applicants to make successive appeals aimed solely at frustrating removal, a simplified administrative procedure to replace deportation in routine cases and procedures to restrict the activities of bogus representatives. Immigration officers involved in enforcement activity are also to be given enhanced powers to assist them in tracing absconders and others liable to removal and a new offence of using deception to avoid, postpone or revoke enforcement action will be created.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last three years, how many deportation orders have been(a) made and (b) carried out. [95449]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is given in the table. It should be noted that some deportation orders cannot be enforced immediately, either for legal reasons or because of other barriers to removal such as absconding. There are also cases where a deportation order has been signed, but it is later decided that deportation is no longer appropriate.
  964

  Deportation action 1996 to 19981

  Deportation orders signed

  Deportation orders enforced2

  1996

  1,890

  900

  1997

  1,210

  820

  1998

  1,000

  700

  1 1998 figures are provisional

  2 A deportation order enforced in one year may have been signed in an earlier year

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the efficiency of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Headquarters in Croydon. [95681]

  Mrs. Roche
  In March, my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. O'Brien), established a recovery project to identify and implement measures to bring the output of the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) back to acceptable levels. We are now seeing the effect of these measures. Since mid-September, overall weekly output has exceeded the average weekly level prior to reorganisation. ICD is taking forward a range of initiatives to improve productivity further so it can meet the targets set out in the Government's White Paper and to reduce the backlogs. Around 340 staff have already been recruited for Croydon and there are plans to recruit a further 200. A detailed business plan is being developed to enable the Directorate to deploy its resources to maximum effect.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken by(a) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and (b) himself to respond to hon. Members' letters on immigration matters. [95448]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 687.

  Jill Dando
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions he has discussed the Jill Dando murder inquiry with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and if he will make a statement. [96269]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Ministers have no involvement in the conduct of this inquiry; it is an operational matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

  State Visits (Policing)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines are issued to the Metropolitan Police on the screening of protestors from the sight of invited members of Governments during state visits to the UK; [96045]
  965
  (2) what guidelines are issued to the Metropolitan Police on the removal of placards and flags from peaceful demonstrators during state visits to the UK. [96046]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will require the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to report to his Department the number of occasions and the circumstances in which police vehicles have been used to screen peaceful demonstrators from the sight of state visitors to the UK during his term of office as Commissioner. [96047]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am advised by the Metropolitan Police that the deployment of vehicles in front of demonstrators is a tactic which would only be used when the proximity of demonstrators to Her Majesty the Queen or other protected persons, or the behaviour of demonstrators, was such that it was felt necessary to employ the tactic to ensure the security of the protected persons.

  As far as can be ascertained, the only occasion during Sir Paul Condon's term of office on which it was felt necessary to employ this tactic during a State Visit was during the recent visit by the President of China. On one occasion, demonstrators had taken up a position without prior arrangement with police; on a second, missiles were thrown; and on a third, demonstrators broke through crowd control barriers.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has made to Cambridgeshire Constabulary about the policing of the state visit of the President of China. [96233]

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he gave to the Metropolitan Police regarding the prohibition of peaceful protests during the state visit of the President of China. [96042]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research, and at what cost, is currently being carried out into less potentially lethal alternatives to the plastic baton round. [95894]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office's Police Scientific Development Branch keeps a watching brief on "less-than-lethal" weapons which may be in use or under development in other parts of the world and keeps the police service informed of what it learns, but neither the Branch nor the police service have identified any alternatives to plastic baton rounds (other than CS, which remains available) which appear to merit extensive evaluation. A new design of plastic baton round which offers increased accuracy of aim is currently being developed under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, and the Northern Ireland Office.

  Mandatory Drug Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has assessed of the effects of mandatory drug tests in reducing crime rates. [95816]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The options for introducing drug testing at various points in the criminal justice system are currently being assessed. This will include consideration of the evidence base for the contribution the testing can make to reducing drug related crime.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the level of fees charged by the Passport Agency. [96055]

  Mrs. Roche
  No decision has been taken on any passport fee increase. Fees are currently being reviewed, and various options are under consideration.

  Illegal Entrants
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clandestine entrants were detected at each port of entry into the United Kingdom in each month since 30 April 1997. [96051]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information on the number of clandestine entrants detected each month from May 1997 to September 1999 is given in the table. The recording arrangements were changed at the start of 1999 and the two sets of figures may not be directly comparable. I regret that details of numbers of attempted entrants who are detected at port are not recorded separately.

  Number of clandestine entrants detected each month, May 1997 to September 1999

  1997

  19981

  19991

  January

  —

  560

  700

  February

  —

  460

  750

  March

  —

  620

  750

  April

  —

  600

  750

  May

  320

  640

  930

  June

  260

  720

  1,090

  July

  280

  870

  1,440

  August

  290

  1,010

  1,960

  September

  410

  950

  2,150

  October

  360

  1,110

  —

  November

  470

  980

  —

  December

  450

  810

  —

  1 Figures are provisional

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state in respect of each month since 30 April 1997 the number of illegal entrants detected at United Kingdom ports who have been(a) granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom, (b) detained and (c) removed from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [96052]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on the number of illegal entrants detected at United Kingdom ports where temporary admission has been granted or where they have been detained or removed is not stored centrally. However, the total number of persons removed or who
  967
  made a voluntary departure as an illegal entrant from the United Kingdom by month, from May 1997 to September 1999, is shown in the table.

  Total number of persons removed or who made a voluntary departure as an illegal entrant from the United Kingdom by month, from May 1997 to September 1999

  1997

  19981

  19991

  January

  —

  420

  400

  February

  —

  370

  470

  March

  —

  470

  440

  April

  —

  440

  340

  May

  340

  330

  350

  June

  340

  410

  400

  July

  400

  480

  380

  August

  400

  590

  420

  September

  400

  490

  480

  October

  430

  490

  —

  November

  370

  560

  —

  December

  360

  540

  —

  1 Figures are provisional

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Unmarried Partners Concession
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been granted leave(a) to enter and (b) to remain in the United Kingdom under the provisions of the unmarried partners concession. [96048]

  Mrs. Roche
  Data for the period October 1997 to June 1999 are given in the table.

  Grants of leave to enter or remain to unmarried partners

  Number

  Granted leave to enter

  140

  Granted after-entry leave to remain1

  330

  Granted indefinite leave to remain2

  150

  1 Excluding persons granted leave to enter in that category

  2 Including persons previously granted leave to enter or remain under the common-law spouse concession

  Asylum Absconders
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum absconders are currently recorded on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's port and enforcement databases. [96050]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest available information dates from the end of 1998. At that time, there were approximately 20,000 asylum absconders recorded on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) enforcement and port databases comprising around 12,000 in-country enforcement and 8,000 port absconders. This information was taken from a snapshot of the IND port and enforcement databases of those persons (excluding dependants) who have applied for asylum at some stage and who have breached conditions of temporary admission, temporary release or restriction order, or are otherwise found to be out of contact with IND.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has made on changes in the administration of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 in order to offer further incentives to carriers. [96829]
  968
  Mrs. Roche
  I have agreed a proposed extension to the concessions contained in the Approved Gate Check (AGC) scheme. AGC status is an administrative concession which benefits carriers who are responsible towards their obligations under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and who operate a sufficiently high standard of checking procedures abroad for their services to the United Kingdom. Where a passenger arrives in the United Kingdom without documents from a station that has been granted AGC status, the carrier will normally be given the benefit of the doubt. In such a case, because of the high standard of checking, it is assumed that apparently genuine documents must have been produced at the time of embarkation and must have been subsequently disposed of. Charges are normally waived accordingly. I have agreed that the concession will now be extended to include certain circumstances where passengers arrive with mutilated documents. Provided that the inadequately documented passenger/arrival with a mutilated document:arrives from an AGC station; and
  there is no evidence of:

  a reasonably apparent and material falsity;

  a reasonably apparent impersonation; and/or

  use of a fantasy or other unacceptable travel document;

  then the charge will normally be waived unless, in the case of a visa national, it is clear from the mutilated document that (because, for example, every visa page is intact) the passenger, at the point of check-in, did not hold a requisite United Kingdom visa, or exemption from the visa requirement. Mutilated documents include documents which have been partly destroyed usually by the removal of pages and/or photographs.

HEALTH

  Intensive Care
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to use resources from the modernisation fund to improve intensive care units. [95693]

  Ms Stuart
  Within the additional £18 billion made available for the National Health Service in England over the remainder of this Parliament, health authorities and NHS trusts are finalising plans for more adult intensive care and high-dependency beds for this year than last, particularly over the crucial winter period. In addition, a further £15 million has been specifically targeted at improving paediatric intensive care in 1999–2000 (including £5 million from the modernisation fund).

  Accident and Emergency
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to cope with future increases in the numbers of people requiring accident and emergency treatment. [95692]

  Ms Stuart
  Our plans to improve access to National Health Service services are well under way. Earlier this year the Government announced a £115 million
  969
  programme to modernise, expand and update accident and emergency departments. This significant sum will ensure that all accident and emergency departments in England which need it are being upgraded: in all, over three-quarters of accident and emergency departments in England are benefiting from the programme.

  Other initiatives which will be beneficial in coping with any future increases include NHS Direct, which enables patients to obtain advice by telephone without delay. By the end of next year, there will be complete coverage of NHS Direct in England.

  NHS walk-in centres, currently being introduced, are part of our wider plan to modernise and to improve access to and convenience of NHS services. 36 centres across the country will open in 1999–2000, providing quick access to a range of NHS services, including free consultation and treatment of minor injuries, to some 10 million people.

  Small Injury Units
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria have been employed in the two rounds of additional funding allocations to small injury units in NHS hospitals; and what number and proportion of applicant hospitals have so far won bids. [95709]

  Ms Stuart
  The two rounds of additional funding were £30 million and £85 million to modemise, expand and upgrade hospital accident and emergency departments.

  Community Health Councils

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Real terms change (%)

  1999–2000

  Real terms change (%)

  Airedale

  76,304

  83,185

  +6.5

  88,260

  +3.6

  Aylesbury Vale

  1—

  1—

  1—

  85,150

  1—

  Barking, Dagenham and Havering

  1—

  1—

  1—

  114,174

  1—

  Barnet

  1—

  1—

  1—

  112,279

  1—

  Barnsley

  103,474

  113,634

  +7.3

  116,851

  +0.3

  Basildon

  1—

  1—

  1—

  132,404

  1—

  Basingstoke and N. Hampshire

  85,506

  82,139

  −6.5

  86,746

  +3.1

  Bassetlaw

  79,091

  83,469

  +3.0

  90,158

  +5.5

  Bath

  92,482

  99,403

  +5.0

  99,800

  −2.1

  Bexley

  89,857

  103,235

  +12.3

  103,529

  −2.2

  Blackburn

  81,586

  82,121

  −1.9

  80,364

  −4.6

  Blackpool

  79,653

  79,083

  −3.3

  86,072

  +6.3

  Bolton

  82,987

  88,033

  +3.5

  87,989

  −2.6

  Bradford

  114,293

  119,504

  +2.1

  122,772

  +0.2

  Brent

  1—

  1—

  1—

  121,981

  1—

  Brighton, Lewes and Hove

  112,212

  115,308

  +0.2

  111,361

  −5.9

  Bristol and West

  231,437

  227,229

  −4.4

  233,000

  0

  Bromley

  138,253

  140,239

  −1.1

  142,571

  −0.8

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  85,663

  88,071

  +0.3

  90,163

  −0.1

  Bumley

  74,006

  73,349

  −3.4

  71,306

  −5.3

  Bury

  83,056

  79,524

  −6.8

  75,977

  −7.0

  Calderdale

  87,967

  97,314

  +8.1

  101,525

  +1.8

  Cambridge

  127,404

  130,798

  +0.1

  132,639

  −1.1

  Camden

  1—

  1—

  1—

  137,434

  1—

  Canterbury and Thanet

  117,884

  131,576

  +9.1

  122,500

  −9.4

  Central Cheshire

  73,204

  76,194

  +1.5

  73,038

  −6.6

  Central Lincolnshire

  102,431

  105,335

  +0.3

  108,437

  +0.4

  Central Nottinghamshire

  92,209

  93,567

  −1.1

  114,988

  +20.4

  Chester

  85,638

  91,074

  +3.8

  88,406

  −5.4

  Chichester

  109,804

  115,733

  +2.9

  111,961

  −5.8

  Chorley

  79.031

  82,122

  +1.4

  80,477

  −4.5

  City and Hackney

  1—

  1—

  1—

  106,294

  1—

  Cornwall

  125,136

  127,060

  −1.0

  130,794

  +0.4

  Coventry

  87,813

  94,377

  +4.9

  98,136

  +1.5

  970
  242 schemes have been approved for 182 hospitals. Over three-quarters of accident and emergency departments are benefiting from the programme.

  The primary criterion against which schemes were assessed was whether the scheme met our commitment to upgrade and modernise accident and emergency departments. Schemes cover a wide range of improvements, for example creating dedicated areas for children, enlarging resuscitation areas, and improving security for patients and staff.

  Work on most of the schemes is now under way, and the majority of schemes are scheduled for completion by next summer.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the level of funding for community health councils in each of the past three years and the real terms increase between each year and the proposed real terms increase for 2000–01 broken down by(a) NHS region, (b) health authority and (c) CHC. [95806]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: Information for individual community health councils is given in the table. National Health Service regional boundaries changed on 1 January 1999. Also, community health councils are not always co-terminous with health authorities. It is not therefore possible to provide this information by NHS region or by health authority. Decisions on funding for 2000–01 have not been made yet.
  971

  Community Health Councils

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Real terms change (%)

  1999–2000

  Real terms change (%)

  Croydon

  117,733

  121,037

  +0.3

  129,408

  +4.4

  Darlington and Teeside

  82,840

  91,440

  +7.8

  92,695

  −1.1

  Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley

  94,654

  104,662

  +8.0

  103,419

  −3.7

  Dewsbury

  88,507

  90,515

  −0.3

  89,627

  −3.5

  Doncaster

  102,969

  107,946

  +2.3

  110,819

  +0.2

  Dudley

  87,676

  86,858

  −3.4

  99,889

  +12.5

  East Berkshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  116,958

  1—

  East Birmingham

  87,024

  91,263

  +2.3

  98,970

  +5.9

  East Cumbria

  97,775

  100,089

  −0.2

  101,093

  −1.5

  East Dorset

  90,209

  102,817

  +11.4

  119,895

  +14.1

  East Hertfordshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  129,851

  1—

  East Suffolk

  78,968

  81,072

  +0.1

  82,501

  −0.7

  East Surrey

  99,260

  108,647

  +6.9

  115,791

  +4.1

  East Yorkshire

  96,429

  103,089

  +4.4

  105,324

  −0.3

  Ealing

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  95,059

  Enfield

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  114,424

  Eastbourne

  96,943

  96,778

  −2.7

  125,292

  +27.0

  Exeter and District

  114,840

  115,922

  −1.6

  108,468

  −8.9

  Gateshead

  73,062

  88,976

  +19.2

  92,906

  +1.9

  Gloucestershire

  131,795

  137,127

  +1.5

  139,674

  −0.6

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  93,561

  96,053

  +0.1

  97,615

  −0.9

  Greenwich

  106,736

  115,235

  +5.4

  112,758

  −4.6

  Halton

  79,031

  83,772

  +3.5

  82,501

  −4.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1—

  1—

  1—

  125,649

  1—

  Haringey

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  84,377

  Harrogate

  90,385

  95,528

  +3.2

  105,569

  +8.0

  Harrow

  1—

  1—

  1—

  120,009

  1—

  Hartlepool

  79,291

  84,084

  +3.5

  87,594

  +1.7

  Hastings and Rother

  100,692

  114,493

  +11.2

  105,384

  +10.5

  Hereford

  93,252

  99,379

  +4.0

  109,524

  +7.7

  Hillingdon

  1—

  1—

  1—

  132,389

  1—

  Hounslow

  1—

  1—

  1—

  107,777

  1—

  Huddersfield

  78,555

  85,316

  +6.1

  89,167

  +2.0

  Hull

  80,553

  88,813

  +7.7

  91,443

  +0.5

  Huntingdon

  80,248

  82,386

  +0.1

  83,793

  −0.8

  Isle of Wight

  71,396

  75,277

  +2.9

  76,212

  −1.3

  Isles of Scilly

  24,083

  27,363

  +11.1

  33,844

  +21.2

  Islington

  1—

  1—

  1—

  108,609

  1—

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1—

  1—

  1—

  153,778

  1—

  Kidderminster

  86,126

  90,945

  +3.1

  94,543

  +1.5

  Kingston and Esher

  107,338

  112,072

  +1.9

  114,174

  −0.6

  Lambeth

  139,298

  128,752

  −10.1

  129,045

  −2.3

  Lancaster

  76,159

  80,395

  +3.0

  77,589

  −6.0

  Leeds

  150,054

  153,095

  −0.5

  163,346

  +4.2

  Leicester

  140,125

  147,728

  +2.9

  149,996

  −1.0

  Lewisham

  136,202

  142,650

  +2.2

  140,626

  −3.9

  Liverpool Central

  99,775

  91,888

  −10.4

  86,277

  −8.6

  Liverpool Eastern

  80,081

  100,219

  +22.6

  98,402

  −4.3

  Macclesfield

  78,258

  81,276

  +1.3

  79,881

  −4.2

  Maidstone

  94,540

  105,730

  +9.3

  128,475

  +19.0

  Manchester Central

  88,046

  91,838

  +1.8

  92,229

  −2.1

  Manchester North

  88,047

  92,079

  +2.0

  91,898

  −2.7

  Manchester South

  88,047

  95,832

  +6.3

  96,077

  −2.2

  Medway

  138,469

  132,502

  −6.8

  133,003

  −2.1

  Merton and Sutton

  120,249

  126,182

  +2.4

  117,865

  −9.1

  Mid Downs

  110,916

  123,406

  +8.7

  117,302

  −7.4

  Mid Essex

  1—

  1—

  1—

  121,098

  1—

  Mid Staffordshire

  86,809

  90,112

  +1.3

  96,496

  +4.6

  Mid Surrey

  109,949

  117,096

  +4.0

  110,641

  −8.0

  Milton Keynes

  1—

  1—

  1—

  83,817

  1—

  Newcastle

  83,076

  92,883

  +9.3

  109,397

  +15.3

  Newham

  1—

  1—

  1—

  121,273

  1—

  North Bedfordshire

  114,662

  117,717

  +0.1

  119,420

  −1.1

  North Birmingham

  93,611

  99,194

  +3.4

  100,965

  −0.7

  North Derbyshire

  101,780

  104,236

  −0.1

  102,715

  −4.0

  North Devon

  71,526

  76,285

  +4.1

  83,513

  +7.0

  North Durham

  91,967

  96,075

  +1.9

  99,867

  1.4

  North East Essex

  1—

  1—

  1—

  101,258

  1—

  North East Lincolnshire

  101,158

  102,854

  −0.9

  104,079

  −1.3

  North East Warwickshire

  111,273

  114,679

  +0.5

  117,894

  +0.3

  972

  973

  Community Health Councils

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Real terms change (%)

  1999–2000

  Real terms change (%)

  North Hertfordshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  120,147

  1—

  North Northamptonshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  84,702

  1—

  North Staffordshire

  103,573

  106,720

  +0.5

  109,456

  +0.1

  North Tees

  77,069

  98,990

  +25.9

  103,334

  +1.9

  North Tyneside

  76,700

  89,676

  +14.4

  92,022

  +0.1

  North West Hertfordshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  111,666

  1—

  North West Lincolnshire

  90,712

  92,341

  −0.7

  100,843

  +6.7

  North West Surrey

  156,280

  148,315

  −7.6

  146,421

  −3.8

  Northallerton

  75,465

  75,511

  −2.5

  91,773

  +19.0

  Norwich

  113,920

  116,955

  +0.1

  118,605

  −1.1

  Nottingham

  120,365

  127,406

  +3.3

  130,827

  +0.2

  Northumberland

  100,385

  104,792

  +1.9

  108,869

  +1.4

  Oldham

  84,506

  93,402

  +8.0

  89,338

  −6.9

  Oxford

  1—

  1—

  1—

  152,022

  1—

  Plymouth and District

  95,739

  97,536

  −0.7

  108,156

  +8.4

  Pontefract

  105,694

  113,086

  +4.5

  114,404

  −1.3

  Portsmouth and SE Hampshire

  95,700

  109,485

  +11.9

  110,485

  −1.6

  Preston

  83,531

  86,955

  +1.6

  82,709

  −7.4

  Redbridge

  1—

  1—

  1—

  81,740

  1—

  Richmond and Twickenham

  100,312

  104,924

  +2.1

  105,258

  −2.2

  Rochdale

  79,840

  86,863

  +6.3

  88,082

  −1.1

  Rotherham

  88,334

  97,815

  +8.2

  100,289

  0

  Salford

  75,631

  73,279

  −5.7

  73,370

  −2.4

  Salisbury

  95,263

  99,058

  +1.4

  105,002

  +3.5

  Sandwell

  95,162

  98,110

  +0.6

  104,527

  +4.0

  Scarborough

  77,474

  76,524

  −3.8

  88,456

  +13.1

  Sheffield

  142,590

  148,855

  +1.9

  156,339

  +2.5

  Shropshire

  110,831

  119,323

  +5.1

  123,479

  +1.0

  Solihull

  98,414

  95,408

  −5.6

  105,460

  +8.0

  Somerset

  125,318

  128,419

  −0.1

  133,451

  +1.4

  South Bedfordshire

  107,225

  110,081

  +0.1

  111,880

  −0.9

  South Birmingham

  127,999

  138,767

  +5.9

  137,352

  −3.5

  South Bucks

  1—

  1—

  1—

  91,470

  1—

  South Cumbria

  70,430

  73,215

  +1.4

  80,694

  +7.7

  South Derbyshire

  116,195

  118,282

  −0.7

  118,853

  −2.0

  South Durham and Weardale

  87,144

  95,451

  +7.0

  99,966

  +2.2

  South East Kent

  127,598

  142,769

  +9.3

  133,968

  −8.7

  South East Staffordshire

  90,822

  90,931

  −2.4

  92,169

  −1.1

  South Lincolnshire

  110,957

  113,658

  −0.1

  108,014

  −7.5

  South Northamptonshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  100,575

  1—

  South Sefton

  86,081

  86,752

  −1.8

  84,965

  −4.6

  South Tees

  97,061

  105,271

  +5.9

  109,431

  +1.5

  South Tyneside

  67,528

  93,279

  +35.6

  95,879

  +0.3

  South Warwickshire

  87,250

  88,392

  −1.2

  92,663

  +2.3

  South West Hertfordshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  130,556

  1—

  South West Surrey

  113,510

  117,384

  +0.9

  116,764

  −3.0

  Southampton and SW Hampshire

  102,042

  109,369

  +4.6

  125,677

  +12.4

  Southend

  1—

  1—

  1—

  119,459

  1—

  Southport

  87,031

  92,223

  +3.4

  92,220

  −2.5

  Southwark

  115,709

  123,282

  +4.0

  116,625

  −7.9

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  79,415

  81,640

  +0.3

  80,920

  −3.4

  Stockport

  89,081

  96,093

  +5.3

  94,156

  −4.5

  Sunderland

  85,838

  92,159

  +4.8

  95,730

  +1.4

  Swindon and District

  98,298

  102,873

  +2.1

  106,549

  +1.1

  Tameside and Glossop

  87,179

  88,052

  −1.5

  89,131

  −1.3

  Torbay and District

  80,668

  86,177

  +4.3

  89,203

  +1.0

  Tower Hamlets

  1—

  1—

  1—

  102,041

  1—

  Trafford

  66,956

  84,040

  +23.0

  81,664

  −5.3

  Tunbridge Wells

  116,134

  126,761

  +6.6

  124,923

  −3.9

  Wakefield

  100,522

  117,133

  +14.0

  120,214

  +0.1

  Walsall

  92,033

  94,122

  −0.3

  105,373

  +9.5

  Waltham Forest

  1—

  1—

  1—

  96,510

  1—

  Wandsworth

  137,390

  147,724

  +5.0

  149,454

  −1.3

  Warrington

  79,081

  81,554

  +0.6

  80,396

  −3.9

  West Anglia

  185,073

  190,003

  +0.1

  192,671 103,349

  1—

  West Berkshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  West Birmingham

  98,857

  95,167

  −3.7

  97,244

  −0.3

  West Dorset

  84,878

  86,136

  −1 1

  90,046

  +2.0

  West Essex

  1—

  —

  1—

  129,672

  1—

  West Lancashire

  78,740

  81,608

  +1.1

  80,213

  −4.2

  974

  975

  Community Health Councils

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Real terms change (%)

  1999–2000

  Real terms change (%)

  West Suffolk

  81,409

  83,578

  +0.1

  84,939

  -0.9

  West Surrey and NE Hampshire

  117,646

  113,889

  -5.7

  113,564

  -2.8

  West Cumbria

  81,979

  80,080

  -4.9

  84,280

  +2.7

  Wigan and Leigh

  86,081

  89,639

  +1.6

  87,401

  -5.0

  Winchester

  80,513

  83,029

  +0.6

  86,750

  +2.0

  Wirral

  83,612

  84,303

  -1.7

  78,150

  -9.8

  Wolverhampton

  81,073

  82,393

  -0.9

  87,465

  +3.7

  Worcester

  96,321

  96,700

  -2.1

  99,420

  +0.3

  Worthing

  120,341

  121,823

  -1.3

  123,145

  -1.4

  York

  105,198

  98,776

  -8.6

  110,686

  +9.6

  1 Information not readily available

  Note:

  For consistency the figures shown are Community Health Councils allocations at the start of each year. Allocations may change during the year and the final allocations for 1999–2000 are not yet known.

  Inflation factors used to calculate real terms change are 2.54 per cent. for 1998–99 and 2.5 per cent. for 1999–2000.

  Generic Medicinal Drugs
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply the question tabled for answer on 12 July 1999 by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside regarding the introduction of price controls for NHS purchases of generic medicinal drugs (ref. 91509). [96120]

  Mr. Denham
  I shall write to my hon. Friend about her previous question as soon as possible.

  Autism
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what records his Department collates on autism; and how many new cases of people diagnosed as autistic have been notified for each of the last five years. [96109]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available. It is for the local statutory agencies to determine the needs of people with autism in their area and work together effectively to ensure that these needs are met.

  Podiatric Services
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding (i) the cost effectiveness, (ii) the popularity among patients and (iii) the health benefits of dedicated podiatric surgical services units. [96207]

  Mr. Hutton
  The King's Fund undertook a study of the cost-effectiveness of podiatric surgery services in response to podiatric surgery being identified as one of nine research priorities in "Feet First", which was funded by the National Health Service. The King's Fund report set out to answer the question, Do specialists in podiatry surgery represent a clinically and cost-effective way of providing for foot surgery? The report stated that there was not enough information to allow a satisfactory answer to be given to the question.

  Following the review of "Feet First", the Department's research and development division have undertaken a review of the literature of general practice podiatry, which was completed in September 1999. The review investigated the then current nature of research publications. The review has not yet been published but will demonstrate the need for better quality research in this area.
  976
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost per episode of care treatment for(a) outpatients and (b) inpatients by (i) orthopaedic surgeons and (ii) podiatric surgeons. [96206]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no comparable figures available because information regarding podiatric surgery is not collected centrally. However, figures for the speciality of orthopaedic surgery are:Cost per episode of patients using a bed (including day cases) is £1,491.07;
  Cost per attendance of outpatients (including nurse clinic and ward attenders) is £56.26.

  Source:

  National Health Service Trust Financial Returns 1997–98

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of discontinuing the levying of a prescription charge for each item when more than one hormone is prescribed in hormone replacement therapy. [96044]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is estimated that around £8.3 million in charge income would be lost if a single prescription charge was paid when more than one hormone in hormone replacement therapy was supplied by community pharmacists in England.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Stipendiary Magistrates
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what studies have(a) been carried out by and (b) been received by the Home Office concerning the relative (i) efficiency and (ii) speed of decision making of the Stipendiary Bench and the Lay Bench; [95472]

  (2) what studies he has (a) commissioned and (b)
  evaluated on the potential savings to the criminal justice system of increasing the jurisdiction of the Stipendiary Bench; and if he will make a statement. [95439]

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the comparative cost of like cases being dealt with
  977
  by (a) panels of lay justices and (b) stipendiary magistrates in the magistrates' courts; and if he will make a statement. [95793]

  Jane Kennedy
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: No such studies have been carried out by the Home Office.

  The Government are committed to the principle that the lay magistracy will continue to play a significant part in our system of justice. The Government's overriding concern is to have in place a system of criminal justice in which the public has confidence. The Government have commissioned research to assess the relative costs, effectiveness and other benefits/disadvantages of Stipendiary and lay magistrates, taking into account all related costs including those of other agencies. The research will be used to assess whether the current balance between the use of lay magistrates and Stipendiaries is satisfactory; whether each set of magistrates is deployed in the most effective way; and the weight of the arguments that are heard for an against the use of lay or Stipendiary magistrates in particular circumstances.

  The research will be conducted during 2000.

  Commonhold
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to announce plans for commonhold; and if he will make a statement. [95913]

  Mr. Lock
  This Government are committed to introducing commonhold. Many of the issues that are included in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' recent consultation on leasehold reform will affect how we proceed with commonhold. My Department is working with DETR in planning the way ahead and I hope to announce shortly how we will take commonhold forward.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he proposes to take to provide further information about the system for judicial appointments in England and Wales. [96615]

  Mr. Lock
  The first ever Judicial Appointments Annual Report, covering the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999, is published today. The Report includes a detailed account, with relevant statistics, of the competitions for each judicial office during that year as well as information about how the judicial appointments system works and details of the changes the Lord Chancellor has made, and plans to make, to that system. Copies of the Report have been placed in both Libraries. The Report is also available on the internet.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) asylum and (b) immigration appeals are waiting to be heard at the (i) adjudicator and (ii) tribunal tier. [96054]

  Jane Kennedy
  As at 30 September 1999, there were 2,666 asylum and 2,077 immigration appeals waiting to be heard by adjudicators. A further 2,310 asylum and 757 immigration appeals were waiting to be heard by the tribunal.
  978
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time adjudicators are employed to deal with immigration and asylum appeals. [96053]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are currently 50 full-time and 197 part-time adjudicators employed to hear immigration and asylum appeals. A further 50 part-time adjudicators have been appointed, and will begin to hear appeals from February 2000.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many decisions on(a) immigration and (b) asylum appeals have been made by (i) adjudicators and (ii) tribunals in each month since 30 April 1997. [96049]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is as follows:

  Adjudicator

  Tribunal

  Asylum

  Immigration

  Asylum

  Immigration

  1997–98

  April

  1,955

  1,123

  106

  126

  May

  1,645

  775

  97

  82

  June

  1,797

  1,356

  222

  186

  July

  1,942

  1,278

  261

  48

  August

  1,676

  1,240

  46

  76

  September

  2,021

  1,136

  44

  32

  October

  2,273

  1,114

  88

  291

  November

  1,921

  969

  88

  32

  December

  1,595

  1,302

  133

  43

  January

  1,746

  953

  94

  22

  February

  1,617

  1,179

  86

  1

  March

  1,996

  748

  50

  181

  Total

  22;184

  13,173

  1,315

  1,120

  1998–99

  April

  1,603

  1,276

  34

  52

  May

  1,600

  1,198

  105

  79

  June

  2,076

  1,088

  87

  50

  July

  2,021

  1,112

  92

  24

  August

  1,886

  936

  109

  67

  September

  2,687

  1,105

  132

  93

  October

  3,139

  1,175

  115

  64

  November

  2,574

  1,084

  77

  61

  December

  2,377

  941

  108

  58

  January

  2,497

  1,040

  88

  36

  February

  1,479

  800

  93

  33

  March

  2,841

  1,208

  156

  87

  Total

  26,780

  12,963

  1,196

  704

  1999–2000

  April

  1,784

  970

  74

  20

  May

  1,516

  779

  116

  82

  June

  1,648

  716

  180

  50

  July

  1,502

  661

  216

  52

  August

  1,445

  472

  150

  80

  September

  1,406

  701

  200

  111

  Total

  9,301

  4,299

  936

  395

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Science Laboratories
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the guidance on the design of science laboratories in schools. [94262]
  979
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has reviewed the guidance on the design of science laboratories in secondary schools. A revised Building Bulletin updating "Science Accommodation in Secondary Schools: A Design Guide" will be published shortly. General guidance on the design and layout of school science rooms for primary schools is offered in Building Bulletin 82, "Area Guidelines for Schools".

  Secondary Education (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions his Department has had with South Gloucestershire local education authority about the provision of secondary education in Bradley Stoke. [94265]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Officials from the Department have met with South Gloucestershire LEA on several occasions and the provision of places was discussed.

  It is the LEA's responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient secondary school places within its area.

  The Department has supported capital bids from South Gloucestershire which met the published criteria for basic need.

  Flexible Working
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has held with employers about promoting flexible working arrangements for employees with family commitments. [94269]

  Ms Hodge
  We have had discussions with a number of leading employers about how we might work together to promote flexible working arrangements which both benefit the business and enable employees to balance work and home better. We are publishing today a research study showing how such arrangements have helped small and medium enterprises.

  Student Transport (Lancashire)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the provision of post-16 student transport in Lancashire. [94272]

  Mr. Wicks
  Decisions on support for transport for post-16 pupils is a matter for local discretion. Lancashire local education authority has withdrawn transport support for all new students except those who meet very strict criteria for "extenuating circumstances".

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in providing pre-school places for three-year-olds. [94274]

  Ms Hodge
  We are well on the way to achieving our aim of doubling the number of free places for three-year-olds by 190,000 by 2002. £40 million has been allocated this year to 57 local education authorities with the greatest social need and 80 per cent. of the places provided are in the private and voluntary sector. This will be followed by £100 million for all local education authorities next year and £250 million in 2001–02. This 980
  is the first time government has specifically targeted funding on the provision of nursery places for three-year-olds.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the educational arrangements for pupils excluded from schools. [94276]

  Jacqui Smith
  Excluded pupils are likely to be educated in either a pupil referral unit (PRU) or through home tuition by the LEA. Ofsted has a rolling inspection programme of PRUs. LEAs are inspected over the full range of their education responsibilities.

  School Transport
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the operation of home to school transport. [94277]

  Jacqui Smith
  We will be considering carefully the recommendations of the School Travel Advisory Group which will report later in the autumn.

  New Deal (Over 50s)
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements have been put in place for piloting the new deal for people aged 50 years and over. [94279]

  Ms Hodge
  The New Deal 50plus is an important new package of practical help for people aged 50 and over who are looking for work. It offers: a tax free employment credit of £60 per week paid for up to a year to an individual entering full-time work (£40 for part-time work, 16–30 hours per week); an in-work training grant of up to £750; a personal advice service for the individual to provide help with looking for work.

  Pupil Funding (Northumberland)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about differences in funding per school pupil between Northumberland and other areas. [94280]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from Northumberland expressing concern at differences in the Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) per pupil between Northumberland and other local education authorities. We have already acknowledged that there are valid objections to the current SSA formula. The Government, in partnership with local government, have set up a three year programme of research to investigate thoroughly whether there is a better way of determining the distribution of funds which is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about proposed changes to the admissions criteria for grammar schools. [94281]
  981
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Since June 1997, the Department has received some 200 letters from Members of this House on the subject of grammar schools, and some 2,000 letters and e-mails from other interested parties. There have also been 60 parliamentary questions tabled.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of grammar schools. [94282]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Mechanisms allowing local parents to petition and ballot on the future of grammar schools are now in place. It will be for eligible parents to decide if grammar schools should continue as such.

  Careers Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to establish nationally validated quality standards for careers education and guidance. [94283]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have no plans to introduce standards for careers education and guidance provision. However, on 19 October, we launched the national occupational standards for careers teachers and others who deliver careers education and guidance in schools and colleges. These enable teachers to evaluate their skills and knowledge against recognised national standards and develop careers education and guidance provision.

  University Access
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions his Department has had with the Sutton Trust regarding improving access to Oxford and Cambridge universities for students from state schools. [94284]

  Mr. Wicks
  Ministers and officials meet Mr. Peter Lampl and Sutton Trust employees frequently to discuss issues of mutual concern, including improving access to universities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting Mr. Lampl on 11 November to discuss summer schools at universities for state school pupils.

  "Learning to Succeed"
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper, "Learning to Succeed". [94286]

  Mr. Wicks
  The White Paper contains a broad timetable for the implementation of our proposals. It also sets out a number of issues on which we have asked views by 15 October 1999. Once we have had time to consider those views, we will be publishing detailed proposals for implementation.

  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contribution business will make to the arrangements set out in the White Paper, "Learning to Succeed". [96828]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh),Official Report, column 1079.

  New Deal (Yorkshire)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new deal places have been started in Yorkshire and Humberside this year. [94287]

  Ms Jowell
  In Yorkshire and Humberside, from the beginning of the year to the end of July, 15,230 young people have started New Deal. In the same period there have been 10,590 starts on New Deal for Long Term Unemployed people aged 25+.

  Class Sizes
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the average size of secondary school classes. [94264]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The average size of a secondary class was 21.8 in January 1999. January 1999 saw the first fall in overall average class size for 10 years from 24.9 in January 1998 to 24.8.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the consultation period on the national curriculum will end. [94268]

  Jacqui Smith
  Consultation on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposals for revisions to the National Curriculum for the year 2000 ended on 23 July 1999. On 9 September my right hon. Friend announced his decisions on a revised National Curriculum, which will raise educational achievement, while safeguarding every child's entitlement to a broad and balanced education. We also consulted between 15 September and 18 October on the draft statutory Orders which give effect to these provisions. Revised National Curriculum documents will be sent to all schools in November.

  Area Inspectors (Young Adult Provision)
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to undertake area inspections of 16 to 19 years provision. [96731]

  Mr. Wicks
  In its White Paper "Learning to Succeed—a New Framework for post-16 Learning" the Government looked to Ofsted to lead area-wide inspections of 16–19 education and training, encompassing all providers. From 2001 these inspections will be partnership with the proposed new adult inspectorate; prior to that the work will be done jointly with the FEFC Inspectorate and the Training Standards Council.

  The programme of inspections will commence in autumn 1999 and will focus in some cases on areas where the challenge to raise achievement and participation is particularly acute. For inspection purposes, areas will usually be single LEAs, but they may comprise more than one LEA, or part of a large LEA.

  Most school sixth forms, colleges and major training providers in the area will be visited in the course of the inspection, but the emphasis will be on provision in the area as a whole, rather than on individual organisations. Inspectors may draw on evidence from other recent or

  983
  current inspections of individual institutions or providers, in complementing, rather than duplicating inspection activity.

  The inspections will be in two stages. In the first, the focus will be on visits to institutions and providers to gather and interpret evidence on performance, curriculum and programmes, and cost/resource issues, and to meet staff and students or trainees. In the second stage, usually several weeks later, inspectors will visit a sample of lessons/sessions to assess the quality of what is provided and students' and trainees' responses to it. In addition, certain themes, such as guidance, will be addressed across the different sectors. Inspectors will also consider the contribution of the LEA(s), the local TEC(s) and the Careers Service to 16–19 provision in the area, and will take account of available information on the local market and skills needs.

  Each inspection will result in a published report which will include judgments on:

  the standards achieved and quality of provision in the area;

  the range and coherence of provision available;

  the value for money provided.

  By commenting on the match of provision to local demand, the inspection programme will provide a basis for future planning of 16–19 education and training.

  Public Libraries (Computer Network)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's latest policy towards introducing a new computer network for public libraries, as outlined in his publication, "New Library—People's Network". [95322]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility within Government for the People's Network rests with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  We are making £70 million available through the New Opportunities Fund to create content for the Public Libraries ICT Network and to train library staff in ICT skills. In addition, up to £200 million is available through the New Opportunities Fund's Community Access to Lifelong Learning programme to support the development of the network infrastructure. Libraries also stand to benefit from a range of other educational programmes including the £252 million set aside for the development of learning centres under the Capital Modemisation Fund.

  Local Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reason the regional development agencies have been tasked to determine the boundaries of local Learning and Skills Councils. [96002]

  Mr. Wicks
  Regional Development Agencies are well placed to advise on local Learning and Skills Councils boundaries in their regions because of their leading role in developing economic strategies for the English regions. In reaching their recommendations they have consulted widely with business and wider communities in their regions.

  Associate Degrees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop the concept of associate and pass degrees for those unable to take a full degree; and at what national level of attainment they would be scored. [96118]

  Mr. Wicks
  All qualifications in higher education should represent positive achievement at specified levels and should offer scope for further progression in lifelong learning. The independent Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education is consulting on proposals for a qualifications framework based on these principles. The framework will include provision for existing qualifications below honours degree level and is intended to be flexible enough to accommodate new qualifications that may be developed. The Government believe that there is an important place for high quality qualifications below honours degree level that are valued by employers.

  Post Code Discrimination
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will issue guidance to higher education institutions concerning post code discrimination in admissions policies. [96119]

  Mr. Wicks
  Entry to higher education institutions should be based on merit and the ability to benefit from the courses they offer, not on social background. New information services from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service will help institutions assess whether they are reaching all the potential students who could meet their entry requirements. The Department does not intend to issue guidance.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at what point of annual income a graduate with an income-contingent student loan will start to repay less in the current year than a graduate with an old-style mortgage loan. [96110]

  Mr. Wicks
  Assuming a borrower was repaying an old-style mortgage loan at £1,000 a year (reflecting a loan of £5,000 being repaid over a five year period), someone with an income-contingent loan of the same size would repay less until they earned over £21,111 a year.

  The repayment of income contingent loans will he fairer than mortgage-style because it will be tied closely to income. Repayments will be based on 9 per cent. of income over £10,000 a year so that repayments will increase or decrease in line with changes in income. £21,111 would be quite a high salary for a new graduate, so most new graduates will initially be repaying small amounts each year in line with their income.

  The repayment of mortgage style loans above a threshold—currently £18,192—is not income contingent. A fixed proportion of the loan has to be repaid each year: someone earning £20,000 a year will repay at the same rate as someone earning £40,000.

  Graduate Apprenticeships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the
  985
  numbers of (a) industrial sectors which have developed programmes of graduate apprenticeships and (b) students currently involved in such programmes. [95782]

  Mr. Wicks
  Seven sectors of industry and business are currently developing Graduate Apprenticeships in a series of pilot projects: chemical manufacturing and processing; electronics and software services; engineering (aerospace sub-sector); management and enterprise; rail; steel; and sport and recreation. A total of 34 Graduate Apprentices are involved in the pilot projects.

  Level 3 Curriculum
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on implementation of the revised level 3 curriculum for 2000–01 as it affects teaching and staffing at further education and sixth form colleges and school sixth forms, respectively. [96111]

  Mr. Wicks
  The 16–19 qualification reforms arising from the Government's 1997 "Qualifying for Success" consultation document will be introduced for teaching in further education and sixth form colleges and school sixth forms from September 2000. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has already issued detailed guidance on how different types of institution might introduce the broader, more demanding post-16 curriculum which the reforms are designed to encourage, in the light of their own circumstances and the resources—including staffing levels—available to them. In addition, the Government have made available substantial additional resources specifically for staff development and training in support of the introduction of the new qualifications next year. Many schools and colleges have already indicated that they will be responding positively and constructively to the opportunities which the revised advanced level curriculum will create.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he will take to help those children who were to have moved from primary to secondary education under the assisted places scheme. [94789]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Education (Schools) Act 1997 contains a discretionary power to allow children in receipt of primary education to continue to hold their assisted places for a further period in which they receive secondary education. Any application for such an extension is considered on its individual merits and discretion is exercised where it is reasonable to do so in view of the particular circumstances relating to the child. Of the 356 applications we have received to date, 205 have been approved.

  School Web Pages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to encourage schools to design and maintain their own web pages. [94270]

  Mr. Wills
  We have set a target for all schools to be connected to the Internet by 2002. Through the National Grid for Learning programme we are providing over £700 million to equip schools. Alongside that,986
  £230 million of New Opportunities Funding is available to train serving teachers in the curriculum use of ICT. The NGfL provides the framework for public and private providers to offer additional services. For example, Tesco has set up SchoolNet 2000, which has involved more than 80,000 pupils in creating school websites. We would expect that an increasing number of schools will take the opportunity afforded by these measures to set up their own websites. DfEE has published advice, guidance and further information on setting up and maintaining websites in its Superhighway Safety pack. Schools are also encouraged to seek advice from the British Educational and Communications Technology agency (BECTa) as well as their Local Education Authority's ICT advisers.

  Mill Hill County High School
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many objections the adjudicator has received to the admissions policy operated by Mill Hill County High School. [94267]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Office of the Schools Adjudicator received objections to Mill Hill County High School admissions policy from Barnet Local Education Authority and from a total of 127 parents.

  A decision on these objections was issued to all parties concerned on 3 September 1999.

  Homework Targets
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in setting homework targets as a feature of parent-teacher co-operation. [94266]

  Jacqui Smith
  National homework guidelines for primary and secondary schools were published in November last year. They include flexible guidance on how much homework and what sort of activities should be set for pupils of different ages. For schools to develop successful homework policies it is clearly important that there is good liaison between teachers and parents, and that parents are given guidance about how to help their children.

  Further Education and Training
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that businesses have an effective role in the new framework for further education and training. [94275]

  Mr. Wicks
  Businesses make an essential contribution to the framework for Further Education and Training through their involvement with Colleges, Training and Enterprise Councils and local learning partnerships. The new arrangements set out in the White Paper "Learning to Succeed" provide an enhanced role for business through the establishment of the LSC. Employers will be the largest single group on the national and local LSCs, and will be able to use their expertise and knowledge to influence more effectively the type and nature of learning provision.
  987
  In addition to their involvement of members of the national and local LSCs, the wider business community will also be able to play an important role through the local learning partnerships.

CABINET OFFICE

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list(a) the reports published by her Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by her Department, (c) the decisions her Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria she uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93971]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, columns 429–30.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the(a) budget, (b) size and (c) function of the Regulatory Impact Unit. [95305]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For the financial year 1999–2000 the Regulatory Impact Unit has a budget of £1,950,000. Fifty-three staff are currently employed in the Unit, of whom two are part-time and four are seconded from outside the civil service.

  On the function of the Regulatory Impact Unit, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 21 October 1999, Official Report, columns 649–50.

  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans have been made to reform section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, dealing with enforcement of regulations. [96831]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  On 28 September, a consultative document was published on the proposed amendments to Section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, dealing with enforcement of regulations. Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The proposal is intended to act as an incentive to spread best practice in enforcement policies and procedures and to reduce the regulatory burden on business. Subject to the responses to the consultation exercise, I will be seeking to amend the Act as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the Next Steps agencies currently in operation, indicating the number of civil servants employed in each. [95280]
  988
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Next Steps Agencies currently in operation and the number of civil servants employed in each is set out in the following table:

  Total civil servants working in agencies and on Next Steps lines (including Northern Ireland and Forest Enterprise)

  Agency

  Staff1

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  2275

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  22550

  Army Personnel Centre

  21,200

  Army Technical Support Agency

  21,045

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency

  223,650

  Business Development Service

  3225

  Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments

  170

  CCTA

  190

  Central Office of Information

  4345

  Central Science Laboratory

  545

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  420

  Civil Service College

  220

  Companies House

  4845

  Compensation Agency

  3125

  Construction Service

  3550

  Court Service

  8,605

  Debt Management Office

  25

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  110

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency8

  25,125

  Defence Bills Agency

  2650

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency

  2535

  Defence Communications Agency

  2900

  Defence Dental Agency

  2850

  Defence Estates Agency

  21,165

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  2,411,020

  Defence Housing Executive8

  980

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre

  2495

  Defence Medical Training Organisation

  2435

  Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency

  2550

  Defence Procurement Agency8

  25,380

  Defence Secondary Care Agency

  22,335

  Defence Storage and Distributions Agency8

  2,53,330

  Defence Transport and Movements Agency8

  2,320

  Defence Vetting Agency

  2345

  Disposal Sales Agency

  2,565

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  4,120

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing (Northern Ireland)

  3255

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  3295

  Driving Standards Agency

  41,630

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  2100

  Employment Service

  29,310

  Employment Tribunals Service

  560

  Environment and Heritage Service

  3330

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency

  525

  Fire Service College

  4185

  Fisheries Research Services

  250

  Forensic Science Service

  1,445

  Forensic Science Service of Northern Ireland

  3115

  Forest Enterprise

  62,310

  Forest Service

  395

  Forest Research

  6270

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  230

  Government Purchasing Agency

  390

  Health Estates

  3125

  Highways Agency

  1,535

  Historic Scotland

  645

  HM Land Registry

  47,750

  HM Prison Service

  40,275

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  3140

  Insolvency Service

  1,315

  Intervention Board

  1,170

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre

  2445

  Land Registers of Northern Ireland

  3195

  Logistic Information Systems Agency

  2235

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  940

  Meat Hygiene Service

  1,335

  Medical Devices Agency

  135

  Medical Supplies Agency

  275

  Medicines Control Agency

  4440

  Meteorological Office

  42,030

  Military Survey

  21,055

  Ministry of Defence Police

  23,545

  National Savings

  4,060

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  55

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency

  210,030

  989

  Total civil servants working in agencies and on Next Steps lines (including Northern Ireland and Forest Enterprise)

  Agency

  Staff1

  Naval Manning Agency

  2275

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  24,350

  NHS Estates

  230

  NHS Pensions Agency

  440

  Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

  31,010

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  33,140

  Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

  3215

  Office for National Statistics

  2,925

  Ordnance Survey

  1,850

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  3175

  Patent Office

  4820

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  2730

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  195

  Planning Inspectorate

  625

  Planning Service

  3390

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  185

  Public Record Office

  430

  Public Record Office of Northern Ireland

  360

  Public Trust Office

  535

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  455

  Queen Victoria School

  270

  Radiocommunications Agency

  495

  RAF Logistics Support Services

  2955

  RAF Personnel Management Agency

  2490

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  21,045

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  25,895

  Rate Collection Agency

  3245

  Registers of Scotland

  41,100

  Rivers Agency

  3415

  Roads Service

  32,010

  Royal Mint

  4965

  Royal Parks Agency

  235

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  115

  Scottish Court Service

  815

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  275

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  150

  Scottish Prison Service

  4,805

  Scottish Record Office

  110

  Service Children's Education

  2,5720

  Ships Support Agency

  2,795

  Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland)

  34,955

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  67,080

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  7,380

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  1,930

  Social Security War Pensions Agency

  855

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  130

  The Buying Agency

  4135

  Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  31,330

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  380

  UK Hydrographic Office

  22,4750

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  1,205

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  3215

  Valuation Office

  3,945

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  90

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  41,550

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  1,015

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  105

  Water Service

  32,110

  Wilton Park

  40

  Crown Prosecution

  75,370

  HM Customs and Excise

  722,960

  Inland Revenue

  757,501

  Serious Fraud Office

  7150

  1. January figures for civil servants on the basis of full-time equivalents. Casuals are excluded.

  2. Figures include military personnel.

  3. Northern Ireland Civil Service.

  4. Trading Fund.

  5. Figures include full-time equivalent locally employed civilians.

  6. Forest Enterprise and Forest Research are staffed by Forestry Commission civil servants.

  7. Departments operating on Next Steps lines. Staffing figure for the Inland Revenue excludes the Valuation Office which is a free standing Agency.

  8. Agency launched on 1 April 1998.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to encourage the curtailment in Kosovo of the activities of the Sherbimi Informativ I Kosaves; and if he will make a statement. [95295]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Sherbimi Informativ I Kosaves was affiliated to the now disbanded Kosovo Liberation Army, acting as its intelligence and security service. As part of the demilitarisation process, the KLA has undertaken to disengage in conflict and re-integrate into civilian society, an undertaking which is under constant scrutiny by KFOR and UNMIK.

  KFOR and UNMIK take a wholly even-handed approach to law and order. They will act against any report of illegal activity from whatever source.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the Kosovo Liberation Army has fully disarmed; and if he will make a statement on the KLA's reserves of military equipment. [95227]

  Mr. Vaz
  On 20 September KFOR reported that the KLA was broadly in compliance with the undertaking to demilitarise which was given to NATO on 21 June.

  The then commander of KFOR, General Sir Mike Jackson, said on 13 October that over 10,000 weapons and 5 million rounds of ammunition had been handed in by the KLA. Any weapons now found on ex-KLA members are unlawfully held and are subject to seizure and destruction.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the export of military equipment for the use of the international civil and security presences in Kosovo since 26 July. [96830]

  Mr. Vaz
  UN Security Council resolution 1160 imposed an arms embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). The only exception to this embargo is that in UNSCR 1244, which provides that prohibitions imposed by UNSCR 1160 shall not apply to the sale or supply of arms and related material for the use of the international civil and security presences in Kosovo. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1998 sets out the licensing requirements in relation to this embargo.

  Since 26 July 1999, the Government have licensed the export of the following equipment on the Military List to organisations involved in demining activities in Kosovo on behalf of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission In Kosovo (UNMIK). The United Nations FRY Sanctions Committee has approved the export of all of these goods.

  60 helmet and visor assemblies

  60 mine search jackets

  4 de-armers/disruptors

  2 rocket wrench

  2 box of 66, .05 cartridges for de-armers/disruptors

  991

  20 RBR fragmentation vests

  5 high energy mini shrikes (used for mine destruction)

  10 LBA armoured protective helmets

  50 RBR warrior helmets

  50 protective vests

  35 protective trousers

  50 spare advanced fragmentation visors

  12 Beethoven Mk 19 exploders.

  The Government have also licensed the export of the following equipment on the Military List to the international KFOR contingent in Kosovo.
  demining explosives
  4 armoured Land Rovers 110s.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in relation to the most recent delivery of three Hawk aircraft to Indonesia, if he will give(a) the date on which the aircraft left the United Kingdom, (b) the reason for the temporary grounding of the aircraft in Bangkok, (c) the nationality of the pilots flying the aircraft from the United Kingdom to Indonesia, (d) by whom the pilots were employed and (e) the date on which the aircraft became legally the property of the Indonesian Government. [95339]

  Mr. Battle
  The aircraft referred to left the UK on 31 August. Once the aircraft left UK shores, the details of the export became a matter for the company concerned.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the Indonesian Government for a full and independent investigation into the death of the Balibo five during the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. [96024]

  Mr. Battle
  We have no plans to do so. The Australian Government, who have led on the issue (the five journalists killed were based in Australia and worked for Australian TV stations), commissioned a comprehensive investigation by a former Solicitor General of Australia, Tom Sherman, in 1995. The Sherman Report remains our benchmark. New information about the incident which came to light last year was referred by the Australian Government to Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman's second report contained no major new revelations or conclusions.

  Chevening Scholarships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many additional Chevening scholarships for overseas students are being provided; and what is the cost to(a) private and (b) public funds. [96112]

  Mr. Hain
  At present about 2,200 Chevening Scholarships are awarded each year. On 18 June my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the scheme would be expanded by up to 1,000 additional scholarships each year through Government and private funding. The cost of 1,000 extra scholarships is likely to be about 15 million each year. Discussions are continuing between Government, higher education institutions and the private sector with the aim of building up to the target set by the Prime Minister.

  Belize
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers in his Department visited Belize in each year between 1990 and 1997; and what support his Department gave Belize in each year. [96213]

  Mr. Battle
  The following Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Ministers visited Belize in the years 1990–97: Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (1991), the right hon. David Heathcoat-Amory MP (March 1994) and Sir Nicholas Bonsor (June 1996).

  The total Overseas Development Administration programmes for Belize were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1989–90

  2,905,000

  1990–91

  2,678,000

  1991–92

  2,970,000

  1992–93

  4,273,000

  1993–94

  5,693,000

  1994–95

  5,395,000

  1995–96

  3,499,000

  1996–97

  1,995,000

  1997–98

  2,300,000

  The 1997–98 figure includes the period during which the Department for International Development was established. A breakdown of these statistics is available in "British Aid Statistics/Statistics on International Development" which is available in the Library of the House. The Commonwealth Development Corporation also invested in Belize during this period. In addition to the above funding from its ODA wing, the FCO provided Belize with other support in a variety of forms including sponsored visits, scholarships and military training and equipment. Figures for the total value of this support are not readily available.

  UNSCOM
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the use of the procedures contained in the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has formed part of the current UN negotiations for the reintroduction of UNSCOM into Iraq. [96421]

  Mr. Hain
  The Additional Protocol does not form part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is an extension to the safeguards agreement negotiated between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and NPT member states. Iraq has not agreed an Additional Protocol with the IAEA, hence this subject has no direct bearing on current discussion in the UN on re-establishing IAEA and UNSCOM operations in Iraq under UN Security Council resolution 687.

  Consular Procedure (Islamabad)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a
  993
  statement on the operation of the interim appointment system in Islamabad for applicants seeking entry clearance. [95657]

  Mr. Vaz
  In an attempt to reduce waiting times for interviews, our High Commission in Islamabad has set up a system aimed at processing some straightforward applications for settlement visas more quickly. Applications which are judged to fall into this category may be submitted to the High Commission on any Tuesday for consideration.

  Chinese State Visit
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings concerning the security and policing arrangements for the visit of President Jiang Zemin were held between his Department and the Metropolitan Police; who attended those meetings; what advice and guidance on security arrangements and the policing of possible demonstrations his Department offered at those meetings; and if he will publish the minutes of the meetings. [96113]

  Mr. Battle
  Officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and representatives of the Police discussed the security and policing arrangements for the Chinese State Visit on a number of occasions between July and October. Minutes were not taken. Such discussions and meetings are a standard part of preparation for State Visits, to take the police through the proposed programme to enable them to make their operational decisions. These meetings involved officials from the Foreign Office and representatives of the police services concerned. Officials from Buckingham Palace, representatives of the Chinese Embassy and organisers of individual events attended as appropriate.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the Metropolitan Police discussed the proposed programme for the State Visit and the concerns of the Chinese authorities about the possible impact of demonstrations on the visit. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials reported to the police that they had told the Chinese authorities that demonstrations should be expected and that the Chinese should accept that the policing of the visit was a matter for the police's operational judgment. Ministers were consulted only on the arrangements for the welcoming ceremony on Horse Guards Parade and they expressed the view that it should take the same form as on previous State Visits.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of his Department's staff were present outside the Cambridge University Library for the arrival of the President of China; and what representations these staff made to the police about their handling of public demonstrations. [96234]

  Mr. Battle
  In accordance with standard practice for State Visits, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials from the China Hong Kong Department, Protocol Division and Conference and Visits Group were present at Cambridge University Library to liaise between the Chinese authorities and Cambridgeshire Constabulary on 994
  the basis of the discussions referred to in my answer of today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd).

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department made to Cambridgeshire Constabulary about the policing of the state visit by the President of China. [96232]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) at column 993.

  There were routine meetings to go through the programme during the preparations for the State Visit, so that Cambridgeshire Constabulary could make their operational decisions.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department (i) met and (ii) communicated with Commander Mick Messenger in connection with the Chinese President's visit to London. [96117]

  Mr. Battle
  There were no meetings or discussions with Commander Mick Messenger.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement(a) Ministers, (b) officials from his Department had in the dialogue between the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police in connection with policing of the Chinese President's visit to London. [96116]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 685-86.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made by Ministers or officials in his Department to(a) Ministers or officials in the Home Office and (b) the Metropolitan Police regarding policing of the Chinese President's visit to London. [96115]

  Mr. Battle
  (a) None. (b) I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) today.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hunting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to withhold all grants and subsidies to landowners and occupiers of land who allow hunting with hounds on their land. [95653]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's position on hunting was set out in the reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 715. For so long as hunting remains legal, there would be no grounds for withholding grants and subsidies in the manner suggested.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford) The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Agriculture
Lord Geraintasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the present state of the British agricultural industry is satisfactory.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the agriculture industry is currently facing serious difficulties and farm incomes are under pressure as a result. The Government have taken a number of steps to help, including a package of measures announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that many of the supermarkets with their marketing power and skills are forcing many farmers to sell their produce for less than production costs? Therefore will she intervene to safeguard the interests of family farms in view of the stranglehold that the supermarkets have on them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, a Competition Commission investigation is being undertaken with regard to the supermarkets at present and that is ongoing. believe the main point that the noble Lord makes is that we should consider the implications of this matter throughout the food chain and make retailers, wholesalers, producers and customers aware o the different points as regards adding value within that chain. That is an important point. It is an initiative that my right honourable friend has tried to take forward with a range of interests throughout the food industry. We hope to see that initiative bear results.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that family farms which have always been important in rural areas such as north Wales and parts of England are experiencing acute difficulties which are recognised? What advice can my noble friend give them to enable them to improve matters, or they will be destroyed?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we recognise the great difficulties under which farmers, particularly small family farmers—as my noble friend said—are labouring at the moment. That is one of the reasons that £60 million of the package which my right honourable friend announced is allocated to the hill livestock compensatory allowance which is
376
particularly valuable to hill farmers in Wales where I believe that nearly 25 per cent. of the sum will be allocated. I refer also to the waiving of charges for specified risk material and for cattle passport charges. We hope that those measures will help. Of course in the long term we look to the restructuring of the common agricultural policy as a way forward, but I do not suggest that there are not also immediate, short-term problems which we are trying to address.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that farming being a long-term business, there must be a long-term policy rather than a series of short-term policies which only wallpaper over the cracks in the industry?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on that point. That is why we have consulted widely on the Agenda 2000 package in relation to the future of the industry which undoubtedly will not remain the same. However, we need to look at that and, for example, at the growth in organic farming. Today my right honourable friend has announced £10 million—which I know will be welcome to Members of your Lordships' House who spoke on this subject on Friday—to help those who wish to convert to organic farming. Therefore we need to consider the long term and we need to work in Europe for a more radical reform of the common agricultural policy than that which was agreed in April. However, in the short term, because of the great difficulties that are being experienced, we are taking some immediate measures which we hope will help.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that an all out trade war would be a complete disaster for the British industry, particularly the sheep industry?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I realise that. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord and I hope that he will share his views with some of his more febrile colleagues in the House of Commons.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that having been in another place when there were crises in both the coalmining industry and the steel industry I have seen hundreds of thousands of people in those industries thrown on the unemployment register? I congratulate my noble friend, and through her the whole of Her Majesty's Government, on the superhuman efforts that they are making on behalf of the farming industry in this country.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for recognising that, in dealing with the crisis affecting farmers and with the potentially devastating effects on them and their families, we are not prepared to take the same kind of "hand washing" attitude as was taken as regards the decimation of some other industries.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the announcement of the £10 million in

377
respect of organic farming. We on this side of the House welcome that. However, does she not accept the importance of labelling, which I know we shall debate later? In order to help our farmers it is crucial for customers to be able to see clearly whether they are buying a British product. At the moment that is not the case. I hope that the Minister can support us on that issue which would be the best way to help our farmers.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can offer more than strength and support; I can offer positive action. Yesterday we issued a consultation document for public comment on strengthening guidelines to ensure that British labelling does not hide imported ingredients. These new guidelines highlight the importance to consumers of accurate and clear information. This matter has greatly concerned the pig industry in particular but it also has applications in other areas. We shall also lobby in Europe for a system of clear country of origin labelling and—as this is an international matter—with the Codex committee which considers this matter. Today we have also announced £5 million of marketing aid which we hope will help pig farmers and the pig meat industry in particular. We seek to make clear to consumers the high standards of home produced produce in terms of public health and animal welfare.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, surely there is plenty of time for both the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have now forgotten what I was going to say! Will the Minister tell me what benefit flowed to the consumer from the abolition of the Milk Marketing Board and the breaking-up of its successor, Milk Marque? To say that the price paid to farmers has fallen steeply is an understatement; it has fallen very steeply. I do not think that the Minister can point to any advantage to consumers of that action.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will be aware of the DTI investigation into Milk Marque which recommended a split on competition grounds. We hope that the split into three will be advantageous to consumers. There are potential advantages and opportunities for producers in the split although I am aware of difficulties in the short term.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider augmenting the efforts that they are already making in aid of the farming industry by taking steps at Council level of the European Union to ensure that the hundreds of millions of pounds that find their way from the British taxpayers' pocket to subsidise the production
378
of non-existent or substandard tobacco are diverted (when the budget is considered) to further aid the British farmer?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I said in reply to earlier questions that the CAP reforms agreed in April did not go as far as we would have wished or think necessary, and that some major sectors remain unreformed. We are committed to reforms that move agriculture away from excessive subsidies and supply controls to a more market-oriented position.

Ethiopia and Eritrea
3.10 p.m.
Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps they consider should be taken to bring about a permanent cease-fire and resolution of the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we are concerned that peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea remains elusive. We continue to urge both sides bilaterally, through the European Union and in the United Nations Security Council, to refrain from a return to military action and to accept and implement the Organisation of African Unity peace proposals immediately.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Eritrea has signed up to every letter of the OAU framework agreement—and the modalities and technical arrangements which accompany it—whereas, since the beginning of August, Ethiopia has continued to prevaricate? Only this week, Ethiopia told the special envoy, OAU President Bouteflika, that it will not sign up to the technical arrangements because there is no guarantee of a return to the status quo ante, the very issue which has to be determined by the UN Demarcation Commission. In view of the fact that the Ethiopians seem determined not to make peace, will her Majesty's Government, as a permanent member of the Security Council, take the issue back and bring further pressure to bear on Ethiopia to comply fully with the OAU framework agreement?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have taken every step to encourage the Ethiopians to accept and engage in the proposals. However, it is right to remember that Eritrea has only recently come to the table. It, too, has had its difficulties in the past. It is important now that Ethiopia be given every encouragement to engage fully. The Secretary of State for International Development has spoken to both Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia and President Isaias of Eritrea, on 13th and 19th October respectively. We continue to urge both sides to engage fully and constructively in this process. We sincerely hope that they will.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I was fortunate enough to be a member of a

379
parliamentary delegation which was invited to Ethiopia in July? We were treated very generously, for which I am extremely grateful. While we were there, our hosts seemed more concerned to promote their innocence and Eritrea's guilt than to seek peace. Will my noble friend take notice of the plea of the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, and put as much pressure as possible on Ethiopia to sign up to the accord now that Eritrea has done so? Ethiopia has had great respect for Britain since we liberated it from Mussolini in 1940.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have said already that both sides accept the framework proposals and the modalities for implementation presented by the OAU on 6th November 1998 and on 14th July 1999 respectively. Eritrea accepts the technical arrangements, but Ethiopia still has concerns about some of them. Along with the rest of the international community, we have consistently supported the OAU process since the start of the conflict. We shall continue with vigour to urge the Ethiopians to com,:, fully to the table. We acknowledge that they have agreed the framework. Obviously, we should now like to see that agreement taken forward into action.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is important to maintain the pressure on them for the benefit of the whole of the north-east corner of Africa? A bitter war will accelerate other conflicts.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are aware of that. We need to use pressure and encouragement. We are using every endeavour to encourage them to come to the table. Unless and until they do, fully and willingly, there will not be a proper resolution of this difficulty. Forcing and hammering them to do so with out understanding the sensitivities involved will not achieve what we want in the end; that is, a real, lasting peace.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister said that we continue to urge both sides to engage fully in the process. Does that not ignore the fact that Eritrea has signed up fully to the technical arrangements, whereas Ethiopia continues to argue about the detail—even though the Secretary-General's special envoy has said that the technical arrangements are an unalterable part of the framework agreement? In the circumstances, bearing in mind that there is an impasse, does the noble Baroness agree that the only step open to us is to take the matter back to the Security Council, which has not considered it since February?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I acknowledge entirely that Eritrea has accepted the arrangements. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that what is currently being done—in relation to encouragement, persuasion and a deal of pressure—is the most efficacious way forward. I know that the noble Lord is genuinely interested in resolving this difficulty, as are the Government. I hope that the noble
380
Lord will accept that the efforts being made by Her Majesty's Government are directed solely towards that end. We feel that what we are doing at the moment is the most efficacious way forward.

Crime and Police Numbers
3.16 p.m.
Lord McNallyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the latest published crime statistics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, these latest statistics represent the sixth consecutive year's fall in recorded crime figures. They indicate an underlying reduction in crime of 1.4 per cent and record that crimes of violence and domestic burglary are both down by 6 per cent. Welcome as these figures are, the Government refuse to be complacent and are absolutely clear that the real target is turning these gains into a sustained reduction in the long-term trends in crime.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as part of an anti-crime strategy, it is perfectly legitimate for a government to claim that greater mobility, higher technology and a willingness to privatise and outsource certain police functions mean that policing could be carried out with fewer policemen on the beat? Does he agree equally that it could be part of an anti-crime strategy for a government to commit themselves to more policemen on the beat? Would it not be dishonest to follow the first strategy and then claim credit for the second? In particular, can we expect to see the return of the 2,000 policemen who have disappeared from the streets of London during Sir Paul Condon's term of office? As regards that situation, Sir Paul said:
"The loss of 2,000 police officers puts pressure on every aspect of policing in the capital".
Will we have more policemen on the beat?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government recognise the importance that the public place on having a friendly bobby on the beat. We all recognise the importance and value of that. As a government, we have played our part in ensuring that the police have resources. In the current year we are increasing police spending by £7 billion. We are providing a further £1.24 billion over the next three years; and we gave a commitment at this year's party conference to recruit an additional 5,000 police officers over and above the 11,000 recruits already planned. We are right to ensure that establishment levels are up to the mark. I should remind the House that it was not this Government who took away from the Home Secretary the right to set establishment

381
levels. Your Lordships should support the expectations of the Government that chief constables will meet their establishment targets.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary's statement that 5,000 new police officers will be recruited does not in fact mean that there will be 5,000 additional police officers?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it plain and clear that we intend to see that money and resources are available to recruit an additional 5,000 police officers over and above the 11,000 recruits already planned.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the latest crime statistics show dramatic differences in detection rates between different police forces? Interestingly, the smaller forces such as Dyfed-Powys, Staffordshire, Cheshire and, dare I say, Durham, appear to come at the top. Given that smaller forces tend to be closer to the communities they serve, can the noble Lord take that into account when he is next pressured—as I am sure he is from time to time—to consider amalgamation of forces in order to achieve economies of scale? Bigger is not necessarily better.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with wisdom and experience on such matters, and who am I to differ with such wise words? The noble Lord makes an important and telling point. We must ensure that our police forces are well resourced and well supported so that they can do the job of ensuring peace and security on our streets and in our communities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood the Minister's response to the last question but one. Is he saying categorically, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that there will be 5,000 more policemen in service next year than there are this year?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not necessarily a yes or no situation.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The objective of the Government is to ensure that police forces around the country will be able to recruit an additional 5,000 police officers over and above the 11,000 recruits already planned.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister has quoted overall statistics. Is it correct that the statistics for rural crime show a rapid increase over the past 12
382
months? Bearing in mind that very few villages now have their own policeman, can the Minister tell us what the Government are proposing for them?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should not like the House to feel that our villages are police-free zones. They are not. Over the past few decades the number of police officers serving in this country has generally increased. I remind noble Lords that the trends last year in terms of crime statistics show a 1.4 per cent fall in the number of crimes recorded by the police. Violent crime was down by 6 per cent, with a fall of 10 per cent—
Noble Lords: Answer the question.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the question perfectly. The figures I have given cover the whole country. I shall be pleased to ensure that the noble Countess receives a precise breakdown between urban and rural crime. If that is what she wishes to have, I shall ensure that it is provided.
Earl Russell: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government know what percentage of those convicted of indictable offences have been disentitled to social security benefit and therefore are without legal means of support? If the Government do not know, will they try to find out?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl has asked a taxing question, and I am most grateful to him for it. I cannot give the answer he seeks today, but I shall find out whether such data are kept on record.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend accept my congratulations on the Government's initiatives? However, does he know that in some parts of the country the rise in crime has been enormous, including four offences at my own home over the past three months? Will he note particularly that in some areas elderly people living alone are at serious risk, which generates great fear? In one case known very well to me, a lady was so brutally assaulted that she spent more time in hospital—including a long period in intensive care—than the sentence given by the courts to the brutal thug who attacked her?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, first, I express my sympathy to my noble friend as it appears that he has been the victim of a minor crime wave. I should like to place on record the Government's continuing support for the endeavours of our hardworking police officers in their efforts to reassure the public, in particular the elderly and frail who are thus most vulnerable to crime. We must all play our part in supporting our police forces and those in the criminal justice system to ensure that the job is done properly.

Foreign Policy and Human Rights
3.24 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpoolasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the visit of President Jiang Zemin of China to London, they will set out the criteria in respect of human rights which underlie an ethical foreign policy.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government have placed human rights at the heart of foreign policy. We believe in the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core United Nations human rights instruments. We are committed to protecting and promoting these rights, working through our bilateral relationships and with our European Union and other international partners. In implementing this policy we take account of the individual characteristics of each situation, and seek to use the combination of approaches—of dialogue and pressure—that is most likely to secure real human rights improvements on the ground.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of an article this week in the New Statesman by John Lloyd stating that the ethical dimension of our foreign policy launched just over two years ago by this Government is now in great danger? Can the Minister assure the House that she is fully seized of the importance of protecting human rights in this country, particularly as regards the right to peaceful demonstration? It is only by example that we can expect to influence others.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can give the noble Earl that assurance. The ethical dimension of the Government's foreign policy is in fact a set of principles that informs all aspects of our policy-making. That means that we now give higher priority to human rights issues in our foreign policy, and the Government have made real changes. We have introduced tougher arms export licensing criteria and we have succeeded in persuading other European partners to implement similar criteria. In June 1998 at a conference in Rome, noble Lords know that we played a role in the agreement to set up the international criminal court. Furthermore, we have increased our support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. We have done a plethora of things to support the structure that ensures that human rights are a reality not only here in Great Britain.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that in the FCO's mission statement published just after the Government came into office there was a promise to promote the values of human rights and democracy for others that we demand for ourselves? Can the Minister tell us precisely what the Prime Minister did for the people of Tibet when President Jiang came here?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as noble Lords know, when President Jiang spoke with the
384
Prime Minister the subject of human rights was directly raised by the Prime Minister. Noble Lords will also recall that the day before that meeting, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had talks with his Chinese counterpart and directly raised specific human rights issues, including Tibet. The Government have not in any way failed to be conscious of the sensitivities of the issues raised on the question of Tibet, and we shall continue to be aware of that. We shall pursue the matter vigorously, but in the context of a framework of dialogue. In order to be effective, we must first be listened to, and for that we must have an ear that is receptive. That is what we are trying very hard to establish. A number of practical programmes have been undertaken with the Chinese that demonstrate the reality of what we are trying to do.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how often the by-law that forbids demonstrations in the Royal Parks has been invoked during previous state visits? When did the necessary consultation take place with the police on such an important decision affecting peaceful campaigners during the recent state visit?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot answer the first part of the noble Lord's question in relation to the Royal Parks, and I shall endeavour to contact him as regards that matter. In every other respect, I can respond to the issues raised by the noble Lord. There was no difference in the procedure and protocol used in the preparations for the most recent visit by President Jiang from those used for every other state visit. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, nothing differed on that occasion.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I recognise that the Government have done considerable and challenging things for human rights. Indeed, the noble Baroness did not even refer to our involvement in Kosovo and East Timor which was very much to do with supporting human rights. However, will she consider two other points? First, occasionally speaking publicly rather than privately can be part of a dialogue, as President Clinton's speech in Beijing indicated. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister might think about that. Secondly, will she consider the idea of pursuing the issue of human rights with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which in many cases is an excellent route to reach the Government of China and which is much more open to discussion with other countries than are the formal Government of that country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her supportive comments. I shall certainly take her recommendation very seriously into account. As I said earlier, Her Majesty's Government have done many practical things in relation to the dialogue. I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor himself went to China and signed a memorandum of understanding on future co-operation with the Minister of Justice there. We have

385
been looking at practical programmes in terms of the judiciary, the rule of law, students and so on—many matters that will demonstrate not just now but in the future the importance of respecting human rights in China. We are pursuing those important, practical, on the ground achievements with rigour; and, if I may say so, with a great deal of vigour and energy.

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, 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 Thursday 4th November next and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next Session the agent for the Bill deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill which was brought from the Commons 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.

London Local Authorities 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 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 Thursday 4th November next;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the
386
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.

Food Standards Bill
3.32 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Food Standards Agency]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("main").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the Committee stage I suggested that, as the provision is worded, it could be taken to imply that the agency may have or may acquire minor objectives which are not on the face of the Bill. I felt that that was not the Government's intention. In her reply the Minister stated:
"I suspect that … we are not particularly at variance in terms of purpose".—[Official Report, 12/10/99; col. CWH 9.]
She then went on to explain why the Government felt that my suggested amendment was unnecessary as drafted. This new version of my amendment is intended simply to clarify that the agency's purpose is twofold; namely, public health protection and wider consumer protection matters. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for once again raising this point. I am obviously something of a "parliamentolic" because when I went home yesterday evening I watched the parliamentary channel on television. I caught two items. One concerned the House of Commons—the other place—and the other concerned the Committee for Privileges, whose deliberations I found fascinating. I came to realise the importance of the first clause of a Bill. It was explained in great detail by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
In the Grand Committee and at subsequent meetings we discussed the purpose of Clause 1. As it is currently set out, it expresses very adequately and correctly what we all want the Bill to do. The removal of the word "main", which is what the amendment proposes, would quite severely restrict what the food standards agency could do, and all of the matters on which I was asking for clarification in Grand Committee—nutrition, openness and other issues that will arise later in our deliberations—would be

387
automatically excluded. For that reason it is not possible for us to support the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that raising these points at a later stage of the Bill, as we have sought to do, is a more appropriate approach.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am surprised to find my two amendments, Amendments Nos. 2 and 21, grouped with Amendment No. 1 because they seem to be entirely in a contrary sense. If anything, they seek to widen the scope of the Bill rather than to narrow it. They refer to points which I raised in Committee.
At present, Clause 1(2) specifies the main objectives of the agency in carrying out its functions as,
"to protect public heath from risks … and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers".
Everything turns on what the word "interests" means. Does it or does in lot include wishes and preferences; or does it mean what the agency thinks would be good for the consumer? As the Bill is drafted, there is a real risk that the agency will interpret its duties in the latter sense; that is, to do good for the consumer—the nanny state—rather than being also concerned about the interests and wishes of the consumer. If that happens, we shall have to say goodbye to consumer preference and we shall say goodbye to variety, flavour, local traditional products and so forth. Already, the European Union has taken us far down that route. I do not believe that that is what the public want. Where risks are small and gastronomic benefits, to some at least, are great, I do not believe that consumers should be forbidden from purchasing foods. They should be informed of the risks and be allowed to behave like adults and make a choice. That is what we do about alcohol and smoking. That is what is right and that is what the public want. Amendments Nos. 2 and 21 would make it clear that the agency must have regard to consumer preferences and use proportionality in defining and policing what consumers are allowed to buy.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Northbourne and in doing so support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in his unwillingness to support the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. There are all kinds of different expectations about foods. We live in a multi-racial and multi-ethnic country. I think immediately of the Jamaicans who like their meat nearly rotten. An environmental health officer who saw that meat could immediately condemn it. Is it right that we should forbid them to eat the kind of product that they have been used to eating all their lives and which they enjoy because someone thinks that there might be a few bugs in it, especially when the meat is going to be cooked? There are other aspects with regard to fruit and vegetables. For example, we have often had discussions in your Lordships' House about the size of apples. Children like little apples and one cannot buy little apples in supermarkets. I strongly support the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, with regard to removing the word "main", a Bill as far-reaching as this one
388
should have on its face a clear objective. If it has more than one clear objective, those objectives should also be listed as the objectives of the Bill and the agency which it seeks to set up.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, after the objective set out in Clause 1(2) which is described as the "main" objective, what other objectives are set out in the Bill? If there are no other objectives, surely the word "main" is otiose.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I, too, am slightly surprised at this grouping. The first amendment is of enormous importance. The word "main" is very damaging. There is no definition later in the Bill of other duties that might be performed by the various committees and authorised persons. Those duties might be anything.
This is a fairly powerful measure. Again people are allowed to enter premises, question, take away samples and so forth. It would be nice, indeed proper, to know that this provision relates merely to food safety and nothing else, instead of leaving the whole situation hanging. The reference is to the "main objective". The suggestion is that there are other, hidden objectives—a hidden agenda. We are dealing with a perfectly sensible food standards Bill. Let us merely indicate that objective, and not hint at other objectives that might arise later.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I am not so concerned with the word "main". However, I hope that the Minister, in replying, might elucidate "protect", which I believe to be the key word. There is a great deal of difference between protecting consumers by warning them, and protecting them by prevention. It is an entirely different matter. I hope that the Minister will make that point clear.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, this short but interesting debate has illustrated the importance of the clause. We debated its structure and meaning at some length in Grand Committee. The debate has also illustrated that once we begin to deconstruct individual words we recognise why parliamentary counsel choose them very carefully. It is possible for them to mean different things to different people, and their meaning in normal parlance may be different from their meaning in statute. The debate and the amendments tabled suggest that further clarification is needed in regard to Clause 1(2). I hope it will be helpful to the House if I recap on the intended effect of that provision.
The "main objective" as set out in Clause 1(2) provides the agency with a clear and unequivocal main objective consisting of two related goals: first, and most importantly, of protecting public health in relation to food; secondly, of protecting the wider food-related interests of consumers. We shall discuss the importance of labelling later in our discussions. I know that it is a particular concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.

389
However, I must emphasise that the word "main" applies to the objective as a whole and not merely to the public health protection part of the clause. The provision therefore encapsulates the agency's central purpose without implying that any aspect of it is optional.
That is particularly important because food safety and nutrition, which are broadly covered by public health protection—the issue referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes—cannot easily be separated from the wider consumer interests dealt with in the second part of the objective. When we discussed nutrition at an earlier stage the point was made how important it was not only to take a microbiological view of safety but to be able to look to the long-term health implications of nutrition and the advice that the agency might make available. However, the fact that public health protection comes first makes clear that it takes priority over the latter part of the objective. That point was made during the course of the debate.
Some noble Lords have suggested that the word "main" is otiose. The word is used also to reflect the fact that the agency will have other objectives that supplement the primary objective. Some of those are already provided for in the Bill. For example, the objectives of consultation, liaison and openness are referred to in Clause 22(2) dealing with the agency's statement of objectives and practices; and the supplementary objectives on animal feed matters are contained in Clause 9. The main objective is spelt out in Clause 1. But as we discussed at some length in Grand Committee, the agency should also have the objective, for example, of being a transparent and accountable public body. It is not the main objective—the main purpose for which it is set up is the protection of public health—but it would be wrong to deny that the agency should have an objective of behaving in a proper manner and—I shall shortly refer to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—also a proportionate manner. Those are objectives, but they are not necessarily set out in Clause 1(2).
Clause 22 also provides for the agency to introduce further objectives of its own. Those could, for example, be used to elaborate on the areas of activity that the main objective provided for in Clause 1 will cover, or to describe more fully how the agency intends to carry out its functions. Amendments have been tabled which encourage exactly that kind of approach in order to expatiate on some of the issues raised in Committee.
The main objective in Clause 1 does not, therefore, exclude subsidiary objectives. However, perhaps I may reassure the House that it does not mean that the agency will be able to redefine its fundamental purpose by drawing up new objectives. The whole point of making it a main objective is to set down the essential scope of the agency's activities. Limiting it in the way that the amendment purports to do would be unduly rigid. It would also lead to inconsistency with the provisions of Clause 22.
390
I reiterate what I said in Committee. I believe that the objectives of all sides of the House are very close, and that the main objective is clearly and specifically defined. There are real difficulties in attempting to draw it too tightly. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing the amendment.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 2 and 21, the first of which relates to the agency's main objective. I agree that the agency's actions should not have an unfair or disproportionate impact on specialist minority or niche food producers. I should also like to record how significant a part of our strength and diversity as a food producing nation such products are. Many of them represent a distinct part of our food heritage, the value of which I believe our trading partners overseas, as well as consumers in this country, are beginning to recognise. I hope that some of the marketing aids that were recently announced will provide help to the industry. It is therefore most important that the agency should not behave in a way that is liable to cause unreasonable damage to consumers' interests in enjoying the healthy diversity of food products and food qualities.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that it is going too far to suggest that the agency should take a proactive role in protecting consumers' preferences in relation to matters of taste, texture or character, as the first of these amendments seems to imply. These are ultimately matters of both personal choice and personal definition. They are for the market rather than the regulatory authority to determine. We have all seen how consumer preferences are changeable. It would be difficult for the agency to protect them in a coherent way. We all have experience of food that is appetising but not nutritious and, equally, food that is nutritious but not appetising. There are difficulties in trying to put those kinds of definitions into the statute.
However, I understand the concerns that have been expressed. Noble Lords may be reassured to learn that the agency will be required under Clause 22 to consult consumers and their representatives on its activities. By virtue of Clause 23 the agency is bound to take account of any costs or risks relating to taste, diversity and so on that consumers identify. I am sure that those who represent the interests of minority groups of consumers will make their views known. The agency will also be required to consult, where relevant, representatives of those who produce specialist or minority products. The same duty to take accounts of risks, costs and benefits will ensure that the agency's actions and decisions do not have an unreasonable or disproportionate impact on their interests. We do not believe that the agency would retain public support if it took an over-the-top or heavy-handed regulatory approach, and we would not expect it to do so.
As a further safeguard, the agency will be required to operate within the framework of better regulation and adhere to its basic objectives. We have given a commitment that the agency's statement of objectives and practices will embrace the principle of better regulation, and that is where the concept of

391
proportionality is so important. The agency will be held accountable, and its actions may be open to judicial review in cases where it acts unreasonably.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is reassured as to the rigour of the constraints under which the agency will operate both under the Bill and in the broader context of government. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness is prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may seek clarification. I do not understand the position. Is the noble Baroness saying—as I hope—that the principle of proportionality will be written into a statement of objectives or government guidelines, or is that just the pious hope of the Government?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the agency will be required to operate within the framework of better regulation. That framework clearly states the need to assess costs and benefit and to act proportionately. We have given a commitment that that is a general responsibility on public bodies. But we have given the further commitment that the agency's statement of objectives and practices will embrace exactly the principle of better regulation so that the way in which the agency operates is made explicit. That is a precise response to the question of proportionality and the need to avoid heavy-handedness, as discussed in Grand Committee.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who supported the amendment. I am still somewhat perplexed by her response and the fact that it appears that "main" is not necessary in its present context in the Bill. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No 2 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("through the institution throughout the United Kingdom of a labelling regime").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3 I speak also to Amendment No. 9 which is linked with it. These amendments deal with the question of labelling which we debated at great length in Grand Committee. Amendment No. 3 seeks to insert the words,
"through the institution throughout the United Kingdom of a labelling regime".
I doubt that any in this Chamber and those beyond have missed the hectic events of the past few days. There have been many pronouncements by senior functionaries involved in farming and food processing and by MAFF, the Department of Health, the Foreign Office, and so on. Action has been taken by supermarkets and education authorities and there have been many protests by enraged farmers. Today, pig farmers have protested outside. We have seen the
392
effects of BSE, dioxin and sewage sludge. Too many have suffered from E.coli, salmonella and listeria and still the Bill contains no reference to labelling.
This Bill has probably more public support than any other single measure introduced by the Government; it carries an enormous amount of popular expectation. The public want labelling, as the Consumers' Association has confirmed. The public want to know the origin of the food they buy and will not understand legislation that does not specifically charge the food standards agency with the duty to introduce a comprehensive, compulsory labelling scheme. Mark the important word "compulsory". There are those of us who fear that if the agency is not charged on the face of the Bill with the duty to deal with labelling, it will be all the easier for businesses, and entire nations, to avoid it.
As to Amendment No. 9, for many years we have recognised that certain religions do not allow their adherents to eat certain items. Similarly, it is standard practice for specimen menus to contain a sentence at the bottom to the effect that a vegetarian menu is available on request. In Grand Committee many references were made to the fact that some people have allergies. We now see the growth of consumerism to regulate the methods used to kill animals and prepare food. The outcry against genetically modified crops or the use of antibiotics as marker genes may be media inspired; it is nevertheless lasting fairly well. The revulsion against veal crates led to a famous ban. The rules that regulate our abattoirs are not grounded solely in the BSE crisis. The British rejected the killing of animals that had not been properly stunned and the slitting of the throats of millions of conscious birds. They also stopped, perhaps temporarily, the irradiation of food produce.
With this increasing fastidiousness come doubts and questions about how sure we can be that the food we eat is not genetically modified, contaminated with pesticides or antibiotics, covered in bacteria or produced from animals that have been treated inhumanely. Earlier this year I asked the noble Lord. Lord Donoughue, whether he would confirm or deny a report that Portuguese abattoirs were flouting the EU slaughtering regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, answered my query, for which I was grateful. She confirmed that the rules were not being properly adhered to.
The interesting, and apparently unanswerable, question is: what happened to the meat which was produced under sub-standard conditions? Did any of us eat it? Did it go to our food processors and end up in steak and kidney pies, beef chop suey, pork pies or chicken tikka? Can we be sure that tonnes of this meat cannot still be found in European meat stores or reposing in home deep freezers all over the Continent? These may sound flippant questions, but they are crucially important.
One of the reasons why there are no answers to some of these questions is that the labelling of our food products to show the country of origin is not standard throughout Europe. Moreover, it is frequently

393
intimated that it is illegal to demand that imported goods indicate the country of origin. I quote from an Answer given by Mr Rooker to Mr Gray in March 1999:
"Rules on the labelling of food products are harmonised by EC legislation. Generally, the place (but not necessarily the country) of origin of any food must be given if omitting it could mislead the purchaser about the true place of origin of that food. The place of origin may be taken as the place in which the food last underwent a substantial change".
He went on to say:
"More specifically, the Beef Labelling Scheme requires that any beef labelled with country of origin information must derive from animals born, reared and slaughtered in that country. National origin labelling of beef is expected to become compulsory from the year 2000".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/99; WA 189.]
Since my preparation for my response, many events have happened over the weekend. In this Chamber last Friday we welcomed the report from the European Union on organic farming and the European Union. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to a section on imports on page 10. It states:
"Documentary evidence demonstrating that the imported products were manufactured according to production and inspection rules equivalent to those applicable in the EU must be provided along with the application. All organic products, whether imported or produced with the EU, must be traceable back to the farm of origin".
The report earlier lays down stringent rules.
On 22nd October, the MAFF release stated that new GM labelling measures will be agreed in Europe. In his speech yesterday to the NFU, Nick Brown spoke of products and labelling, and said:
"I am particularly concerned at the development of products with labels with British sounding names that are being used to market imported pig meat".
Indeed, I have raised the issue several times in this House, as have my honourable friends in another place. He continued:
"I am determined to tackle the issue of misleading labels, and I am today issuing new, strengthened guidance to Trading Standards Officers to act upon cases of misleading British brand names on geographic association … given to imported produce. I have three objectives: To give clear information on real place of origin—not the place of processing or place of slicing".
All noble Lords in this Chamber would welcome that. Too often produce which has not been produced and finished in this country has a British stamp on it. Recently when someone opened a piece of pork which was understood to be a British product the word "Danish" had not even been removed from the side. It is a disgrace. Nick Brown continued to list his objectives:
"To clamp down on misleading place of origin descriptions. And to make further progress on lobbying the European Commission and other member states for a system of clear origin labelling. I am seeking to have this raised in Codex committee on fool labelling"—
the Minister responded to that issue earlier at Question Time—
"and I will be raising the issue with our friends and allies in the United States when I next meet for bilateral discussions".
I could go on. There are many examples of that big problem that we face.
An important new agency is being established. As I said in Grand Committee, I find it extremely worrying that there is no direct reference in the Bill to labelling. In many instances, it refers to "information", but as I said in Grand Committee, information and labelling are totally different. The Minister having had a chance to reflect upon what I said then, and my highlighting of the difficulties we face, I hope that the noble Baroness can respond with more encouraging news.
It seems that we can label our own produce—the agency could draw up guidelines to ensure that we do so—and retailers have to abide by that. For some produce even Europe is prepared to insist on national labelling. I believe that the Bill should lay upon the agency a duty to introduce origin labelling of all food products sold in this country and at the same time demand ancillary information of great interest and importance to our consumers. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. However, I can foresee a number of enormous difficulties in particular on Amendment No. 9; not least of those is the difficulty of providing on small products a label which is large enough for the consumer to read. In Grand Committee I was somewhat laughed at for talking about being a "small cheese producer"—making small cheeses. I explained then that there would be that difficulty.
I foresee other problems; for example, how do we deal with retailers of loose fruit and vegetables? Is every single piece of fruit or vegetable to have a label with its nutritional value, country of origin and all the other information which the noble Baroness seeks?
Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Baroness does not ask for the amendment to be dealt with at this stage, but takes it away and puts in a number of exemptions. For example, a producer or packer who is selling direct to the consumer could be exempted because he is there to talk to the consumer about his product.
There is a problem when referring to ingredients. At present, in some cases if an ingredient comprises less than, I think, 2 per cent of the final product it does not have to appear on the label. There may well be such exemptions. I should very much like to support the noble Baroness on this amendment, but I cannot do so.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I support what my noble friend said with great lucidity, like a breath of fresh air after the emanations from the Government side during these difficult weeks. However, I am almost in despair at getting across my message about labelling.
The noble Baroness is right. Of course it is necessary for consumers to have all the information in order to inform themselves, but key to that is the way in which the information is presented. My noble friend spoke of comprehensive regulations. That is fine. But they must also be uniform. If they are not uniform, one will not be able to compare goods. I said that at length in Grand Committee; I shall not do so again.

395
Under the present proposal, one could have a label with a huge list of ingredients in tiny print, printed in grey on white. Noble Lords may think that that suggestion is far fetched. I assure them that that occurs even among the most laudable of our retailers and manufacturers. They often do their best, but in the absence of regulations it is difficult for them.
My noble friend's remarks on Amendment No. 9 do not refer to health claims that are made. That is referred to clearly in the American legislation. I gave the Minister a copy of it. Having retrieved her spectacles, I hope that she has had an opportunity to consider it. Health claims are made: "Healthy choice this; healthy choice that". Only today I ground to a halt at the confectionery department of Selfridges when I heard a lady demonstrating some chocolate for a manufacturer which she represented. She said, "This chocolate contains 70 per cent chocolate so it is much better for you than any other chocolate because it has less sugar". Had it been a French company, I would have intervened on the spot. However, it was a Swiss company and under the circumstances I thought that perhaps it was not the right moment to do so. But that is an example of misinformation.
When the Minister responds, I hope that she will give us some hope about presentation and uniformity of labelling regulations. and on the issue of health claims.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we on these Benches have considerable sympathy for the objectives set out in the amendments, particularly in the light of the events of the past few weeks and the heart-felt speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. We debated these issues at considerable length in Committee. Like the noble Countess, Lady Mar, we do not believe that the amendment will do the job required of it. It appears to limit the effect of Clause 1 rather than extend its ambit and that gives us considerable cause for doubt.
We also believe that the amendment is overprescriptive in its intention. The regime it imposes would create great difficulties for a number of food producers. However, we welcome the speech made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture. We do not believe in an overhasty reaction to such matters. We believe that improved food labelling is necessary, but it must be considered and be the subject of consultation.
In Committee, the Minister assured us that labelling is clearly part of the objectives of the agency. We on these Benches accept that. However, it would be of great value to hear from the Minister precisely what steps will take forward what the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday. We believe that his move was constructive, but how will it be applied? What statutory powers will the Secretary of State and the agency have to improve labelling? Will he be given only guidance, or will he be given something with more teeth in order to ensure that consumers are genuinely reassured that our food is safe?
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lady Byford in her amendment. Not only
396
should we be showing the end purchasers exactly what they are buying but we should indicate the stages that meat, in particular, goes through from manufacturing, the slaughterhouse and processing. Consumers should have the ability to trace such foods.
I am still not confident that when I send a bullock to market with all its ear tags I will get the same bullock back from the slaughterhouse. The labelling is such that when I buy back the carcass of an animal I have sold at market, even before much has been done to it, I cannot be confident that the animal is mine because the ears are no longer on it. I am not confident about the ability to trace products through the system. We must press hard for a better labelling system or we shall not get far down this road. Perhaps the Minister can explain the steps which will be taken next.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I support the amendment for the reasons expressed so admirably by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. If one wants to avoid excessive governmental nannying and bossiness in this area one should ensure thorough and comprehensive labelling and then allow adults to make up their minds about what to eat and what to avoid.
My noble friend Lady Mar added some valuable and pertinent caveats. If the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, wants the amendment accepted today, perhaps she will undertake to introduce further amendments at Third Reading incorporating the suggestions made by my noble friend.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Byford. I fear that we shall fall into the trap of saying that labelling is all too difficult and that therefore we shall not attempt it. The proposal is prescriptive and the problem is difficult, but that is no excuse for postponing taking action. I also support what was said by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes about the difficulty in labelling, for example, a small portion of cheese showing the country of origin, how it was made and its ingredients. Labelling is also difficult if the print is small and black against a colour and is squashed together so that it cannot be read adequately. All that causes problems, but surely it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to solve them.
I find most disconcerting a practice which began, I believe, in the United States of America: product labelling which includes a detailed list of the ingredients. On a bottle of shampoo, for instance, the first item listed is aqua. Bearing in mind that not many of us have a classical education today, nobody knows what the hell aqua is. It is a huge minefield.
I do not subscribe to the view that people are being deliberately misled by manufacturers agreeing in principle to labelling but making it impossible for consumers to find out what is in the product. However, I plead with the Minister to do something. We have in front of us a Bill called the Food Standards Bill and it is most important that all of us should be able to judge what we buy and what we eat. Without nannying, we should then be allowed to make our own judgment. I support my noble friend's amendment in principle.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness has moved the amendment. I do not expect my noble friend to include it in the Bill, but it gives her another chance to explain the Government's position on the nutritional labelling of foods. I hope that that includes nutritional and health claims, too. Perhaps my noble friend will also explain how we should progress with EU harmonisation because it is difficult for us to move alone.
As has been said, it is through labelling that consumers will be able to exercise their choice of foods, particularly those which are packaged or processed. In order for consumers to be able to do that properly, all foods, except perhaps some fresh foods which are of standard composition, should be labelled or categorised clearly and effectively.
I also hope that my noble friend will be able to say that the food standards agency will conduct research into labelling and its effectiveness in helping people to make healthy choices. At the same time, it should examine how effective advertising is in persuading people, particularly children, to make the wrong choices and to consume diets which harm their teeth and general health and make them too fat.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I believe that some labels will be too large. It will be difficult to judge what to put on, say, a tin containing a complicated mix of food and what it is reasonable to leave off. I am worried about showing on the label whether or not the food is genetically modified. Soya is imported into this country in large bulk from North and South America and it soon finds its way into tins on the supermarket shelves. My informants tell me that in North and South America there is little soya that is not genetically modified. It is called RR soya—round-up resistance soya—and it gets into almost everything. I wonder what we can do in a situation like that.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I, too, want to support my noble friend Lady Byford. This morning I heard on the news the chairman of the EU food committee saying many alarming things about the fact that France, for instance, admits that it has worse problems with BSE than it previously thought. He went on to say that he thought something should be done about that. He also said as regards the foods now in the marketplace that the most important thing for consumers was to be able to make an intelligent choice and to buy food that was safe so far as they could possibly be informed. How can they do that if there is no information on that foodstuff in the form of labelling?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am also generally in support of the amendment, but I have a query on Amendment No. 9 on the labelling of the system of production. Perhaps the Minister, when she replies, or my noble friend in winding up could answer my questions. Would such labelling show whether meat came from animals which had been routinely fed with low doses of antibiotics to make certain that they did
398
not fall ill? Such antibiotics can make humans resistant to antibiotics. Would it also show that fruit or vegetables had been sprayed—I understand sometimes as many as 12 or 13 times—with different herbicides or insecticides?
Although I have no medical qualifications whatever, I understand that the number of people suffering from different kinds of allergy is increasing in this country and probably in the West as a whole. I wonder whether all the chemical sprays used on foods might not be one of the causes of those allergies.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. In particular, as a member of Sub-Committee D of the Select Committee on the European Communities, I have become increasingly aware, during our deliberations on our last two reports on genetically modified organisms and on organic farming, of the huge importance of labelling.
The Bill is remiss in that it does not draw attention to the labelling issue at the front of the Bill. I am relieved to note that the European Union recently introduced a directive giving a threshold for labelling of genetically modified content. I am fully aware that this is a minefield. Does a cow that eats genetically modified maize silage produce antibiotic resistance? There are all sorts of complex dimensions in terms of processing and trace elements. Overall, it is a tremendously important issue. It is important to pay particular note to the labelling issue at the outset.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should like to echo those last words: this is a tremendously important issue. That has been clear from contributions throughout the House. I also make it clear that it is a tremendously important and wide-ranging issue on which the food standards agency will have lead responsibility. Perhaps I may suggest that in the debate we have had, we have gone a little way towards doing the job of the agency for it in telling it exactly how the job needs to be done. That is fine, and I agree that perhaps the wit of women should be applied to this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, quite rightly showed ways in which the agency could work in this area.
However, I must bring the House back to the amendments themselves, to see whether they are necessary in order for the agency to deliver what the whole House wants it to deliver. I refer to high quality, informative labelling on which consumers can then make their own choices. That is the issue with which these amendments confront us. I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that those powers are clear within the framework in which we are setting up the agency.
In Grand Committee I said that the agency's responsibility for labelling is central to its role as well as being a matter of considerable concern to consumers. Clause 7 makes it clear that the agency has a role to provide consumers with the information they need. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford,

399
who said that labelling information was not the same as labelling. Labelling is one aspect of it, but the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, made it clear to us, with the American document which she showed the House, that giving consumers the power and knowledge by which to interpret labelling is equally important.
The issue of health claims and of how things are presented is extremely important. The agency will have a wide range of information responsibilities, including labelling. I repeat the assurances that we have given throughout the debate that the way in which the Bill is drafted covers labelling. There is no doubt that the term,
"interests of consumers in relation to food",
covers labelling. That expression appears both in the agency's main objective in Clause 1 and at various other places throughout the Bill.
The Bill makes it clear that the food standards agency will be the main source of advice to Ministers on the use of the powers in the Food Safety Act. The Bill is about setting up the structure of the agency. It is not intended to put in force the powers themselves, which are contained in the Food Safety Act 1990.
I realise that people want to see the word "labelling" appear in legislation. It does so in the Food Safety Act. It may perhaps provide a helpful reassurance if I remind noble Lords that Section 15 of the Food Safety Act deals with the offences relating to falsely describing or presenting food, which includes the use of misleading labelling. Perhaps most importantly here, the regulation-making power in Section 16 clearly provides the basis to regulate labelling, along with a number of related matters which we should not downplay.
Perhaps it might be helpful if I read the provisions into the record. Section 16 states:
"The Ministers may by regulations make…
(e) provision for imposing requirements or prohibitions as to, or otherwise regulating, the labelling, marking, presenting or advertising of food, and the descriptions which may be applied to food".
I do not believe that there is any doubt that the existing framework of legislation provides the necessary powers.
Amendment No. 3 would require the agency to institute a labelling regime throughout the United Kingdom. That is a rather curiously narrow role in relation to labelling, since the agency's remit goes much wider and covers advice and information to the public. I also remind the noble Baroness that we already have a labelling regime provided for by the EU labelling directive and in our own legislation. This is a matter of Community confidence, and we have to work within the labelling regime that already applies in Community law.
Noble Lords have raised the issue of genetically modified ingredients in food. I can perhaps reassure the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that if GM ingredients, as either soya or maize—the two European-approved GM products—are contained within foods sold in this country, that food has to be labelled and marked as
400
such. Within the European Community we recently extended that provision to additives and flavourings, which was an important area.
In the interests of making consumers better aware, we also recently brought in regulations to ensure that the labelling requirements for GM foods extend to people buying food in restaurants and supermarkets. In order that restaurants could deliver on that, last week in Europe steps were taken to ensure that bulk supplies for restaurants would also be labelled appropriately so that those running restaurants and take-aways could assure themselves about the information they were giving to customers. That is one aspect of the issue of traceability which was raised.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she telling us that the Food Safety Act 1990 protects us from our concerns about food not being properly labelled? How does the situation come about which we were discussing earlier whereby chicken which had been pre-packed in one country was stamped as being British? Will the noble Baroness explain how we can feel safe about this aspect of labelling?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not saying that people feel safe. We are dealing with the issue of how the regime for which this amendment provides is applied. We are concerned about country-of-origin labelling and the fact that it may be misleading to consumers. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, quoted at some length from the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture about consultation with local trading standards officers. The consultation was designed to ensure that the officers take effective action—which they can do under the Food Safety Act—against misleading labelling, and to ensure that we do not let the guidance notes do anything other than impress upon all concerned that origin indications on food should be clear and not misleading. Some of those points emerge when we see what people do: the way in which flags have been misused or say "produced in Britain" or whatever. We wish to tighten up on those practices which we believe are misleading.
I also believe that it is important that we have improvements in the labelling rules at a European and international level as well as at a domestic level. Therefore, while we have taken that action in terms of tightening up within the Food Safety Act, we are also taking action within Europe to see whether we may extend more satisfactorily the issue of nationality labelling. This is not only a European issue; it is a matter of international trade. Codex Alimentarius has a committee on labelling which must ensure that the agency, with its clear remit of protecting the interests of consumers in relation to food, will take the lead in pressing for improved labelling.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, could I just ask the noble Baroness a question relating to something that she said about GM food a moment ago? I read

401
that there is to be a tolerance of about 1 per cent or something with GM food for labelling. Is that so or not?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the tolerance level recommended last week was up to 1 per cent for an individual ingredient. Because of the small amount of individual ingredients in terms of a finished product, the up to 1 per cent will be less than that in finished products. That is why the supermarkets are saying that if a ready-made meal contains some cornflour which might have come from genetically modified maize, the levels would in fact be much smaller. That 1 per cent was supported by countries within Europe on the basis that it was reliably detectable in an ingredient throughout Europe and that it should be reduced if possible when there were assured supplies of non-GM sourced material which come with separation. That is being consumer driven throughout the European Community, North America, South America and elsewhere.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she will be aware that there was supposed to have been a review of food labelling in this country at the beginning of 1998. That did not take place. In the context of what she proposes for the future, will she say why it did not take place and subsequently what will take place?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have told the noble Baroness of some of the work which we are doing, particularly on country-of-origin labelling, which is so topical at the moment. I have also spoken about the work that we are doing within Europe and within the international community. We are also looking—this partly relates to the issue of traceability raised by the noble Viscount—at the issue of marketing. Consumers and, indeed, producers want to be able to trace back the food that they buy so that they can tell exactly where and how it was produced.
Modern technology and distribution systems make better traceability a real possibility. Despite the problems referred to by the noble Viscount, the introduction of cattle traceability has been a major step forward. Increasingly, producers are developing quality assurance schemes which give greater information on where food comes from and how it has been produced. The Government have strongly supported those moves and the agency will continue to do so. There is great scope for providing better information for consumers by putting quality assurance markers on the label. Again, it is very important that the agency makes clear what those quality assurance markers mean.
Perhaps I may reassure noble Lords who have expressed concern that the Food Safety Act is not the only way in which it will be made explicit that labelling is a responsibility of the agency. The agency will be able to set out its general objectives in relation to labelling in its statement of objectives and practices, which will be prepared under the provisions
402
of Clause 22. We also expect the agency to set up a good system for keeping the public informed about what it is doing and what its objectives are, so that that is all absolutely transparent. We must not forget that the agency will operate openly and that Clause 19 will enable it to publish its advice, including advice to Ministers.
Perhaps I may also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who asked a particular question about Portuguese abattoirs. Following the adverse report on the hygiene conditions in Portuguese abattoirs, I understand that the Commission took a decision to prohibit the export of meat from Portugal in order to ensure that consumer health was protected. Similarly, it acted when an analogous problem arose with Belgian products containing dioxins and it was recognised that there was a risk to health. Therefore, action was taken in that particular area.
I have been at pains to reassure noble Lords that there is no lack of a legislative basis, now or in the future, for the Government to take appropriate action on labelling. The food standards agency will have responsibility as the prime adviser to government in this area. However, some of this will not be undertaken by a regime set up by the food standards agency. For example, the issue of extending—which we wish to do—the marking of GM ingredients in animal feed will be something we have to pursue at a European level. I believe that at the moment we are all aware of the need for clear labelling on animal feed, as well as clear enforcement of the laws on animal feed.
The agency will take steps to improve the labelling regime which operates within the EU context and the way in which the agency's advisory role on labelling will be made completely transparent to the public. I emphasise once again that I do not believe that the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness will be helpful. However, I understand that she believes that consumers would in some way be reassured if, from reading the Bill, they could see that the agency was responsible for labelling. I believe we may have a divergence of opinion as to whether many people will gain that kind of reassurance from reading the Bill. I believe that "by their actions shall they be judged", and that it is by taking a proactive, consumer-protecting approach that the agency will really show what it is doing.
I cannot accept these amendments in their present form because of the difficulties that I have outlined in terms of competence for various levels of labelling in various institutions. If the noble Baroness wants me to consider whether there is some way in which I can meet some of her concerns, even at this late stage in the passage of the Bill, and if she is willing to withdraw this amendment now, I would certainly—
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Before she sits down perhaps I can remind all noble Lords that this Bill was drafted at a time when there were concerns about food and about all the problems we have encountered since the BSE, E.coli and salmonella scares. The reality is that this subject has now gathered momentum. The last

403
thing we want to do is to make legislation on the hoof in response to what people may call a bit of hype and hysteria—I could say "hysteria about listeria"! I ask the Minister to think about this matter. When reading the 1990 Bill I thought that it was fine, but it is now 1999. Not only have we to consider the current situation, but also the build-up of circumstances since 1990.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I appreciate the way in which the noble Baroness has phrased her views. I believe that she recognises from her experience the difficulty of specifying one element, on which the public have focused at a particular time, out of a range of activities rather than dealing with the whole range of activities. When the agency is set up in April, the public may focus on different issues. We all know the difficulty of lists in legislation.
Once again, I can reassure the House that the legislative basis is already in place to take the sort of action that the House wants the agency to take on labelling. Of course, in view of the pleas that have been made and without undermining the principle of not going into every aspect of the work that the agency has to cover, I shall see whether we can accommodate the concerns expressed today.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. We have spoken about the matter several times, and we had a long debate in Grand Committee. Now that we are in the main Chamber, the Minister will appreciate the immense feeling and desire that we should have labelling on the face of the Bill. I have to disagree with the Minister because I have looked through the Bill and I cannot find the word "labelling" anywhere. Perhaps I can take a little time to cover certain issues that have been raised today because I believe that this is one of the most important issues on this Bill.
I accept that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, cannot support my amendment as it stands, although she understands whence the amendment comes. I understand that for some commodities that are very small these amendments—particularly Amendment No. 9—ask for too many details. The one thing on which noble Lords will agree is that we want some form of kite mark on all our goods—I think that is possible, if nothing else—that each and every person in this country would recognise as meaning that the product had been produced, grown, finished and processed in this country. I know that my amendment does not specify that to the finest degree, but I believe that we can all agree that it would be welcomed readily outside this Chamber.
As I tried to highlight earlier, the great difficulty is that people see the word "British", or they see "quality assured" and they do not know what quality is being assured. We need something that is recognised across a whole range of products and not just on one product, such as the lion on eggs. It is important that the lion is on eggs as it helps egg producers. In addition, we could have a little mark on products that says that they are British. A quality mark for pork has been launched, as
404
I am sure the Minister knows only too well, and it is a recognised label. However, for the general public the profusion of labels is extremely confusing.
My noble friend Lady O'Cathain remarked upon the fact that matters have moved on since the 1990 Act. Those who sat in on the debate in Grand Committee will have heard a great argument and discussion when I tried to have the definition of "food" put into the Bill. However, that was not welcomed. I come back to the same issue that I raised then. This is a brand new agency. It is now 1999, not 1990. It will be 2000 when the agency is established. We do not want people to say, "I am sorry, but that is in the Bill that started in 1990 and we shall have to look at X or Y to understand it." Certain matters are of prime importance and labelling is one. It should be on the face of the Bill. I thank noble Lords who have spoken and who have brought forward important matters that I hope the Minister and the Government will take on board.
I turn to one or two issues raised by the Minister. In Grand Committee, together with colleagues on the Liberal Benches, we linked labelling with nutrition. As can be seen from these two amendments, I have separated those issues because I realise that there is a big difference between labelling for nutrition information and what I call more general labelling, at which the two amendments are aimed. I hoped that that would help debate.
The Food Safety Act goes back to 1990. I would like to see "labelling" defined in the Bill. I have heard what the Minister has to say and I am encouraged— although not satisfied at this stage. Let us not be in any doubt that the Bill has draconian powers. What is not written in the Bill sometimes worries me more than what is written in the Bill. The whole issue of labelling certainly should be there.
I return to the issue of country of origin. Of all the matters in the amendment, it simply cannot be left to wait to see what happens. I know there is great hype at the moment. I am encouraged by the fact that within Europe the subject is being looked at. Perhaps I can give your Lordships some extra figures that I hope will highlight the issue.
This year our chicken imports are up by some 23 per cent on last year. The biggest supplier is Holland which has shown the biggest increase. Imports of chicken from Thailand have also increased. Of the countries from which we have imports, 85 per cent are within the EU. Whatever labelling we decide on must be applicable not just for our own country but across the EU. I know the Minister has difficulty with that.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have no difficulty with that at all. However, it undermines the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness concerning a UK regime. From what the noble Baroness has read out, let alone from what I said, there is no question of the Government waiting to see what happens. Yesterday we took action on misleading

405
labelling in relation to country of origin. I have also mentioned the other action we are taking within the context of the EU and the world.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I did hear her. I am just concerned that it is not happening now. We are consulting. If I were making a political point I would say that this Government are well known for consulting and not always for coming up with the goods.
I move on to the point I touched on briefly earlier. Within the UK the public find many different and varied quality assurance schemes. I had hoped that through these amendments we could tease out of the Government a greater commitment. If they do not like my amendments perhaps they will give us a commitment between now and Third Reading that they will come back with something that is constructive. I have listened with great care and due respect to the Minister, who I know is trying extremely hard—
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Unless I completely misheard the Minister, I thought she said, in a very gracious part of her intervention, precisely that she would take away the proposal of the noble Baroness and consider it again. Frankly, that was one of the most conciliatory remarks I have heard on Report from a Minister. Perhaps I may make a small political point. If the party of the noble Baroness had been as conciliatory when in government, we would have accepted a great deal. I urge her not to press the amendment and to accept the offer.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am not sure whether I thank the noble Viscount for his intervention. I accept his remarks, although I do not necessarily agree with them. I have, indeed, listened. The Minister and I have discussed the whole issue of labelling. I am grateful for her response. However, that does not detract from the fact that there is great feeling around the House about the need for some form of labelling.
I accept the Minister's sincerity. I have never doubted it. I hope she realises that; I am sure she does. However, there is great concern. Providing she confirms the assurances she has given that she will go away and consider this matter again, I accept that. At this stage, with those great reservations and on the understanding that I wish to return to the matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("through the establishment throughout the United Kingdom of nutrition standards").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. These two amendments deal with establishing nutrition standards throughout the United Kingdom.
406
Amendment No. 10 looks at the whole situation, especially the issuing of advice on all aspects of nutrition.
Various government spokesmen at various stages of the Bill have assured us that the agency will have nutrition as one of its major responsibilities. However, the Government have steadfastly insisted that there shall be no overt reference on the face of the Bill to that duty. I confess to being totally perplexed by that stance. I have heard it said, and recently, that unbalanced diets, too much fat, too much sugar and not enough greens are probably responsible for more premature deaths than any other single cause. I do not know whether it is true but I can quote from various reports. The Health Education Authority issued a report this year called Improving diet and health through European Union Food Policies. The opening paragraph states that,
"there is widespread international scientific agreement on the constituents of a healthy diet. However, neither the CAP nor any of the other policies of the European Union that affect the quantity, price and quality of food are designed to produce a healthy diet".
Among its recommendations are:
"Health protection should not preclude health promotion—the former is enshrined in the Amsterdam Treaty, the latter is not".
"Scientific committees, like the one in France that thinks our beef is unsafe, should stop concentrating solely on food safety and start to promote health".
The report continues:
"There should be surveillance of food and nutrition intake, particularly among the old, children and low income families."
The list is quite lengthy. It left me in no doubt that nutritional issues are of major importance.
Is it not peculiar that a new agency, with a duty to protect public health and the food interests of consumers is not specifically charged with the establishment of nutritional standards? On 12th October in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, stated that the agency is expected to work closely with health-promoting bodies. Surely, research published by the Health Education Authority should be taken into account in establishing the agency's ground rules.
Amendment No. 10 inserts in Clause 7, at the end of line 29 on page 3,
"especially the issuing of advice on all aspects of nutrition".
I have spoken at some length about the desirability of placing nutrition standards on the face of the Bill as part of the agency's statutory responsibility. In our view, that responsibility should also appear as part of the exposition of the functions of the agency. The provision of advice and information should include, from day one, on an ongoing basis, the results of the latest and most up-to-date research into nutrition.
Moreover, the agency should be at the forefront of research—organising, sponsoring and doing some of it. In the debate in another place Jeff Rooker stated that the agency will inherit a research function with a budget of about £25 million. Thirty per cent or so is to be spent on food and nutrition. That £8 million or more is a lot of money. It is more than has been spent

407
this year on supporting farmers starting to convert to organic production methods, although we were pleased to hear earlier today of the extra money now coming their way. We wish to ensure that there is no way the agency can legitimately direct all that money to food research whether in response to pressure from sectional interests or in reaction to more and bigger food scares.
The question of nutrients is important. One example will suffice. This is taken, again, from the Health Education Authority report I have already mentioned. An iodine deficiency in the soil in an area of China was treated by putting iodine into the irrigation water. In the following three years, iodine levels in crops, vegetables and meat increased five fold. The benefit came in the form of fewer infant deaths and still births.
I, for one, am glad that the people of this island no longer exist on a diet of potatoes and turnip greens with occasional ham or scrawny chicken. However, I am increasingly aware that the importance of food choice has resulted in the most powerful food industry. That power, combined with a pervasive advertising industry, ensures that we are all bombarded with enticing information whose value is sometimes doubtful. For example, "95 per cent fat free" means "5 per cent fat". There is good fat and bad fat. Examination of contents labels indicates that the lower the total fat content of processed food, the higher the absolute content of bad fat. Has anyone the responsibility to alert the public to such a situation? Has anyone explored its effect on the growth of children, on heart patients or the very old? These are a few examples. There are many more. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 23. We had a full debate in Grand Committee. I do not propose to repeat some of the arguments in favour of including nutrition on the face of the Bill. We had a considerable discussion on that subject. We wanted to ensure that nutrition was included on the face of the Bill because of our concern that the detail of the White Paper would be lost. To its credit, that document goes into considerable detail about the extent of the nutrition duties of the agency. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, read out paragraph 5.11 of the White Paper. I do not propose to do that. However, they are extensive and useful duties which we were concerned to see included.
The Minister made a useful statement in Grand Committee. She said:
"I can say within the confines of this Committee that the Government are fully committed to the agency having a major role in nutrition and in diet; in it being a key part of its remit for protecting public health".—[Official Report, 12/10/99; col. CWH 37.]
She also said that the Government had no doubt that the agency's main objective in Clause 1 encompassed nutrition. I am sure she will repeat that today. We on these Benches took strong comfort from that statement. However, we feel that the place for nutrition and some of the greater detail about the
408
duties of the agency should be in the general statement of objectives of the agency provided for by Clause 22. In fact, the Minister gave an undertaking in Grand Committee, saying, at col. CWH 39:
"There may possibly be some opportunities for spelling that out [the nutrition duties] in other documentation that goes with the Bill".,
and she asked for time to consider the matter.
It seemed to us a constructive way forward, hence our amendment on nutrition in Clause 22. That would give the opportunity to spell out the nutrition duties in some detail; not only the generality of nutrition, but also some detail in the general objectives provided for by Clause 22. It would place a duty on the agency to do that.
It may seem a narrow amendment, but the words, "related activities" are designed to bring in all the other points in the White Paper without those on these Benches being accused of producing a list. I know that Ministers and the draftsman have a horror of lists and I do not intend to produce one today. That is the reason for Amendment No. 23. We feel it to be a constructive way forward which gives the Government the opportunity to specify nutrition as part of the duties of the agency. We look forward to the Government's response.
I have one final question. Concerns have been expressed to us by the advertising industry about the nutrition duties of the agency and whether or not food advertising would be covered. I know there are some anxieties. There may be differing views as to whether or not that would be desirable, but guidance from the Minister as to whether or not she considers that to be within the duties of the agency would be extremely helpful.
5 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I wish to say a few words in support of Amendments Nos. 4 and 10, having failed to get to the Public Bill Office in time to add my name to those of the sponsors.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, reminded us, the Minister gave assurances in Grand Committee that the new agency would have a major role over nutrition and diet. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I find difficulty in getting my mind around the idea that a major Bill—the Food Standards Bill, incorporating the Food Standards Agency—will not have nutritional standards on its face. I am still concerned with the general principle, as opposed to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who wants the matters of detail later. I would be sorry if, as we were with labelling, we were referred back to the Food Safety Act 1990. That was a long time ago and means reading a different Act to get the full picture.
I see a danger—I hope I am wrong—which I have mentioned before. We may be tending to focus narrowly on food scares and food scandals; for example, E-coli, BSE and so forth. The whole business we are facing is not just in relation to salmonella and a batch of eggs; it is not just about the nutritional content of food which is the subject of Amendment

409
No. 23; nor is it quite the same as our old friend the "balanced diet". As I said in Grand Committee, referring to the 1991 WHO Report on Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases, it is government policies on farming and food supply and the relationship with industry in the whole of the western world which have produced a culture of eating which is filling our hospitals. It is for that broad background that we want to make sure the agency has a remit. It needs an independent agency at arm's length from government to tackle this and to look at the nutritional problem in its widest sense. I repeat a plea therefore to have that on the face of the Bill.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 10. I like the phrase, "all aspects of nutrition", because that takes in the wider context about which I was talking a moment ago—not just the short-term issues, but the deeper issues of long-term food policy. As I said also in Grand Committee, do not let us be frightened of nutritional advice. There is something about it that scares people. We take advice over many other areas but somehow food touches us deeply and we do not like being told what to do. I have said before and I shall say again; if, as a taxpayer, I am helping to fund research into nutritional matters, I feel it is my right—and I would be angry if I did not get it—to receive the product of that research and to hear what is or is not good for me to eat. I have no obligation to take that advice, but I want to hear it. Again, the agency is the right body to deal with that advice.
As a postscript, coming in on the Tube this morning I read an interesting fact. We are recommended to have one or two portions a week of oily fish. But MAFF has just discovered, in a survey of PCBs and dioxins, that if we do that, we shall be over our safe limit; or if not "we", at least children and "at risk" groups. Yet no advice is forthcoming. That is the kind of area where we need an independent agency to direct the public and not just to say, as people tend to say, "There is absolutely no risk in this." There is obviously some risk. It may be slight. We need good, intelligently-put advice. I therefore support both amendments.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I approach this series of amendments in perhaps a naive way, having all my life followed the dictum, "A little of what you fancy does you good." Individuals are all different and nutrition for one—for instance, sugar—may be quite wrong for someone else. I feel that the individual should be allowed a little bit of common sense and not be nursed along too much.
The other main difficulty I see as a producer of food—oily fish in point of fact—is the whole problem of labelling and getting the message across. If we have the labels we have just been talking about, who will advise on the nutritional value? We have just heard that differences of opinion occur. I have a feeling, secretly in my heart of hearts, that this is something which should not be on the face of the Bill. By all
410
means leave it to the agency to think what it wants and take what advice it can, but I am not keen on it being on the face of the Bill.
Lord Rea: My Lords, again I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for proposing this group of amendments. Long ago I gave up any hope of persuading my noble friend to include the word "nutrition" on the face of the Bill, but she knows well that that is not for want of trying.
I have just received a list of "ideal" objectives for the food standards agency that was sent to me by the National Heart Forum—previously known as the National Co-ordinating Committee for the Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease—membership of which I have declared on a number of occasions. The objectives with regard to nutrition were drawn up by dietary and nutritional experts forming the "Sustain" group of the National Food Alliance. Can my noble friend say whether the food standards agency will in fact, though unstated in the Bill, fit its activities to the following objectives? First, the agency should oversee the monitoring and surveillance of the nutrient content of food and the nutrient content of the diet. Secondly, it should provide authoritative, factual information about the nutrient content of foods and advice on diet as a whole. Thirdly, it should secure expert scientific advice on the relationship between diet, nutritional status and health, to support the definition of a healthy diet and to inform policy. Fourthly, it should provide the definition of a "balanced diet". And fifthly, it should provide practical guidance in relation to nutritional aspects of the food chain, including production and catering.
Of course, I do not expect my noble friend to accept those lock, stock and barrel today. But I should be grateful if she could say whether her concept of the food standards agency's role and objectives will encompass those principles. Of course, I shall pass the list to her for her further perusal.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, sadly, I do not think that I will have time to read that list of objectives. I shall just have to keep them in my memory and bear in mind what my noble friend said.
In some ways, we have had an almost parallel debate to the one that we had on labelling. I am pleased with the enthusiasm that is implicit in what has been said in the House today for the job that the agency will have to do. In a way, we are trying to make it into an effective agency; that is to say, one which delivers effective policies in areas that are of great concern to us, including labelling and nutrition. It is my responsibility today to bring the attention of the House back to the fact that what we are actually doing is legislating to establish a food standards agency. We have to scrutinise this legislation to see whether, as drafted, it will allow the agency to do the job that noble Lords have suggested they wish to see done.
The Government have no doubt that this Bill provides the necessary basis for the agency to take a key role in nutrition. That has always been our

411
intention, and it remains so. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, slid in last year's White Paper, we set out a proposed split of responsibilities between the agency and health departments. That division of responsibilities is still the basis on which we are working. It would be foolish to deny that the only government body concerned with nutrition should be the FSA. The Department of Health, in particular, and other agencies will have such responsibility.
We acknowledged at the time of publication of the White Paper that there were substantial areas where the agency and departments would have to work closely together. Given the links between diet and health, which has been mentioned today, it makes no sense at all to try to establish rigid and inflexible boundaries. Indeed, it is a prime example of where we need joined-up government if we are actually to deliver.
I hope that I can assure noble Lords that, as well as having a clear remit, the agency is being established with the expertise that it needs to take forward its responsibilities for nutrition. The nutrition unit of the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group will transfer to the agency. However, I have to tell the House that I do not believe it either necessary or, indeed, helpful to try to build in the explicit reference to "nutrition" that the noble Baroness proposes in her amendment.
The main aim and functions of the Bill encompass the nutrition remit. If we took a phrase like "nutritional standards", I suspect that we would end up going down the route of defining the agency's nutrition responsibilities in specific and even in restrictive terms. I know that this will not be welcomed by the House, but I have to point out that the Food Safety Act already provides an effective framework for taking any necessary regulatory or legislative action in the nutrition area that might be required.
In general, the Government do not believe that regulation is necessarily the right way forward to raise standards of nutrition in this country. We do not believe that it should be a matter of telling people what they should eat and drink. As many noble Lords have already pointed out, it is very difficult to tailor that information and advice on an individual basis. We have to ensure that people can receive the best advice, information and encouragement to make sensible choices for themselves, providing that the food which is delivered is safe and that there is a proper and appropriate regulatory system for ensuring that safety. It is difficult to see what benefit would be gained from requiring that the agency should establish nutrition standards throughout the United Kingdom.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, raised the issue of the difficulty for consumers in understanding advice in relation to the findings on dioxins and PCBs in marine fish. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Earl that the results to which he referred were published in full at the end of July and sent out to media, consumer organisations and environmental groups by MAFF. They were considered by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, which recommended that adults should
412
continue to follow the COMA advice that individuals could consume at least two portions of fish per week, of which one should be oily fish, as part of a balanced diet. I hope that the noble Earl will not feel that no advice was given in this respect, because such advice was provided.
If we took the amendment as drafted, I have to tell the House that it would restrict the agency's nutrition remit; indeed, the wording does not begin to capture many of the things that the agency will do in the nutrition area, especially as regards giving advice and information and working with the health promotion bodies. I believe that the latter was something that noble Lords in Committee certainly wanted the agency to do, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Rea would also be of the same view.
I am aware that there are many people who ask, "If the Bill doesn't mention nutrition, how can we trust the Government, or some future government, not to change the agency's remit later?" I understand that concern, although I hope that I have given the House enough of an assurance to put the Government's intention beyond doubt. However, as my noble friend said, I said that I would take the matter away and look at ways in which we could perhaps make more explicit the responsibilities regarding nutrition. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked me if I could say a little more in that respect.
We believe that the foundations on which to build for the split of responsibilities between the agency and health departments to command consensus support are in the White Paper. We now intend to build on those foundations by setting out very clearly, in writing in the surrounding documentation, the agency's involvement in nutrition. The two main areas in which this will be done are through the agency's statement of objectives and practices and through the published concordats.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, Clause 22 requires the agency to prepare a general statement of its objectives and practices, which must be approved by Ministers. I can today give the House a guarantee that Ministers will not approve the statement unless it describes the agency's general objectives in the nutrition area. That statement will, of course, be published and laid before Parliament. I believe that that usefully picks up the helpful suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in his amendment, which indicates that such a statement is a good way of demonstrating exactly what the agency will do as regards nutrition.
The agency will also have a public service agreement, which will be published in the usual way. More detailed objectives and targets will also be published each year. This will provide an opportunity for the public to see exactly what the agency is doing in fulfilment of any objectives it agrees on its nutrition remit. Of course, the agency will report on its achievements in its annual report.
Mention was also made of the administrative concordats between the agency and departments. These will be published. As the agency will need to

413
work very closely with the Department of Health on nutrition matters, because of the clear interface with wider public health issues, the concordat will set out in the kind of detail spelled out in the White Paper how the split between the agency and the Department of Health will work on nutrition. Indeed, one useful way forward would probably be to have some wording based on the White Paper itself set out in an annex to the concordat. I hope that that will be welcomed.
One further point is that the Secretary of State for Health announced earlier this week a new specialist advisory committee, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, which will take over from COMA. One of the reasons for establishing this new advisory committee is to take account of the new role of the agency on nutrition matters. The agency and the Department of Health will jointly provide the support and the secretariat for that committee. The new committee will provide a source of the best scientific advice to the agency and to health departments in developing their nutrition policies. I think that gives some idea of the infrastructure that will be needed to ensure that the agency can actually fulfil its responsibilities in relation to nutrition.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked me specifically about advertising and the role of the agency in that regard. I have already referred your Lordships to Section 16 of the Food Safety Act, which explicitly mentions advertising alongside labelling. The agency will be able to advise on the use of these powers in relation to advertising and to give guidance to ensure that advertising connected with food is not misleading. It will also maintain close contact with the other regulatory bodies, for example, the Advertising Standards Authority and the relevant broadcasting authorities. I hope this will be of some reassurance to noble Lords.
This Bill, which is essentially about setting up a new body and giving it general functions and objectives, is set up to operate within the existing framework of the law. It will be for the agency itself to shape the development of that law and, as I said before, to deliver on policy. I get a very strong sense from our debates today that people want to see the agency up and running and delivering in these areas. We want to see it delivering in the area of nutrition. Nutrition is a matter of the utmost importance to public health and is one of the central issues on which we all agree the public need and want good and helpful information.
I believe that the framework I have set out, the advisory committee that is being set up and the explicit references that will be made to the aims and objectives and practices in the general statement which will be laid before Parliament, together with the administrative concordat, should build up a very secure framework within which the agency can work effectively in the area of nutrition.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full and helpful response. Assurances were given in the Grand Committee, but we do not see them on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness again assured her
414
noble friend Lord Rea of the importance of nutrition, but it does not seem to be sufficiently important to find its way on to the face of the Bill. It made me a little worried about the position concerning my previous amendment on labelling, but I will leave that aside.
My first amendment was intended to establish a common standard throughout the United Kingdom, with particular reference to the new devolved parliaments. We certainly do not wish to see different standards set for different parts of the United Kingdom, and that is why I included it in my amendment. I would have thought that spoke for itself.
My second amendment referred specifically to the issuing of advice on all aspects of nutrition, and I would have thought that was something the Government would have welcomed. However, they clearly have reservations about that.
I am well aware that the Bill is concerned with setting up an agency, but that agency is to look after food, food safety and food standards. Perhaps that is why we are somewhat laboriously going over some of these very important issues. If you want to buy a car, it does not matter so much, but something you eat has a direct effect on lifestyles and everyday living. Although health is the lead agency; as I know only too well to my cost, having tried to get it put on the face of the Bill, the noble Baroness will remember that she said that "the Secretary of State" could not be defined as the Secretary of State for Health. In fact, however, that was the person concerned, and it made me smile to think that here we are, discussing again, but not solving, some of the problems that were raised earlier.
Like other noble Lords, I shall welcome the setting up of the new scientific advisory committee on nutrition. I am sure it will have an important role. I thank noble Lords who have spoken and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Appointment of members etc.]:
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert —
("( ) In making the appointment the appropriate authorities shall ensure that the balance of membership of the Agency shall reflect the populations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 5. The agency is comprised of a chairman, a deputy chairman and between eight and 12 members. Two of the latter will be appointed from Scotland and one each from Wales and Northern Ireland. There are to be advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not necessarily for England. The population of Wales is under 4 million; of Northern Ireland under 2 million; of Scotland under 6 million; and of England more than 47 million. On that basis England should have 15 members, as compared to the two for Scotland and the one each for the others. However, the maximum England can have is eight, assuming that the agency includes 12 members.
We have heard during earlier stages of the Bill that the agency is to be overarching. We have also heard that there are marked differences in the incidence of food-borne diseases between the territories that make up the United Kingdom. There is here an implicit contradiction. The impartiality of the agency might be questioned in a situation where the need to act throughout the United Kingdom could be influenced by a strong sectoral interest. Such a position would be more likely were the balance of the agency to be weighted by having, say, three or four members from any one of the devolved territories. There are those who would comment that such is the position of the Government, which is composed of considerably more Scottish MPs than is justified by the ratio of all the MPs in Parliament. However, the Government are a much larger body than the food standards agency, and subject to rather more scrutiny and open working than the agency will be. It is important that the composition of the latter be representative of its responsibilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are linked with that of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. Amendment No. 6 calls for the establishment of an advisory committee for England. In the course of a 30 minute debate in the Grand Committee I felt there was a strong feeling that England needs an advisory committee. There is a question of imbalance if there is not one. There is a real possibility that in creating an agency in its own image the Government will appoint not only two Scottish parliamentary nominees but other Scots as well to the panel of eight to 10 members.
There is also the question of representation. England, as my noble friend has pointed out, is nearly twice the size of Scotland, with a higher proportion of land devoted to apiculture, and England has four times the population of the other three taken together. England is to the United Kingdom as France is to Europe, in terms of the passage of imports and exports across its territory. Four to eight ordinary members cannot hope to reflect the balance of interests across England.
True, the Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to direct that an advisory committee for England can be established, but says that he should do so after consultation with the agency. I have difficulty in imagining how he will actually take this step. Will he in practice take advice from his chairman? Will he decide that the agency's decisions are unbalanced, call them together, give them X weeks to improve and then act? Or will perhaps in-fighting or a failure to agree signal the need for greater balance? It sounds impossible, but sometimes impossibilities do happen. Why do we not just have done with it and create one for England from the start?
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, there are 11 lines in this Bill dealing with these advisory committees and I find it very peculiar indeed that we do not refer to England, except in subsection (2). It really seems to me to be a classic case of "too many words", a phrase that we
416
have often heard used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I would have thought that it would have been very much easier just to say that there shall be an advisory committee for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, and remove the reference to the three advisory committees on page two, and then cut out the whole of Clause 5(2), as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Byford. I should be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, these amendments all say roughly the same thing. It seems sensible that England should be represented in the way that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Luke, suggest. Of the amendments proposed I prefer that combination. However, I am intrigued by the criteria that are used. On a Bill such as this I would not select people on the basis of where they come from. I would select them purely on the basis of their knowledge of food. If all the candidates live in Land's End, so be it. However, having said that, I support strongly the combination proposed by the noble Baroness.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, this is an interesting little debate that goes back to our old friend, devolution. I shall not remind your Lordships that at this time a year ago we trolled through the Scotland Act. This matter conveys a tremendous sense of déjà vu.
I believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding as regards what the Bill is trying to achieve and what the amendments seek to change. I believe that there is a difference between Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Amendment No. 5 seeks to insert in Clause 2(2) a requirement that the Bill should have regard to the population spread of each of the devolved countries. I believe that the noble Lord referred to them as the devolved territories. I hope that was not a Freudian slip. We in Scotland like to think of ourselves as a country. I am sure that was simply a slip on his part.
In fact there is nothing in Clause 2(1) that specifies that any of these people should be Scots, Welsh or anything else, or indeed English. It refers merely to two members who may be appointed by Scottish Ministers and to one member who may be appointed by the National Assembly for Wales and so on. That matter concerns essentially the structure of devolution and the fact that the powers to enact the legislation lie with those assemblies rather than a requirement to keep the ethnicity of the committee in balance.
The real point—I think that this is a serious point—is that the committee is a UK agency and whether we are born ethnic Scots, ethnic English or ethnic Welsh, we are all UK citizens. Therefore we are all eligible, or rather anyone else is eligible—we are not because we are all disqualified—to become a member of the agency. While the noble Lord has raised an important point that moves away from the thrust of the matter.

417
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 concern a different issue. In Grand Committee I expressed great sympathy with the noble Baroness on this matter. I believe that I said I would be interested to hear what the Government had to say about the matter. I have come to the conclusion that great sympathy is parliamentary code for, "I am now going to explain to you why I like the idea but I am not going to vote for it". I still have great sympathy with the noble Baroness but the nub of the matter is we are discussing a UK body. I believe that in Committee the Minister assured us that all of the devolved countries had agreed that the matter was best served by having a UK agency. Therefore everyone in the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly is content that the body should be a UK agency, but the problem is that last year we told them that they had the power to deal with this matter. Therefore the devolved legislative competence lies in Wales and Scotland. Therefore I assume that the committees have been included in the Bill to deal with that matter.
While I thought originally that it would be an excellent idea to have a committee for England because, after all, as a Liberal Democrat I am a committed federalist and "home ruler" and that would be a wonderful way to deal with that, I then thought that one should take completely the opposite course. I believe that the real answer to this—I ask the Minister to consider this—is to have no committees at all. In devolving power we created, particularly in Scotland I am less knowledgeable about the situation in Wales—a committee system whereby the Parliament itself could establish committees to deal with these issues. I believe that this is a perfect example of where the Scottish parliamentary committee system could be brought into play. However, I am sure that there is some great technical reason why that is not possible. Nevertheless, I hope that I have explained why I have great sympathy for the amendments but could not possibly support them.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am always delighted when the noble Viscount speaks on matters of devolution as practice makes perfect and his expertise and clarity of expression help the House in dealing with some of these issues.
First, I shall discuss the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on appointments. I reiterate—I believe that this sentiment has been expressed—that the agency's board of members will be established to take decisions collectively, drawing on a broad range of relevant skills and experience. Relevant skills and experience and not ethnicity should be the basis of membership of the committee. Its members will not be appointed to represent any sectoral interests and those who are appointed to give advice and information in relation to issues of devolved interests will be expected to play a full role in other aspects of the agency's work.
I suspect, and fear, that this amendment would give exactly the opposite impression; namely, that the members fell into territorial groupings appointed to represent the four parts of the UK rather than working
418
together in the United Kingdom interest. However, as the noble Viscount pointed out, we have established that some members will be appointed to advise on issues in the devolved areas in that these parts of the United Kingdom do not fall under the direct control of United Kingdom Ministers. They and the advisory committees they will chair will thus ensure that issues in the devolved regions are taken fully into account when the agency's policy advice is agreed on a UK basis.
The devolved authorities that could have chosen to operate separately under the legislation have chosen deliberately to operate on a UK-wide basis. They need the reassurance of a link between an advisory committee and their Ministers in order to ensure that no gaps arise. That applies equally to individual members and to the advisory committees in areas where legislative competence exists but the relevant bodies have decided not to use it. However, that is not the situation as regards England, which does not have separate legislative competence because we are not in the federal position that the noble Viscount would wish us to be in. Therefore we are discussing a lack of a need for an England-wide body. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
I shall finish dealing with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. There are a number of technical difficulties here as well as the point of principle. If we were strictly to reflect the relative distribution of the UK population, Northern Ireland would be represented by less than one individual. I suspect that the only way to avoid that would be to double the proposed membership of the board. I suggest that that would not make for a workable arrangement.
A further difficulty with the amendment is the uncertainty of what we mean by seeking to reflect the populations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Would that be achieved on the bases of residency, birth or expertise? What would the appropriate authorities do in the case of a person of Scottish birth who headed an English research institute, or vice versa? Or, is it simply intended that each appropriate authority is allowed a representative quota? If that is the case, I believe that we then return to the problem of numbers, which I have already mentioned. I believe the main consideration is that mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor; namely, that we want people appointed to these bodies on the basis of their competence and expertise. We risk straying from the true purpose of the members appointed by the devolved authorities, which is to provide advice and information on behalf of the regional committees while working fully within the framework of the agency's board. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the interests of England will be adequately reflected in the agency's decisions.
The amendment is both unnecessary and counter-productive. There are precedents for consultation on appointments and clear examples of how people appointed in the past on the recommendation of the relevant Secretary of State—or by the devolved legislatures—can make a contribution to the general

419
work of the committee. They bring their own expertise, not simply a sectional interest. None of us would wish to see the food standards agency set up on a sectional basis when it reflects the desire of all these administrations to work together on a UK basis.
I shall turn now to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. We spent some time debating how the agency will operate in the context of devolution. It is widely accepted that it makes good sense for the food standards agency to operate as a United Kingdom body. However, because food safety and standards are devolved matters, special provisions are needed to ensure that the interests of the devolved authorities are respected. The advisory committees are part of those provisions.
I do not accept the argument that matters of special interest to England would be neglected because there would be no advisory committee to argue the case for England with the agency. That argument is misplaced. As I said, the main reason for having advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is to provide links between the devolved parts of the United Kingdom and the agency. This is crucial to the agency's ability to be an effective UK body operating in a devolved area. We now have a Scottish Parliament and a National Assembly for Wales in operation, and we hope to have a devolved government in Northern Ireland, where powers are in any case transferred. The advisory committees will perform a special role in relation to the devolved administrations and legislatures.
We do not accept that there is any need for a permanent advisory committee for England at present. England falls under the authority of the United Kingdom Government. We do not have a separate parliament for England, which could be used to justify an advisory structure for England, and we do not have a devolved English government.
As has been pointed out, England is a populous and extremely varied country; it is simply too big and diverse for us to take the same kind of approach with England as we have in the devolution settlements for other parts of the United Kingdom. The needs of England continue to be covered by the present organisation of the United Kingdom Government.
The Government have said that we are committed to move to directly elected regional government in England where there is a demand for it. But finding the right solution to that particular dilemma may well take some time. We have built provisions into the Bill for regional committees for England to be set up later if they are needed in response to any developments in Government regional policy. But, again, that would reflect an interface with an authority rather than the representation of a sectional interest. The amendment would remove the, option of having regional committees later in favour of a requirement to have an unnecessary and unwieldy England committee now.
It is misleading to suggest that the needs of England will be neglected. I should point out that the vast majority of the agency's staff will be based in England with its headquarters in London. All the existing specialist advisory committees—rather than the
420
national committees—will be based in England. I suspect that we may be criticised for being too London centric rather than too devolved. We do not see a role for an advisory committee for England at the present time. But we have taken a long-term view and provided powers to set up such committees on an England regional basis if they are needed in the future. We believe that these powers are more useful than the restrictive approach taken in the amendments.
On that basis I hope that we will not try to use this Bill to reopen devolution issues which have been settled. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept what I say and be prepared to withdraw her amendments. Equally, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported my amendment. When I spoke on a previous occasion I got into trouble with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, about the origin of who made my shoes. I was not surprised to run into some flak on another subject on this occasion, although I was not expecting to be talking about the worries of territories and federalistic problems. I suppose if I do not talk about territories the noble Viscount will not mention the other "F" word and we will get on fine.
As to ethnicity, my father was born in Scotland, my mother in Somerset and my grandmother came from Ireland. I am very much a UK citizen and I would hate anyone to think that I was trying to raise an ethnicity problem. I was not. I was attempting to address a problem that came out of devolution. The agency could comprise six people—a chairman, a deputy and another four members—who could come from either Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. That would make a very unbalanced board. I accept that the people who are chosen could come from anywhere in the UK, but one would sensibly suggest that the Scottish Parliament would tend to select someone from Scotland to reflect its views and not, say, someone from Cornwall.
I am grateful for the Minister's replies. I will take them away and think deeply on them. On this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): Order!
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Advisory committees]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 41, after ("established") insert ("an advisory committee for England,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise to the Deputy Speaker. I heard someone say "Order" and I looked to see what I had done wrong. I realise that I spoke too soon. I apologise to the House.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 seek to encourage the Government to establish an advisory committee for England. In her response to the previous amendment the Minister, in her usual charming way, declined to establish such a committee. She said that she saw no reason for it to be established. However, at the moment we have a situation in which restrictions on beef-on-the-bone have been lifted by the Chief Medical Officer for the whole of the UK, whereas the Chief Medical Officers for Wales and Scotland have not lifted the ban. If there were an advisory committee for England, it might well consider the matter and lift the ban, regardless of what was happening in Scotland and Wales.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. It is important to recognise that advice can come from a number of sources. The noble Baroness has given an example of the differing advice of the different CMOs at the moment. But those CMOs do not have the ability to lift the ban. The CMO for England has not lifted the ban. That is for governments to do on the basis of the advice they receive.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I appreciate her point. I was not suggesting that CMOs can lift the ban. But an advisory committee could lobby on behalf of its sector, which in this case would be for England. That is the point I was trying to make.
I raise the point because I understand that in France—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it is the food agency which is recommending to its Minister that the beef ban should remain. I am happy to give way to the Minister if she wishes to come back on this point, but my understanding is that the agency is recommending the ban. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what I believe has just happened. We have been speaking to an amendment moved and then withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, then spoke to two of the amendments in the grouping. On Report, the Question must be put to the House. The Question has now been put and therefore it is now open to any noble Lord who wishes to speak in the debate to do so. I thank the noble Baroness for giving me a second bite of the cherry. I presume that it will then be for the Minister to respond at the end of our contributions, and for the noble Baroness to reply. I hope I understood correctly that what has happened here is that the amendments have been degrouped.
I shall save the time of the House by saying that my first bite of the cherry on this matter was quite sufficient. I shall leave it at that.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it was my understanding that Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were
422
to be taken together and I tried to address the whole group of amendments in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on his Amendment No. 5.
The noble Baroness was right in saying that the food standards agency in France advises their government. The food standards agency will provide advice to the United Kingdom Government. There will be no difference in that. I tried to make clear in my earlier response that such advisory committees are sub-committees that exist in order to bridge the interface between the legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The noble Baroness has given examples that underline why it is clear that the advantage lies in taking the United Kingdom approach. It would be easy to have people who would, as it were, lobby for different approaches in different areas. However, I should make it clear that that is not the purpose of the advisory committees. Their purpose will be to give particular advice to the legislatures in their own countries and equally to bring to their attention particular issues that pertain in those areas. I suggest that it would not be helpful to set up an advisory committee for England when we do not have a separate legislature for it to advise. That is the nub of the issue, and it is on that basis that I suggest that the amendment should be withdrawn.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am very sorry. I believe that I am a little green on our procedures. I understand that I should not have spoken after my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) Before appointing a person as chairman or member of an advisory committee referred to in subsections (1) or (2), the authority making the appointment shall have regard to the desirability of securing that a variety of skills and experience is available among the members of the committee (including experience in matters related to food safety or other interests of consumers in relation to food).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment with some trepidation since a similar amendment tabled in Committee elicited a response from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that included a quotation from the Liberal Democrat manifesto. I should not like to provoke a similar reaction today, although I realise that this may be a high risk strategy.
However, we should address the question of the principles that should be applied to the composition and manner of operation of the advisory committees, on the assumption that there shall be such committees for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the regions of England. It is important that the committees are governed by the same kind of regime as that which applies to the agency. I said in Committee that the regime for the agency has been set down very well in Clause 2 of the Bill. It would be a nonsense to have the agency balanced by representatives from a range of

423
different interests, but then to have the committees from the nations and regions which will be advising the agency not to be so balanced.
I entirely accept the point made by the Minister in Committee that there should be flexibility to form other committees; for example, committees composed entirely of consumers, producers or others with particular interests. For that reason, the new amendment does not include the other advisory committees. It addresses only those for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the regions. The Minister has sought flexibility across the board, but I suggest that we need a clear understanding of the principles that are to be applied to the composition and operation of the regional advisory committees. I urge the Minister to think again about including a form of words in the Bill to cover the advisory committees in the same way as the agency itself is covered. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord's amendment, as I did in Committee when he first moved it. It would be desirable to include people experienced in all matters related to food. Noble Lords who heard the debate in Committee will recall that I gave an example of a person who had worked in food production who felt that someone like him would be eligible, and the Minister kindly responded to that point. This is an important issue. I support the amendment.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to have the amendment on the face of the Bill. However, I have one small reservation. My experience of advisory committees in other fields has taught me that those who have special expertise may on occasion promote their own interests. I suggest that we should be extremely cautious with the amendment. It would be very difficult adequately to represent, for example, the major food producers in the form of the big supermarkets, while at the same time ensuring that the same balance was given to small food producers, or to consumers. That is where my difficulty with the amendment lies.
I would prefer to see representation from people who do not have any particular expertise, but who are able to call and evaluate evidence, and to reach a balanced view, rather than to seek the views of those with particular interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has returnee to this matter and indeed has referred to the Liberal Democrat manifesto. I appreciate the point he made about the need to be certain that the regional committees will comprise a variety of skills and experience. I need hardly remind noble Lords that the agency's remit is a wide one: from farm to fork. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, were with us, no doubt he would say that it should be from fish farm to fork.
424
For that reason, it would be wrong and counterproductive for the committees whose purpose, in the words of the Bill, is to give,
"advice or information to the Agency about matters connected with its functions",
to be dominated by one particular interest. In principle, therefore, I accept the spirit of the amendment. However, I should say to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that the selection process for the members of the agency will be vigorous. Furthermore, as regards the skills and experience of those who will be appointed to the agency, I should like to make the point that we are expressly looking for people with consumer experience as well as experience of the food industry itself. However, I accept the principle that the noble Baroness has tried to make clear to the House.
As paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 makes clear, the appointment of the chairman and members of the advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the relevant devolved administrations. I am pleased to be able to tell noble Lords that the devolved administrations and the department in Northern Ireland have all made it clear that they will act on the basis set out in the noble Lord's amendment, seeking a balance of skills within the membership of the committees. I hope that that provides the understanding which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, requested.
The point raised by noble Lords is whether it is necessary to spell out this matter on the face of the Bill. I believe that it is probably not necessary to do so. While it is clearly desirable for a variety of skills to be available, I do not see a need to put these words into the Bill. I also feel that it is a useful distinction to draw between these committees and the agency itself. It is the agency in whom the formal functions, powers and duties under the Bill are vested. As my noble friend Lady Hayman has already pointed out, the advisory committees are there to advise in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are not many agencies with similar powers. It might be unhelpful to use parallel forms of words which might imply that there are.
I also believe that, in terms of the whole spirit of devolution, these advisory committees are essentially about giving advice to the agency in the context of the devolved administrations. I do believe—here I refer to the Liberal Democrat manifesto—that the principle of devolution should then leave the matter to the good sense of the devolved administrations to make their own decisions but guided by the principles which I set out earlier. I do not think that there is any thing between us on principle. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister—especially in the light of my success in drawing him once again to mention the Liberal Democrat manifesto in the context of this amendment. It is always worth quoting again, as he rightly noticed. I thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her comments. The variety of skills and experience referred to in the amendment is identical to the duty of

425
the agency in selecting its own members. That is the reason for my choice of words in applying them directly to the advisory committees. In that context I very much welcome the Minister's confirmation that the procedure is a rigorous one.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her support for the amendment. It is an important one. It is a little difficult to understand why it was not originally put in the Bill. I recognise that a Bill, having gone through so many stages, sometimes has inexplicable gaps in it. I take comfort from the fact that the Minister said that the amendment is "probably not necessary". That was one of the most interesting responses I have heard from the Minister for quite a long time. The level of uncertainty was encouraging.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, all I was doing was demonstrating to the House how carefully we weighed up this matter. On balance, we have come to the view that I expressed.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, Ministers normally adopt the criminal standard of evidence. They normally say "beyond all reasonable doubt it is not necessary" and not "on the balance of probabilities". Needless to say, we will consider what the Minister said.
I take comfort from what he said about the understandings that had been achieved with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I would press him for chapter and verse on that. I do not know whether that would have been an executive decision and so would be on the record or whether it would have been a committee decision— by, for instance, a committee of the Welsh Assembly. I would ask the noble Lord to give chapter and verse. I accept the point that the advisory committees are not executive agencies. Perhaps, on the balance of probabilities, there is a case for not treating them with quite the same rigour as agencies. But I have yet to be completely convinced of that. I certainly remain to be convinced that it is not entirely legitimate for the UK Parliament to set principles by which devolved advisory bodies and devolved other bodies should conduct their business. We certainly would not wish to give away that principle. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Provision of advice, information and assistance to other persons]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3. line 31, at end insert—
("( ) where foodstuffs do not comply with any relevant United Kingdom regulation or regulations, providing information explaining in what respects they do not comply.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 12. The clause as it stands is too wide and far too vague to ensure what many consumers of both sexes and ages feel is necessary. In choosing animal and vegetable products, many people have regard to how their potential purchases are produced. Increasingly, they are opting for products which have been grown in hygienic conditions and reared in humane circumstances. They are also concerned about the effect on the environment and wildlife and the manner of the slaughter process. Many allow their consciences to guide their purchase decisions. The current popularity of organic food is one instance; another is the rejection of eggs from battery hens. However, surely the most outstanding example is the ending, in all but a small number of exclusive outlets which do not advertise their wares, of the sale of clothes made from real fur.
I know people who will not eat veal because of the way it is produced in other countries and because they have no means of knowing where the product on the menu was reared. I know people who wish to exercise choice if only someone would give them the information to enable them to do so. I know people who have been vociferous in their support for a Food Standards Bill—highly supportive because they imagine that it will set standards against which products can be measured. But this Bill is not about measuring. The agency is not being instructed to do anything that will enable the ordinary mortal to make comparisons and exercise choice on a daily basis in every food buying decision he or she makes. It is no good being told that the rules are X, Y and Z if one is not then told how to identify items which are not produced according to the rules. If everyone obeys the instructions given by the authorities, there would perhaps be no need for a Food Standards Bill; far less a food standards agency.
The standards laid on our livestock and arable farmers are not matched universally. They are not matched in the third world and they are not matched even in Europe. Yet we allow unmarked goods into this country to be sold side-by-side with our own products. In fact, we even allow in products which are then given minimal processing and packaging and are marked "Made in the UK". The agency may choose to interpret its role in such a way that the advice and guidelines it issues will enable comparisons to take place. It is possible that, after all the Government's assurances in this House and in another place, the Secretary of State will issue directives which incorporate measurements, standards and methods. However, the fact remains that he may not—and the consumer will be bitterly disappointed and let down.
It is said—too often in my opinion—that EU legislation ties the hands of our legislators in many areas. Let it not be said with regard to food labelling; not after the publication of the report into organic farming which was laid before this House last Friday. On page 10 of that report, under the heading "Imports", the Select Committee explains EC Regulation 2092/91. In a nutshell the labels on European organic produce must include the name

427
and/or code number of the national inspection body charged with ensuring compliance with the regulation. It may not be country of origin but it is as good as and does for organic produce exactly what my amendments seek to do for more conventional farming products. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 13. The work of the agency is to satisfy the aspirations of the public and that must apply without fear or favour to all foods, no matter where or how they were produced. If, for example, the famous European straight banana were found to be less nutritious pound for pound—or should I say gram for gram—than the old-fashioned curvy one, the agency should say so. If pesticides banned in this country but legal elsewhere are found in imported top fruit, the agency should say so. If growth promoters forbidden to our farmers are found in meat from other countries, the agency should tell us.
Without specific instructions to be all-inclusive, the agency is likely to concentrate its efforts on UK produce. The results of its studies are likely to be taken as criticism of UK produce and, what is worse, an indication that UK. products are not as good as their continental equivalents.
Perhaps I may give one example. In this country CCC—Cyclo cell chlormequate—has not been cleared for use on top fruit. Hence, any residues found in UK output are illegal. It has been cleared on the Continent, where residues of up to three milligrams per kilo are allowable. It was used in this country in the past before clearance procedures were instituted and some orchards have residues in their soil. Traces can get into the fruit and will show up in analyses with amounts of 0.1 to 0.3 of a gram per kilo. The pesticide inspectorate will then condemn the fruit while accepting similar produce from the Continent with much higher residue levels. The agency should work to set the standards that should apply to all products sold in the UK. It should test all fruit products on sale in this country and then, in line with Cause 19, publish the results.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am slightly cautious about both these amendments, although, as one who has not eaten veal for many years because I know that we do not produce it in this country, I am unhappy about crates. I very much sympathise.
From my experience with organophosphates, I know that it is not possible to test every item or batch of fruit that is imported. It is interesting that, in 1996, 46,000 tonnes of apples were imported from the American continent, and only four tests were conducted on them by government laboratories. So we cannot possibly know which top fruits, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, contain pesticide residues. The thing to do is avoid their application to the fruit in the first place. As noble Lords know, that is my ambition.
I prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady By ford, as it stands, but not her explanation for it. I am prepared to support it. I have slight difficulty with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for tabling the amendments They give me the opportunity to respond to the debate in terms of the action and responsibilities of the food standards agency in regard to imported food.
As all speakers have made clear, far from not providing information on imported foods, there is a case for arguing that the public needs even more, and clearer, information on those foods than on domestically produced foods, for the reasons that have been discussed. The concerns expressed echo many that arose during the debate on labelling. I assure the House that the work of the authority will be able to encompass those matters.
There is particular concern in cases where it is believed that imported foods do not meet the high standards of safety and animal welfare that apply in the United Kingdom. The Government recognise the need to ensure that the public are kept properly informed about all food on the UK food market. These are important matters and the Government take them seriously. Consumers must not be misled about the food they buy. More importantly, their health should not be put at risk by inadequate application of safety standards.
However, the amendments as drafted are unnecessary and in some respects even counterproductive. Amendment No. 12 in particular would give the agency the function of providing information on products which do not comply with EU regulations. I must stress that it is illegal to place foods on the market within the EU which do not comply with those regulations. That is the issue we dealt with in terms of Belgian food containing dioxins and we may well be dealing with it in other areas. It underlies current concerns about animal feed. In that case the proper action is not to provide information but to make sure that the law is enforced. That is an important point.
In the case of Amendment No. 11, there are certain instances where the United Kingdom has established higher standards than those required by EU rules for animal welfare or for public health reasons. Provided imported products meet the relevant EU standards, we are legally obliged to follow the principle of mutual recognition. We cannot simply ban imports because they do not meet domestic UK standards that are higher than EU standards. Nor could we or the agency legally take action which might be interpreted as disparagement of products which meet the relevant EU or international standards.
But that does not mean that the agency can do nothing. It can provide—and this is a crucial role—factual information so that consumers are helped to make informed choices. Clause 7 already provides the necessary basis for the agency to do that. We believe that it is not necessary to spell out particular details in the way suggested in Amendment No. 11, for the old drafting reason that it could cast doubt on the generality of the agency's powers or imply that these

429
points have priority over other issues. But that is not in any way to suggest that the agency should not concern itself with making sure that there is an understanding not only of the basics, but also of claims that are made.
If the agency's function under Clause 7 is to be effectively carried out and the public are to be properly informed, it must cover both imports and domestic production. I certainly agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 13. It would look extremely odd, and would not be acceptable to British consumers, if the agency were to give advice only on matters concerning domestic production. However, I assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing in the Bill as drafted to suggest that. It applies equally to imported and domestically produced food on the UK market and the agency will make no distinction in carrying out its functions. Advice on food safety and other interests of consumers must surely cover imported food. Otherwise, the agency would not be properly carrying out its main objective of protecting public health from risks. The specific point addressed by Amendment No. 13 is already covered by the Bill. The amendment is unnecessary. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to make those points clear to the House.
What we can do over and above the basics is address some of the concerns raised by taking steps to improve the accuracy and clarity of origin markings on food. Clearly, we must work within the framework of EU rules. But, as I explained in relation to earlier amendments, we believe that there is room for improvement in the interpretation of the rules. We have already announced our intention to take action to strengthen our guidance on the matter. The new guidelines will make clear that, where origin marking is given, it should be worded carefully, particularly where there might otherwise be confusion as to the origin of ingredients. For example, imported pork cured in Britain should not in our view be labelled "British" or "produced in Britain." That is precisely the point being addressed by the current consultation.
If there is a genuine and immediate food safety risk, the right course of action is not to provide information but to prohibit the imports. Where there is a real and specifically justified risk to health, we can and do act against imports. An example was the severe restriction on Belgian products because of the dioxin scare. Certainly, in the area of pesticides on fruit, where we were concerned as a result of monitoring that pesticides were being used and were over maximum residue levels we took action with the Belgian Government. The Belgians have now withdrawn approval of the use of that particular pesticide. I appreciate that we cannot test everything, as the noble Countess said, but there is a monitoring process in place, and we can and do take action whenever a matter of concern arises. Equally, we believe that it is in the interests of the UK to work with the Commission, within the framework of EU law, to resolve problems of this kind. That is exactly what we seek to do at the moment in relation to the use of sewage sludge in animal feeds.
430
The agency will have a role not only in ensuring that there is no misleading labelling on either imported or domestic produce but in supporting the work of farmers and domestic producers, as we are anxious to do, in positively marketing the welfare and health benefits of British produced food. For that reason the £5 million announced today is intended to help pig farmers who have been particularly disadvantaged by what we regard as misleading labelling related to country of origin.
I agree that for clarity and to enable consumers to make choices the agency must take action on all food, whatever its country of origin, and not concentrate only on UK produce. I do not believe that the Bill as drafted in any way suggests that the agency would do otherwise. The agency would not fulfil its main objective—the protection of consumers—if that was its focus. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for some very good assurances. I was delighted by her remarks about the need positively to market various foods. I could not support more strongly her comments on what is being done in the pig market. However, one would like to see that happen in other agricultural markets. As a farmer I have never been against good competition, not only in the home market but abroad. However, I understand that it is legal to sell foodstuffs in the UK that have been produced in Far Eastern countries with pesticides that are illegal in this country. There is a query as to whether the pharmaceutical commodities used to produce chickens have an effect at a later stage. It is also illegal in this country to use growth promoters on beef.
We are interested in ensuring that these products are put on the shelves so that the general public can make an informed choice. They can also choose their preferred production technique. We do not want to restrict the entry of other products into this country but to ensure that the public can make an informed choice. It is not a matter of banning other products but of enabling the public to make an informed choice.
I accept the observations of the noble Baroness about this amendment and the two linked with it. I shall read Hansard and try to think of a way to get round the problems she highlighted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Power of entry for persons carrying out observations]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 4, after ("exercise") insert ("reasonably and proportionately").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 makes reference to reasonableness and proportionality which featured in earlier debates. I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 17.
As to Amendment No. 14, the observation powers are set out at great length. To some of us they smack of rather draconian legislation. We on this side of the House have no problem with stringent rules that are designed to tackle emergencies. However, as they stand, these rules open the door to heavy-handed action by bureaucrats of all weights and even, as provided for in Clause 11(1),
"any individual (whether a member of its staff or otherwise)".
At Committee stage the debate on Clauses 10 and 11 covered, among other things, reimbursement to businesses of their costs of providing information required by the agency as part of its observations. The debate also touched on the lack of reference in the Bill to security of personal data. In her reply the Minister stated:
"The officers acting for the agency … will be under a general duty to behave reasonably and proportionately".—[Official Report, 13/10/99; col. CWH89.]
She went on to say, at col. CWH90 that,
"under Clause 11 the agency would only be able to obtain information that is reasonably necessary for the purposes described there".
Perhaps we on this side of the House do not have total faith in the basic goodness of human nature. We want this phrase on the face of the Bill. We should like to know that every employee, associate or person authorised by the agency is legally bound to act reasonably and proportionately. We should also like to know that the duty is instantly recognisable by anyone who has cause to consult the legislation, possibly in pursuit of a complaint.
I turn to Amendment No. 17. Clause 11 is concerned with the powers of entry for the carrying out of observations. Clause 14 is related to the powers of entry in carrying out enforcement. Surely, enforcement happens either when something has gone horribly wrong, such as an outbreak of E.coli, or someone has broken the rules. For example, in the case of food-borne contamination access to the medical records of those involved is reasonable. In this Bill such circumstances are not specified. Access is included in Clause 11, but we on this side feel that it is unnecessary in the pursuit of observations—so unnecessary that we wonder whether there has been a mix-up between Clause 11, where the provision now is, and Clause 14, where perhaps it should be. Certainly, in Committee we became quite confused.
Following that debate and a reading of Hansard, that conjecture was strengthened by the Minister's comment, at col. CWH91:

"It is however right that it should have the appropriate powers to investigate if it is really necessary that it should do so to protect public health".
I beg to move.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. Perhaps I may put a question to the Minister. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State has the power to ask the food standards agency to draw up codes of practice, will he refer to the European Union's code of good administrative behaviour? Earlier I gave the noble
432
Baroness, Lady Hayman, a copy of the code. I should like to see a number of other items included in the behaviour of officials: the absence of discrimination (Article 5); proportionality (Article 6); the absence of abuse of power (Article 7); impartiality and independence (Article 8); and objectivity (Article 9). Article 10 is headed,
"Legitimate expectations and consistency".
Most important of all, Article 11 refers to fairness.
It may well be that these matters can be taken into consideration in drawing up the equivalent of the Section 40 codes of practice when the food standards agency is set up. Perhaps the Minister can say whether that will be taken into account.
Lord Monson: My Lords, these are probably the most important amendments to be dealt with tonight, in particular Amendment No. 14. No doubt we shall be told that of course officials will behave reasonably and proportionately. If so, why not put it on the face of the Bill?
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and her team will stick to their guns.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 which I have tabled is along the lines of the noble Baroness's amendments but is more specific and precise. It relates to entry to premises. The noble Baroness, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, noted the powerful provisions under this clause.
As I did in Grand Committee, I declare an interest as a processor of fish, producing on to the market from about 110 outlets about 1,500 tonnes a year, so I have a certain practical experience.
Authorised persons are able to enter premises which may involve food processing of one kind or another. As was said many times in Grand Committee they will be reasonable people; we shall not pick rogues. But on the other hand, they might not be prepared to obey the "house rules" of the plant. It is a point that I made previously. The house rules are often more severe than those laid down by law. A plant which processes meat pies, or whatever one likes to think of, has regular visits from the environmental health officer and the health and safety officer. They have slightly overlapping duties. I fear that the agency person, with his or her companion, duly authorised, will feel that it is adequate just to be within the law.
I believe that that situation is totally inadequate. It lays open the owner of a plant—it may be an individual or a firm—to serious commercial loss. The buyers are nearly always a great deal more particular about how the plant is handled, and how the food is processed, than the law provides for. It is important for the owner of the plant that nothing goes wrong which would upset the buyer—it might be a supermarket—and thus lose a great deal of business either in the short term or forever; I do not know. All I know is that those representatives come round far

433
more often; they are far fussier. And if the processor does something wrong, they drop that business and go somewhere else. There is no doubt about that.
The point applies to me. In a previous debate on, I think, farming or some issue like that, we spoke of value added processes. I mentioned that I was no longer able to go into my own plant because my wheelchair was considered inadequate. I have to have a special wheelchair which remains in the plant and is scrubbed, hosed, and so on. Although the issue may seem small, it is precise and important.
On other small matters, it would be very bad for an agency person to be less well equipped—for instance, as regards what he or she has to wear—than the staff in the plant. They would notice that like a shot. But the important point is the protection for a plant so that it does not lose business. I shall later move my amendment because I believe the point very important indeed.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not for the first time in the passage of the Bill—I have studied it through my activities in the Moses Room in Grand Committee and in Hansard—my noble kinsman Lord Radnor has hit the nail squarely on the head. We all know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, (or the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, if he is to answer) cannot put his or her hand on heart and say that an authorised person or someone accompanying him or her can prevent extra infection coming into the packing plant (or whatever it is). Therefore where the packing plant owner or managers use care over and above that required by law it is very important indeed that the authorised person or the person accompanying him or her, should do exactly what my noble friend seeks.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Byford. As noble Lords recall, I have spoken at every stage of the draconian powers in the Bill. Each time the Minister has rebutted the argument with the perfectly sensible answer that the Bill provides for "reasonable" this or "reasonable" that, and therefore why should anyone be unreasonable.
"Reasonably" and "proportionately" are probably the two most important factors in an efficient enforcement system. I see no reason, therefore, why we should not support wholeheartedly my noble friend's proposal and have it written on the face of the Bill. I would go further. It should probably be part of the general responsibilities of the agency and it should be written in Clauses 22 and 23 as well as Clause 11.
I support the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. Many small processing plants have special rules. If someone from an enforcement agency walks in unaware of those rules, and the owner is not present to stop anything untoward happening, the whole production line can be ruined because someone has made a simple mistake. We all know that no one will do that intentionally, especially a representative from the agency, but it could happen. The Minister will probably respond
434
that we cannot provide for every eventuality. But this issue is so important that we should listen carefully to the noble Earl and support him.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I, too, support the noble Earl. I am struck by the words in the clause,
"any other person he may consider appropriate".
Many businesses would want to know who this other person is, and how one judges that he or she is appropriate. However, the discipline proposed in the noble Earl's amendment would help people believe that those persons know what they are doing and will obey the rules of the house. The point may apply to fish outlets and many others. I believe that the amendment needs serious consideration.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to what I hope will be the least contentious in this large group of amendments, Amendment No. 16, which I hope the Minister will move shortly. The noble Baroness has written assuring us that the amendment is purely technical. One always wants to go behind purely technical and consequential amendments! However, given the time, and the other amendments to be considered, we shall leave that for the time being.
Amendment No. 14, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, seeks to insert into the Bill the words "reasonably and proportionately". I was most taken with the remarks of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and I am grateful to her for drawing to our attention the fact that from time to time the European Union has considerable value. The code which is set up and to which she drew our attention could well serve as an extremely good model for this country.
No one wants officials to be officious; we want them to do their job properly, reasonably and responsibly. The question is whether the amendment would achieve that and I am not entirely sure that it would. Perhaps the Minister could comment, but I should have thought that all officials were under a general duty to be reasonable in their behaviour.
I believe that there appear somewhere in the Bill, although on flicking through I cannot find them, the words "reasonably practicable". I have wondered from time to time how something that is practicable cannot be reasonable, or if it is reasonable it cannot be practicable. But perhaps that is entering into the difference between "may" and "shall" and so forth.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 seek to move subsection (6) from Clause 11 to Clause 14. The noble Baroness brings an interesting point before us. I believe that the subsection is in the right place if for no other reason than the fact that subsection (7) follows on. That subsection makes it a criminal offence for any information to be divulged. If subsection (6) were moved to Clause 14, perhaps subsection (7) would not apply.
The crucial issue is not so much how the information is gathered—it should be gathered reasonably and proportionately—but that having been gathered it should not be disseminated illegally and people should have reasonable protection.

435
Amendment No. 18 was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and he had considerable support around the House. It is an important amendment, but I hope that he will not press it to a Division tonight. Equally, I hope that the Minister will give considerable assurances. From my experience working in the catering industry and having environmental health officers no doubt doing a thorough and reasonably balanced job in inspecting my kitchen, I know how irritating it would be if they did not put on the gloves, hat and boots provided. It is important that whoever is coming to inspect is obliged to maintain the standards which the plant wants to impose on its employees. I should have thought that that would be the case, but if not I hope that the Government will take away the proposal, look at it and see whether they can satisfy the noble Earl's point.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Noble Lords have expressed concerns that officers of the agency will use their powers in an untoward way. I hope that I can convince noble Lords that there are sufficient provisions in the legislation and in the general conduct which one would expect from such a public agency and reassure them that their fears will not be realised.
I turn first to perhaps the least contentious amendment, Amendment No. 16, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman. This is a minor consequential amendment arising from one of the changes made in Committee. Having added the new Clause 11(4)(c) allowing authorised persons to take samples from any food source found on any premises, it follow; that obstruction in carrying out these duties should be included as an offence under the provisions of Clause 11(8)(a). It is unfortunate that this was not picked up at the time and I apologise for the omission. However, it is a minor technical point.
I turn to Amendment No. 14 concerning a duty on the agency to act reasonably and proportionately in conducting what the Bill terms as "observations" under Clause 11. First, I confirm the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that the agency's authorised officer will be bound by the general duty, under public law, to behave reasonably and exercise a duty of care.
It follows that I agree entirely with the spirit behind the amendments. In the limited cases—and I stress "limited cases"—where the agency sees the clear need to resort to the powers of entry, it would most certainly be expected to exercise them with clear regard to the potential impact on the food business.
The issue was debated at some length in another place, after which the Government brought forward a number of amendments specifically to address concerns expressed about the way in which those powers might be used. I believe that the changes did a great deal to guarantee that appropriate safeguards are attached to the specific powers in this clause.
Clause 11 already requires that these powers should be used reasonably and proportionately. Powers of entry can only be exercised where it appears necessary
436
for the observations specified; an authorised officer can enter only at a reasonable hour; and his request for help and information must be reasonable.
At a more general level, the agency will be required by virtue of Clause 23 to take account of risks, costs and benefits in the exercise of its powers. I have no doubt that the agency will wish to elaborate, perhaps in its own statement of objectives, on how the principles will be applied in the specific area of surveillance. And we have already made it clear that the agency will prepare guidance to its authorised officers on the proper use of these powers.
I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords on the way in which these powers will be exercised by the agency. I now turn to the amendment spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I do not believe that he has raised a small matter; it is an important matter. I have sympathy with his aims in the amendment. I agree that it would be wholly invidious for an officer of the agency to put business at risk by behaving unreasonably or carelessly. Like enforcement officers themselves, the agency's officials undertaking enforcement monitoring should have proper regard for the needs of the business.
The agency's duty under Clause 23 to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner would, I suggest, include observing hygiene requirements in conducting monitoring visits. And it is self-evident that its authorised officers would have to comply with the law on hygiene matters. Furthermore, it would be in breach of its main objective of protecting public health if it failed to do so.
As any person accompanying an authorised officer of the agency would have a direct interest in the public health purpose of the visit and would be present at the agency's request, the same considerations would apply to that person as well. The noble Earl asked who the accompanying person might be. It is likely he could be a technical expert or an official of the European Union who might be auditing the member state's enforcement under EU provision.
I now turn to the specific wording of the noble Earl's amendment. We do not have a provision of this kind in food law generally and I believe that it would be inconsistent and unnecessary to do so here. It might be that the amendment as worded would leave it open to misuse, with some businesses imposing elaborate rules to prevent entry. However, I hope that I can reassure the noble Earl.
Enforcement officers from food authorities are required to have regard to code of practice 9 made under Section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990 on food hygiene inspections when carrying out their duties. This code requires officers to observe,
"any reasonable food safety precautions which are required by the company or organisation under inspection.".
That seems a sensible way to proceed and I can agree that authorised officers should be obliged to have regard to the relevant provisions of code of practice 9.
Finally, I return to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 which concern access to health records. I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness's arguments on

437
these amendments. She was correct in pointing out that we touched on them in Grand Committee. However, I must say that the health records described in Clause 11(6) do not contain the kind of personal medical information held by GPs or hospitals. I cannot stress that point too strongly; food businesses do not keep that kind of information. But some types of food business are required by law to keep records which show that they monitor the suitability of employees for handling food destined for sale to the public. Those requirements implement provisions in the relevant EU food hygiene directives.
Where certification of fitness to work is required by product-specific regulations, this takes the form of a certificate signed by a medical practitioner or occupational health nurse. Those are the kind of records to which Clause 11 would permit access. I remind noble Lords that people employed by food businesses who carry serious infections transmissible through food pose a potential danger to public health. There are, therefore, good public health reasons for holding relevant information about the health of employees.
I must emphasise to the noble Baroness that we do not envisage that the agency will, as a matter of regular routine, be examining records of this kind. It will mainly be interested in looking at food itself. The need to use that power will be very rare, but our approach is a precautionary one. It is possible that in the light of a particular food safety incident or emergency the agency will need to look at statutory health records. I do not believe that that is unreasonable.
Amendment No. 17 in the noble Baroness's name refers to the agency's enforcement monitoring role. While the agency may need to visit local authorities to look at how they carry out their enforcement responsibilities, it will not routinely involve visits to food premises to examine their records. However, it may be that in some cases, as part of the monitoring activity, the agency will wish to follow up checks on local authority performance by visiting food businesses where enforcement is being carried out
The nature of the visits for enforcement monitoring purposes is, therefore, likely to be much more limited. They are there to check that the local authority is doing the job properly. Powers to inspect and copy health records do not therefore appear in this clause. We recognise that health records are a potentially sensitive matter and we do not believe them to be strictly necessary to monitor the performance of an enforcement authority. I should therefore be reluctant to accept the second amendment which makes the powers too broad in that respect.
I return to the initial point that the noble Baroness made about the respective clauses. I make it clear that Clause 14 relates to the powers to carry out enforcement in relation to the responsibility of those authorities and monitoring their actual performance. Clause 14 is therefore at one remove from the enforcement powers themselves. It seeks to monitor whether the authority concerned is carrying out those responsibilities effectively.
438
I refer also to the interesting matter raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in respect of the code of good administrative behaviour in relation to EU law. I understand that all the powers she mentioned are general principles of EU law which the agency will have to take into account. The UK's better regulation principles are designed also to apply the same kind of principles as the EU code. As my noble friend Lady Hayman stated earlier, we have already referred to the fact that the agency will follow those principles. I hope that noble Lords will have found that explanation helpful and that they will agree to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, in the light of the assurances he gave, could he guarantee that a producer who under Clause 11(8)(a) intentionally obstructs an official trying to exercise his powers under subsection (4) on the grounds that that official was unhygienically clad would not, in fact, be guilty of an offence?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should rather reflect on the exact terms that the noble Lord used and write to him. From what I have said, it is clear that the officers concerned have a responsibility to act reasonably where the practice of that business is concerned. If the officer were not to act reasonably, that would be a serious factor which would need to be taken into account.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before I come specifically to my particular amendment, I hope that I am in order—I believe I shall be yelled at if I am not—
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness is perfectly in order if she wishes to reply on her own amendment. However, I believe that she would not be in order if she wanted to speak a second time on someone else's amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Radnor had not been spoken to before I spoke. I beg your Lordships' pardon and I shall begin again.
I thank the Minister for his full response to Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. We looked at the matter carefully in Grand Committee and we considered the purpose of these two amendments. I am glad that the Minister at least understood why I thought they were perhaps in the wrong place. I have listened to his long and full response. I should like to have an opportunity to read it in Hansard and, in particular, to speak to him about it further before Third Reading. It was rather a long and full explanation and at this stage it might be best if I did not press my amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 46, after ("(b)") insert (", (c)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Monitoring of enforcement action]:
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar moved Amendment No. 16A:
Page 6, line 17, Leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Each annual report of the Agency shall contain a report on its activities during the year in enforcing any relevant legislation for which it is the enforcement authority and its performance in respect of—

(a) any standards under subsection (2) that apply to those activities; and

(b) any objectives relating to those activities that are specified in the statement of objectives and practices under section 22.").

The noble Countess said: My Lords, in rising to move the amendment I should like first to express my extraordinary gratitude to the Minister and to her officials, who have been incredibly patient and who have taken on board my concerns about what is happening with the Meat Hygiene Service.
The noble Baroness will know from previous debates and questions in this House and in another place that there are serious concerns that the Food Safety Act 1990 Section 40 codes that apply to food authorities do not apply to the Meat Hygiene Service. That has caused a number of serious difficulties for abattoir owners and operators with MHS officials carrying out their enforcement duties. I am informed that there is a section in the Meat Hygiene Service manual that is the equivalent of the Section 40 codes, but the vital point is that the manual provides guidelines only, which are neither statutory, nor enforceable.
Meat Hygiene Service officials are not obliged to follow the guidelines and all too often, as I have found, they do not. The guidelines have no standing in law and are given no weight when an abattoir or cutting plant owner or operator seeks redress. Any failures by Meat Hygiene Service officials to follow guidelines are meant to be highlighted by the audit system. The problem here is that the auditors themselves fail because they look only at the outcome and not at the methods by which it is achieved, nor at the standard of enforcement.
It is illogical, inconsistent and inequitable that Section 40 codes should apply only to the local food authorities and not to other important authorities which derive their authority from the same primary legislation, in other words, the Food Safety Act 1990. I understand that for technical reasons it is not possible to include the Meat Hygiene Service in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3, and paragraph 17 of Section 5 of the Bill. I ask the Minister for a categorical assurance that, when the Bill reaches the statute book and the food standards agency is established, the anomaly between the legal requirement for food authorities to comply with Section 40 codes and the non-statutory guidelines for the Meat Hygiene Service will no longer exist.
This amendment looks fairly obscure, but I am assured by the Minister that it will meet my concerns. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for her kind remarks. I believe it is only right to pay tribute to the tenacity with which she has pursued her concerns about the Meat Hygiene Service. The Government do not always agree with her in every detail and it is certainly not always a comfortable position to be in as the Minister responding to her. However, I believe that the commitment she has shown has seen results. It has spurred us into exploring ways of ensuring that the Meat Hygiene Service can provide the best protection for public health and also operate in a way which is equitable and sensitive to the needs of businesses.
The noble Countess knows that we are constrained by EU legislation and that not all the problems are yet solved. However, I believe that a dialogue has been established and that that will be helpful in finding ways forward for the future.
This amendment is particularly useful. It enables us to put clearly on the face of the Bill two points about the way in which the Meat Hygiene Service will be required to operate. I appreciate that that is not perhaps as transparent and easily seen as all of us would wish because of some of the technical difficulties to which the noble Countess referred. However, first, I can assure the House that the MHS will be set standards of enforcement performance against which it will be monitored in the same way as the food authorities will be set standards and have to comply with Section 40 codes.
Secondly, the agency will have objectives in respect of the better-regulation principles which will be set out in the statement of objectives and practices. Those will apply to the Meat Hygiene Service. This amendment usefully requires that the agency will then have to report on its achievements in relation to these standards and objectives in its annual report where it acts as an enforcement authority, which of course includes the Meat Hygiene Service. Therefore, we are setting up a transparent mechanism for monitoring how well the Meat Hygiene Service is doing in those areas and a mechanism on which Parliament itself will also be able to comment.
I turn to the issue of auditing and the way in which the noble Countess believes that that has been unsatisfactory in the past. We expect the audits of the Meat Hygiene Service's performance, which will be carried out by an entirely separate part of the food standards agency, to be rigorous and thorough and not to present a whitewash if there is something wrong.
I also assure the noble Countess that the Meat Hygiene Service will be following the better-regulations enforcement concordat, which it is in the process of signing up to. Therefore, the Meat Hygiene Service will follow the agreed standards of openness, helpfulness, proportionate action and consistency and will have a clear complaints procedure.

441
In summing up, I reiterate that we believe that the amendment provides a genuinely helpful opportunity to strengthen the ways in which we monitor the Meat Hygiene Service's performance. I fully support it.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am somewhat confused. The amendment tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, refers to "the agency" which is presumably the food standards agency. The Minister has spoken mostly about the Meat Hygiene Service. Will she confirm that it is not necessary to mention the name "Meat Hygiene Service" somewhere in the amendment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can confirm that. The Meat Hygiene Service is an enforcement authority. The phrase "enforcement authority" is included in the Bill several times, and so that is in fact covered.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, again I am extraordinarily grateful to the noble Baroness, especially for her kind words. I shall not delay the House any longer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Power of entry for monitoring enforcement action]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) On entering relevant premises an authorised person and any person accompanying that authorised person must observe the rules of hygiene enforced on those premises.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in spite of what the Minister said, I believe that the amendment is phrased in an appropriate and clear way. I listened with the greatest care to what the Minister said. I suppose that what I said in Grand Committee and what he says now are much the same thing.
In carrying out an inspection, the authorised person and companion, or whatever one wishes to call him or her, would of course stay within the law. That is what I expected. They would perhaps be reasonable by their lights, but not necessarily by the lights of the owner of the plant which they were entering to take samples, bacterial swabs or whatever. Neither of those matters is quite enough to cover the burden of my argument, nor indeed is any code of practice. I refer to code of practice 9. I believe that all of us have had long experience of codes of practice, both in your Lordships' House and outside it. Such codes can be abused; they do not carry the force of law. People can get round them and ignore them.
I shall repeat for the last time that the point of my argument does not concern a matter of law nor one of reasonableness. In fact, it does not concern a government agency of any sort. It relates to a visitor coming to a plant and offending the rules obtaining in that plant. In all probability, those rules were set by a buyer, possibly a supermarket. Such rules would be far
442
more severe than any that might be set by an authorised person. On examination, it may be that something wrong is found, and the visitor may be in trouble with the people to whom he is selling. One knows how the marketplace works today in that regard. One believes that tomorrow one is going to sell 100 tonnes of a certain product. Then it is discovered that a visitor has not complied with the rules, and that is used as an excuse—or reason, whichever it is—to drop the order like a stone and go elsewhere. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, following a little confusion earlier, I hope that I am now in order in supporting this very important amendment. I supported it in Grand Committee and I wish to do so publicly. It may have been better if we had uncoupled some of the groupings. Perhaps then I should not have confused the House so much.
My noble friend Lord Radnor has spoken specifically of his interest and reason for tabling this amendment. I should like to mention two other reasons. I shall give an example which I know well. There are definite rules and regimes laid down for any visitor entering or leaving a poultry unit. My noble friend is quite right to say that it would affect the whole outlook if those rules were broken. I wish to add my voice and the voice of these Benches in support of this amendment. I had hoped that the Government would have accepted my reasonable amendment. However, as they have not done so, I add my weight and support to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Radnor.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me, for the second time this evening, a second bite of the cherry. I urge him not to test the opinion of the House this evening but, rather, to hear what the Minister says and to see whether there is anything we can extract from the Minister on the matter between now and Third Reading that may satisfy him.
Because I am in the business myself, I understand fully the frustration which the noble Earl feels and the importance he attaches to this issue. However, I believe that this is perhaps not quite the moment to test the opinion of the House. It is possible that we can extract something from the Government which goes further towards reassuring the noble Earl. If he pushes the amendment to a vote, on the basis of what I have heard I am afraid I shall feel obliged to support the Government and urge my noble friends to do likewise. For that reason, I hope the noble Earl will wait for another occasion to see what can be extracted from the Government.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I would not be able to support this amendment. I gather from the Minister that code 9 under Section 40 covers this. From my own point of view, the environmental health officer and anybody else who comes anywhere near my dairy puts on a

443
white coat, a head covering and proper boots and gloves if they are going to touch anything. I have no fear of being prosecuted for obstructing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I said a couple of words to noble Lords. I referred to code of practice 9 made under Section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990 on food hygiene inspections. Codes to which food authorities must have regard are issued under that section of the Food Safety Act 1990. That code also requires officers to observe any reasonable food safety precautions which are required by the company or organisation under inspection That ought to provide the reassurance that the noble Earl seeks. However, between now and Third Reading I am happy to reflect further and to discuss these matters with the noble Earl to see whether I can reassure him further.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I thank him for his reply. The concern is about "any person accompanying" and not about the agency official. We have been given good assurances on the powers that are in existence for the good practice of the agency officials. But when an agency official chooses another person, will the provisions stretch to cover that other person? I believe that is where we are seeking comfort from the Minister.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. The position is that accompanying persons are not legally bound as the authorised officer would be. However, the agency could make conditions for the accompanying person. As I said to the noble Earl, I would be happy to reflect with him on whether there is something that we can do to satisfy noble Lords on that point.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister finally sits down, he used the words "the agency could". If he were to change that to "the agency would", with all the force at his command and with the Government and the ministry behind him, I am sure that my noble friend would be satisfied.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will allow me two or three days to look into the matter. That is the very issue that I want to discuss with the noble Earl.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I was quite determined to divide the House because this seemed to me to be a perfectly clear and simple amendment that I thought would enhance the Bill rather than spoil it. However, having listened to the exchange, I hope that I read a solid assurance from the Minister. Am I correct in thinking that what I was trying to accomplish will be accomplished and will be open to discussion? If so, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 19 [Publication etc. by the Agency of advice and information]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) The exercise of that power is subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 19 and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20. The amendments deal with the Data Protection Act. At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish put forward Amendment No. 59 which made it clear that any information which is gained and published should exclude personal data. He expressed his pessimism about the ability to keep one's personal data to oneself the moment they appear on any computer.
Since our discussions I have looked at the Data Protection Act 1984 which states in principle 2:
"Personal data shall be held only for one or more specified and lawful purposes",
for example,
"unless that purpose is described in particulars registered under this Act in relation to the data".
Principle 3 states:
"Personal data held for any purpose or purposes shall not be used or disclosed in any manner incompatible with that purpose",
for example, if it is,

"(a) used otherwise than for a purpose of a description registered under this Act in relation to the data; or

(b) disclosed otherwise than to a person of a description so registered".

It also includes some exemptions which cover national security, prevention or detection of crime, apprehension or prosecution of offenders, assessment or collection of tax or duty, salaries or pension payments and company accounts.
In Committee the Minister said that Clause 19(2) states that the agency may not publish anything that is prohibited by an enactment, and added that, therefore, my amendment was not necessary. I understand that the Minister has had time to reflect on this decision and that she may now be willing to consider this amendment again. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I can raise the question of the Data Protection Act's twin, although it is not yet born, the Freedom of Information Bill. I congratulate the Government on subsection (3). Would that the Freedom of Information Bill contained anything like that. The requirement that the agency has to consider whether one thing is outweighed by another was one of the great lacunae in that Bill. I am glad to see that that has been filled in this Bill.
However, will the Minister confirm that when the Freedom of Information Bill is in place it will cover this agency, and that it is not intended that the agency will be exempt from the Act? Will he also confirm that the decisions made by the agency under subsection (3)

445
will be subject to review by the ombudsman and, where the agency has chosen not to disclose, that may be overruled by the ombudsman?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I can respond to that point first. Once the Freedom of Information Bill is enacted, the freedom of information regime will indeed apply to the agency. Although, as the noble Lord points out, we have already set the agency on a pro-active course of being open, that application would mean that the agency would, like other public bodies, be required to produce a publication scheme, describing what it intends to publish. There will also be an avenue of complaint to the information commissioner in the eventuality, which we believe will be unlikely, that individuals are unable to obtain the information that they require. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured on that point.
As to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, I am happy to accept that they are helpful. The noble Baroness raised a similar point about the protection of personal data in the Grand Committee. At that time we made it clear that it was our intention that the Data Protection Act 1998, which updates the 1994 Act, should apply. On reflection we agree that these amendments concerning the agency's ability to publish information are a useful clarification to Clause 19. By including a specific reference to the Data Protection Act, it becomes absolutely clear that the agency is subject to the data protection principles that that Act contains and that the agency must, therefore, maintain the personal privacy of individuals about whom it has obtained information in the course of its work. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for putting forward these amendments, which we support.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, it gives me huge pleasure to thank the noble Baroness for her comments and for accepting these amendments. I am grateful to her and to her colleagues for looking at this issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 10. line 18, leave out ("in subsections (2) and (3)") and insert ("above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Statement of general objectives and practices]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 11, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) securing that a code of practice be drawn up in relation to—

(i) access by the public to advice and information held by the Agency;

(ii) publication or disclosure by the Agency of reports or advice,

with a view to allowing as wide access as is practicable, and to encourage publications of reports and advice,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 returns us to a debate which we had in Grand Committee on the question of openness and accountability. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that it is precisely to cover some of the gaps in freedom of information that I have tabled the amendment, so I would welcome a contribution from him at this point also.
We all agreed in Grand Committee that to enable the agency to discharge its functions properly and achieve its objective—that is, regaining public trust in food safety and food matters generally—it is vital that the way in which such duties are discharged be open. We also agreed that the way in which advice is gathered should be open and that such advice should be available and disseminated.
The problem we encountered at that point was where and how we could put this into the Bill. Clearly, it was wrong to put it where I had suggested at that point, earlier on in the Bill. In addressing the matter in Clause 22, I tried, therefore, to put it in a more reasonable place.
Clause 22 sets out the statement of general objectives and practices for the agency. It requires the agency to make a statement of general objectives. Subsection (2) goes on to iterate certain objectives which should be contained within that statement. Paragraph (a) covers consultation, particularly with members of the public. Paragraph (b) covers cooperation with other bodies. Paragraph (c) requires records of its decisions and that they should be made available.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to add what would effectively be paragraph (d) which secures that a code of practice be drawn up in relation to two areas which are slightly different. The first is access by the public to advice and information. I am seeking to ensure generally that the agency allows access to members of the public or interested bodies so that information it holds can become available to people who wish to seek it. It is, therefore, a reactive power asking the agency to react to requests.
The second provision seeks to secure that the agency makes a code of practice in relation to the publication or disclosure of information which it holds.
My last amendment, which I withdrew in Grand Committee, sought to impose a duty upon the agency to disclose information. I was informed at that stage that that meant that every last piece of paper which the agency had would have to be disclosed and there would be a flood of paper everywhere. I did not necessarily accept that defence. However, I accepted it as a possibility. I therefore sought to put it into the code of practice rather than to make it an imposition upon the agency, so that by and large the agency will disclose information which it has.
Without obliging the agency to do these things, I am seeking to bring about the greatest possible likelihood that it will. I hope, therefore, that the amendment might be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Viscount in Amendment No. 22. Throughout

447
the passage of the Bill we have argued that the agency should operate a presumption of openness. That means that information should be available unless there is a good reason for it not to be. The wording of Clause 19(1) which states that the agency may publish the advice it gives does not give a presumption of openness.
In Committee the Minister stated that Clause 19(1) gives the agency discretion to decide what information and advice it should publish and that that provision should be read in conjunction with Clause 22(2)(c) which requires the agency to keep records of its decisions and the information on which those decisions are based.
This provision is most welcome but not as broad as a presumption of openness. I believe that a firmer and more explicit general statement is needed that the agency should operate openly. I feel particularly keen to support the amendment at this time. I have just returned from the United States of America where I have been looking at science in society with the Select Committee on Science to find out why the American public seem to have more confidence, faith and trust in their scientists and in the advice they are given. I returned astonished at the amount of openness they enjoy. I refer not only to a freedom of information Act but to a right to know Act. Many of their committees are obliged not only to be open but to print all their agendas on the web. Everybody knows what is going on; they can turn up and see what is happening.
Here is a wonderful opportunity for this Government, who I know are wedded to a Freedom of Information Act and as much openness as possible. Using the word "may" does not quite make it. I hope that the Minister, at this late stage, may listen to the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount and give him his way.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may start by again congratulating the Government, this time on Clause 22(2)(c). Would that anything like that were to be in the Freedom of Information Act and apply to the Home Office. It would give poor Mr Straw a heart attack. I am delighted that some other part of the Government has seen how important it is that that sort of openness is available to citizens where they are required to trust the Government.
I find the amendments tabled by the noble Viscount entirely helpful. I do not know whether they are necessary but they certainly say something important. When members of the public want to know what sort of information they can expect to be published and what will not be published, to have in front of them a previously printed statement of practice will give them much more confidence that what they receive is right than wondering whether the rules are or might be seen to be altered to suit every occasion. I support the comments of the noble Viscount, but I do not pretend to know whether the amendments are necessary.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Viscount will be absolutely delighted to hear me quote once again from the EU document, Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. The first sentence states:
"Having regard to the provisions on openness in the Amsterdam Treaty and in particular Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 21 of the EC Treaty".
The document contains a great deal about requests for information, requests for public access to documents and the keeping of adequate records and public access to the code. I cannot do anything but commend the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount.
Lord Rowallan: My Lord, I too, support the noble Viscount. We have just heard the noble Countess speak, and, as we all know, she is seldom wrong. It is nice to know that we are on the right side.
The Bill is so full of worries for so many people in all parts of the food industry that to have openness would be extremely useful. As was pointed out, it means that information will be available unless there is a very good reason for it not to be. That is a strong commitment and would go a long way towards making the Bill much more palatable to many more people. It also distinguishes between the publication and disclosure of information, both of which are important. I have pleasure in supporting the noble Viscount in his amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 24. In Committee we debated my Amendment No. 69 which required the agency to submit annually to Parliament on the anniversary of the approval of its first statement a revised version laying down its current objectives and how it intends to attain them. In his response the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, stated,
"First, the agency cannot simply produce its statement and never review or revise it. As I said earlier, I see this as a dynamic process where the statement is subject to revision. I also agree that the statement should be laid before Parliament".—[Official Report, 13/10/99; col. CWH 123.]
I return to that important issue again today. I am convinced that the Bill should carry a requirement to publish such revision as soon as possible. It should be included on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 24 asks for exactly that. In the same Committee stage I also tried to persuade the Government to accept that an annual report and accounts should be a joint publication, but was told that that was not possible. Today's amendment is an attempt to improve the visibility of the agency's work.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, first, I shall speak to Amendment No. 24 to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has just referred. We welcome the intention behind that amendment. It will be helpful in making sure that the final approved version of the agency's statement of objectives and any revised statement is laid before Parliament and the devolved authorities.
We touched on this matter in our discussions in Grand Committee and, in reply to the noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Hunt agreed that the statement

449
should be laid before Parliament when first produced and whenever revised. We agreed that it would be useful to make that clear on the face of the Bill. The amendment of the noble Baroness does that and we are happy to support it.
I turn now to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, Amendment No. 24. I welcome the opportunity to restate the Government's position on openness, which is at the heart of the food standards agency.
In his introduction to the White Paper—The Food Standards Agency; A Force for Change—my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that we were determined to do away with the old climate of secrecy and suspicion and replace it with modern, open arrangements which will deliver real improvements in standards. We back that up with a set of guiding principles for the agency which state quite clearly that the agency's decision-making processes will be open, transparent and consultative in order that interested parties, including representatives of the public, have the opportunity to make their views known; can see the basis on which decisions are being taken; and are able to reach an informed judgment about the quality of the agency's processes and decisions.
That is a powerful manifesto for openness, as noble Lords will agree, and I can perhaps say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that it is not all jam tomorrow. It is not only in America that on the Internet are published the agendas and minutes of advisory committees. We have been doing that with the advisory committees that MAFF runs. We have also opened up the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods so that people can see applications and make their views known on the applications so that they can participate. We are therefore actively engaged in exactly the sort of opening-up process in order to build consumer confidence to which the noble Baroness is committed.
Clause 22 provides for the agency to draw up and agree with the appropriate authorities a statement of the general objectives it intends to pursue and the general practices it intends to adopt. That statement provides a useful vehicle to give effect to the guiding principles. Amendment No. 22 points us towards a helpful way forward.
Clause 23 then clearly requires the agency to have due regard to its statement in carrying out its functions and Clause 24 provides a basis on which Ministers can direct the agency if it seriously fails so to do. So the statement will directly influence the way in which the agency operates. Moreover, Clause 22 explicitly requires that the statement must include objectives relating to consultation on all the agency's activities and on the way in which it will make public its decisions and the information on which they are based. Here it uses much the same words as we set out in the guiding principles.
450
There are also other provisions in the Bill which add to what I have previously described as a general presumption of openness. Clause 7(2) says that the agency shall carry out its function of giving advice and information to the public
"with a view to ensuring that members of the public are kept adequately informed about and advised in respect of matters which the Agency considers significantly affect their capacity to make informed decisions about food".
Clause 19 empowers the agency to publish advice and information. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, that is an unusual power since the agency is expressly able to publish the policy advice it gives to Ministers. As no other public body in my knowledge has been given a power of quite this kind, there is a clear presumption here that Parliament expects the agency to make use of this power. And although, rightly, the agency has to take account of legitimate considerations of confidentiality, Clause 19(3) makes clear that any considerations of confidentiality must be so strong as to outweigh the public interest in the advice or information being published.
All of that adds up to a very strong steer that the agency will operate openly and take a proactive role in getting information into the public domain as well as the freedom of information regime applying to it, as I said earlier. Therefore much of what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is seeking to achieve is already addressed in the Bill. The genie of openness is out of the bottle in relation to the food standards agency and it is not possible to put it back. However, the code of practice the noble Viscount suggests is a sensible approach. Once such a code is in place and published, the public will be able to see very clearly the basis on which the agency is operating and how it applies the general presumption of openness in practice. It will not necessarily be possible to set out specific criteria covering each individual circumstance which must be judged on its merits, but it can and will set out the general principles by which the agency will abide.
I do not believe it is necessary to insert the words about such a code of practice into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, hinted, such a code could naturally flow out of the existing Clause 22(2)(c). But I can give the noble Viscount an assurance tonight that the agency will devise and publish such a code as part of the documentation referred to in its statement of objectives and practices which will be laid before Parliament in the light of Amendment No. 24, if and when that is accepted. I can further give the assurance to the noble Viscount and to the House that Ministers will ensure that before approving any draft statement, that point will have been addressed by the agency. I hope that, on the basis that there is a clear intention and an assurance that that intention of initiating just the sort of code of practice referred to in the amendment will be delivered on, the noble Viscount will feel sufficiently reassured that what he wishes to see will in fact come about and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this important and

451
interesting debate, and for the general level of support for the concept that I was putting forward. I am also thankful to the Minister for the generous way in which she went virtually the whole way to giving me everything I want short of actually saying that the Government would accept the amendment. I do not believe she could have gone any further if she had tried.
I have nothing further to add. The fact that the noble Baroness gave the House an assurance that a code of practice will be drawn up and that it will be acted upon is more than sufficient. If, for any reason, it does not take place, then my successors if not my heirs can hold her to account. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 11, line 44, leave, out from beginning to ("in") in line 45 and insert ("As soon as practicable after a statement is approved under subsection (5), the Agency shall—

(a) lay a copy of the statement as so approved before Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly; and

(b) publish that statement").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Power to modify enactments about disclosure of information]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Consequences of Agency losing certain functions]:
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 18, line 39, at end insert ("or

(e) for the termination of office of the two Scottish appointees or the single Northern Irish appointee, as is appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29. As matters stand, were the Scottish Parliament to decide to take responsibility for food matters back to itself, the current Bill would make that possible. However, there is one glaring omission. The Bill contains nothing that lays down the summary closure of the tenure of the members appointed by the Scottish Minister. In fact, the Bill as it stands specifically states in Schedule 1 that the only grounds on which an agency member can be removed from office is if he has run out of money or momentum.
Doubtless it would be hoped, even expected, that in the circumstances of a reversion of responsibility to a devolved territory—perhaps I should call this a "devolved country", so that I get the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, although I doubt that he will hear me at this point—the members involved would do the decent thing and resign. There are plenty of examples throughout history of people who have failed to do the decent thing. I would not wish to see this legislation allow it to happen again. I believe that
452
we need to include a clause covering the termination of office on the face of the Bill and to widen the reasons for the removal of the office in that part of the schedule which deals with such matters. There would then be no doubt of what had to happen and what was intended.
In Committee, Ministers distributed the most helpful digest of definitions at the end of this small section of the Bill on how the courts in future years will interpret the terms used in the Bill:
"A court will start interpreting an enactment by determining the ordinary meaning of the words used".
I take that to mean that if the words are not there, the enactment may be interpreted rather differently than originally intended. In this case, I suggest that we ensure that the words are there. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 28, tabled in my name which forms part of this grouping.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, confirmed that being appointed to the agency in one position would not bar a person from being re-appointed in any other. He referred me to Schedule 1 and assured me that paragraph 2(1) provides that,
"on ceasing to hold that office, [a person] is eligible for re-appointment";
In other words, there could be re-appointment in any other position. I beg leave to disagree with the noble Lord's interpretation, though he will no doubt tell me that I am wrong. I must remind noble Lords of the quote mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick regarding how the courts decide the meaning of the "words used". I agree with my noble friend. If the required words are not used, the courts could be forgiven for taking a different meaning from that intended.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we return, yet again, to matters of devolution. As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, pointed out, we debated the purpose of Clause 33 very fully in Committee. My noble friend Lady Hayman explained then that the clause was in the Bill to deal with the unlikely possibility that Scotland or Northern Ireland might want to withdraw from the agency, or some of its functions, at some stage in the future—as, of course, would be possible under the devolution Acts.
As my noble friend explained in Committee, if Scotland or Northern Ireland opted out of the agency, it would clearly no longer be appropriate to have a member of the agency appointed by the devolved authority in Scotland or Northern Ireland. This is precisely the sort of reason why we need to have Clause 33. I can fully assure the noble Lord that the clause is wide enough to cover the question of appointments. Subsection (2) says:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision (a) modifying this or any other Act as She considers necessary or expedient".
That would clearly involve modifying the appointment provisions as set out in Clause 2 and Schedule 1.

453
Therefore, neither of these amendments is necessary in legal terms. Indeed, the width of Clause 33 would enable us to deal with any situation that might arise. However, I should tell the noble Lord that I believe that this is rather hypothetical, as the devolved authorities have said that they wish to have a UK agency.
Amendment No. 28, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, deals with a slightly different point on appointments, which was addressed in Committee. I should make it clear that we do not want to exclude experienced members from the agency simply because they have filled one term of office. That is why we specified that, after holding office, members are eligible for re-appointment.
We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. In specifying that former members of the agency are eligible for re-appointment, it is implicit that they are only eligible for re-appointment to the posts that they are eligible to fill. There is no need to specify that in the Bill. For example, there is absolutely nothing to stop anyone who has served one term as a member from later being appointed chairman or deputy if he or she is the best person for the job. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness on that point.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I listened with great care to the reasonable assurances given by the Minister on Clause 33. In that light, I shall look again most closely at them. In the absence of support from other noble Lords, I feel that I must beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 43 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 24, line 9, after ("6(2)") insert ("and (5)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to government Amendment No. 30. I hope that I do not raise the suspicions of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, if I say that these are technical and drafting amendments, similar to amendments made for Northern Ireland in Committee.
I apologise to the House for bringing forward such amendments at this late stage, but, on further study, Northern Ireland colleagues felt that it was necessary to make some further amendments to the provisions of Part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, as they apply to Northern Ireland, in order to ensure that the situation there is consistent with the powers available in Great Britain. As I say, I regret that we have to make such technical changes on Report, but they are simply to ensure consistency. I recommend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Constitution etc. of the Agency]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 37, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 and insert—
("(5) In section 25(2) (application of Act to Northern Ireland)—

(a) before paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(za) in section 1(2), in the definition of "designating authority", for the words from "in relation" (in the first place they appear) to the end there is substituted "means the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland;"

(b) in paragraph (a), after the word "reference" (in the first place it appears) there shall be inserted the words "in Part III".

This sub-paragraph shall come into force on the passing of this Act.
(6) In section 25(2) as amended by paragraph (5)—

(a) for paragraph (za) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(za) in section 1(2), in the definition of "designating authority", for the words from "in relation" (in the first place they appear) to the end there is substituted "means the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland";

(b) in paragraph (a), for the word "paragraph" there shall be substituted the words "paragraphs (ab) and"; and

(c) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the Unstarred Question will now be taken at the end of today's business rather than during the dinner hour, the time for the debate has been extended from one hour to one-and-a-half hours. Therefore, the time for speakers has also been increased. The timings for my noble friends Lord Ahmed and Lord Bassam remain at 10 minutes and 12 minutes respectively, while the time for other speakers is increased from three minutes to six minutes. However, if any noble Lords have prepared three-minute speeches and wish to avoid the inconvenience of doubling their length at short notice, I am sure that the House will understand.

Religious Discrimination
7.47 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to extend to the rest of the United Kingdom legislation which applies in Northern Ireland against religious discrimination.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have put down their names at such short notice to speak on this Unstarred Question. This debate is overdue, as there are many faith communities

455
in Britain who feel that they are second-class citizens because the law does not protect them in England, Scotland and Wales. While the enactment of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts 1976 and 1989 is praiseworthy in itself, it has created an embarrassing anomaly, with religious discrimination in the employment sphere being unlawful in only one part of the United Kingdom. I am aware that there are complications in relation to the Northern Ireland legislation. However, I am using that as a basis for my debate tonight.
In an historic decision, an industrial tribunal in Sheffield—Precision Services Ltd, Rotherham—decided in 1991 that direct discrimination against Muslims on religious grounds is outside the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976 because, in the tribunal's view, Muslims were neither an ethnic nor a racial group to be covered by the Act.
The three pieces of legislation including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 currently deal with discrimination on the grounds of sex, disability, racial discrimination, racial abuse and racial harassment, which, regrettalbly, are a fact of life for many citizens.
Incitement to racial hatred is a criminal offence, but if the harassment, abuse or incitement is based not on colour, race, nationality, ethnic or national origin but on religion there is no law and no protection, as last year's High Court decision regarding Merton Council's attempt to secure legal protection for Muslims from certain members of the British National Party has demonstrated. It is clear that at present a religiously motivated attack is not regarded by the law as an aggravated offence. There is in fact no "legal uncertainty" as to whether the law regards Muslims, who come in all colours and from all ethnic backgrounds, as a racial group. It does not and could not.
The House of Lords made a decision, which I welcome, that Jews and Sikhs constitute a racial group and are entitled to protection under the Race Relations Act. They can be defined by their ethnic as well as their religious identity. So a black Jew from Ethiopia, a white Jew from Russia and a brown Jew from Lebanon are all treated as belonging to the same ethnic race for the purposes of English law, whereas black, white and brown Muslims from exactly the same countries are not.
Evidence published by the Runnymede Trust in its report Islamophobia—a challenge for us all clearly shows that the law is inadequate to secure the objective of an inclusive and pluralist society. Your Lordships may be aware that the Commission for Racial Equality and the Muslim Council of Britain have been calling for a change in the law in respect of discrimination on the grounds of religion and incitement to religious hatred.
The previous Home Secretary, Michael Howard, argued that,
"there is little evidence of discrimination against individuals on religious rather than racial grounds, but I can assure you that the Home Office remains ready to look at any evidence".
I hope that the Home Office will have examined the evidence which is set out clearly in the Runnymede Trust's report and also representations made by the Commission for Racial Equality, the MCB and various faith communities and organisations.
Last year Mr. John Austin MP introduced a Private Member's Bill in another place to make religious discrimination unlawful in employment and in the provision of goods, facilities and services, and to make provision for appropriate enforcement. The Bill also proposed new offences related to incitement to religious hatred. Unfortunately, because of lack of time the Bill was not pursued. In his speech in March 1998 he said:
"Hatred of Islam has existed in western cultures for several centuries, but it has become more explicit, extreme and dangerous. It is an ingredient of all sections of our media, which means that many Muslims are frequently excluded from the economic, social and public life of the nation".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/98; col. 860.]
According to the Asian Times this week, another mosque was burned down in Portsmouth by an arson attack last week. A few weeks ago I met a young, Asian barrister in Bradford who is unable to get a pupilage or training contract because of his beard. There are scores of people who have difficulty in obtaining permission from their employers to celebrate religious festivals like Eid and Diwali. There are dozens of women who have been discriminated against because of the dress they wear.
There is no protection from or deterrent against religious discrimination under domestic English law. And yet religious discrimination, whether blatant or disguised, gross or subtle, is experienced, as with racial and sexual discrimination, by many people, not only by Muslims but also by followers of other faiths.
I accept that simply passing a law against any form of ignorance does not in itself dispel such ignorance, although it may well eventually help to have that effect. Ignorance can only be defeated by wisdom. Arrogance can only be repulsed by humility. Covering up the truth can only be overwhelmed by making the truth clearly apparent. Tyranny can only be conquered by justice. I accept that there will be those who will never understand the feelings of their victims. Therefore the arguments for legislation outlawing religious discrimination are broadly the same as those for legislation outlawing racial discrimination. First, a religious anti-discrimination law would be a powerful symbol of public policy and would convey the important message that religious identities are valued and respected throughout society. It would acknowledge that Britain is now a multi-cultural and multi-religious society.
Secondly, there must be consistency. Just as we have in Northern Ireland the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts, we should also have protection for the citizens living in mainland Britain. I accept that

457
defining "religion" is difficult, but difficulties are no argument for not acting in the interest of justice in our society. The fear that obscure and extremist cults will define their own practices as religious in origin and will make the judicial system vulnerable by having to pass judgments on such difficult terrain is unfounded.
I would like to propose a very simple criterion: a religion is "that system of beliefs and activities centred around the worship of God which is derived in whole or in part from a book revealed by God to one of His messengers". This definition is wide enough to include all denominations: the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists and the Sikhs. It will exclude cults.
I remind your Lordships that it was the courts that defined "race" after the 1976 Race Relations Act and not the state. Similarly, we can leave it to the courts to decide on a definition of "religion". If a definition of "God" were also needed, perhaps "the source and sustainer of the universe and all that exists" would suffice.
My final point regarding reform can be justified on the basis of moral argument centred around current notions of equality, fairness and justice. As a nation, if we are going to have an inclusive society, we need to ensure that there is statutory recognition of the fact that Britain is now a multi-cultural and multi-religious country.
7.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for initiating this important debate. The Church of England, and indeed other Christian denominations, take very seriously the difficult experience and wounded feelings of particular groups, especially some of the Muslim community, who feel that they suffer discrimination which is not picked up in race legislation. Where the existing law is clearly inadequate to meet these problems, we are in principle in favour of fresh legislative provision.
The words of the Unstarred Question refer to legislation in Northern Ireland. Legislation on religious discrimination was first introduced by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act in 1973. Subsequently there has been more specific legislation, particularly relating to unemployment. The operation of the 1976 and 1989 Acts was reviewed by the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in July of this year. While making it clear that discrimination cannot be ended by legislation alone and acknowledging that there have been failures as well as successes, it nevertheless asserts—and here I quote —
"We are reassured by the general view from all the witnesses we heard that unlawful employment discrimination on the grounds of religious belief and political opinion appears to have declined".
The situation that we are dealing with in this country is, of course, different from that in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless I suggest that the lesson to be drawn from Northern Ireland is that the right legislation can make some difference.
458
At the moment too little research has been done to indicate the extent of the problem with which we are dealing. Therefore we look forward to the results of the research commissioned from the University of Derby on this subject. What we know is that many Muslims feel discriminated against. The study by the Policy Studies Institute published in 1997, Ethnic Disadvantage in Britain: The Fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities, is extremely revealing. Respondents who reported discrimination were asked whether they thought the refusal of the job or jobs was on account of their race or their religion, or was due to both of these. Very few thought that it was a result of their religion alone. However, a quarter believed that the refusal was for a mixture of reasons to do with their race and religion. In fact over 40 per cent. of South Asians, evenly spread across ethnic and religious groups, believe this combination of reasons to be operative.
Moreover, younger South Asians were more of this view than the older age group. This suggests that for South Asians the concept of racial discrimination is of a more complex character than it is in many equal opportunities policies, in which it is assumed that racial discrimination is unfair treatment simply on the grounds of colour. For example, whereas only 15 per cent. of people of Caribbean origin thought that discrimination was due to a mixture of race and religion—in their case 75 per cent. thought that it was due to race alone—39 per cent. of people of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin thought that it was due to a mixture of religion and race. Some 38 per cent. of Hindus thought the same, as did 44 per cent. of Sikhs and 39 per cent. of Muslims. This is obviously a complex picture but it is clear that racism and hostility to particular cultures or particular religions can merge and reinforce one another.
Clearly a great deal of thought is needed on how this can best be tackled from a legislative point of view. As I said, if appropriate, workable legislation can be enacted, we on these Benches certainly support it in principle. If legislation is thought appropriate, the technical difficulties should not be regarded as insurmountable. There is of course a very proper debate about what would count as a religion—as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, has already indicated—and whether it would be possible to have a definition that could work in a court. The Church of England staff group that has been working on this subject holds the view that when the courts are left to work out a definition of terms such as "religion" or "religious belief" which have been left undefined by the legislation in which they appear, the judges have in fact been able to do so. Similarly, they have been able to deal with cases where the sincerity or strength of an individual's religious belief was called into question. As a result there is already case law on the subject in various contexts in this country, as well as from the Commonwealth and US courts, including decisions on Bills of Rights and similar legislation and decisions on, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights.

459
However, the existence of English case law could itself present problems, given that it is arguably less well developed and some of the decisions are arguably less satisfactory than those from, say, Australia. But if there is a problem that can and should be tackled by legislation these difficulties could be overcome. I very much look forward to hearing the Government's thinking on this important issue.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for his extremely interesting introduction to this extremely difficult subject. I think I find myself in a most total agreement with what he said. I also find myself agreeing with much of what the right reverend Prelate said. It must be a record in my five years in the House to find myself agreeing with both the Labour Party and the Bench of Bishops. However, we may find something to disagree about in what I have to say. I shall not try to cover the same ground as either of the previous speakers.
Religion has been a potent source of division and hatred down through the ages. It has potential for generating disagreements over the tiniest of things which can lead, and have led, to members of my religion murdering their very close cousins in very large numbers. I suspect that the same is true of the Muslim religion. One can hope that we are moving towards—and should make efforts to move towards—a time of religious tolerance and lack of discrimination. But there are times when it is right to discriminate on grounds of religion. Religion is not like disability or race or gender; it is something which a person chooses. My brother-in-law has chosen to become a Muslim. It is not something he was born to; it is an individual choice he has made. As such it says something about him; it gives him a particular set of characteristics which may or may not be acceptable in certain circumstances.
The main people who, to my mind, are justified in discriminating on religious grounds are the religious themselves. For instance, there is a very widespread practice in this country, and indeed in Northern Ireland, where certain schools are only open to members of certain religions. That seems to me to be acceptable. I do not find it comfortable but none the less it seems to me something we should permit. In Northern Ireland it goes perhaps a little further than it should and causes long-term division in that society. But where it is relatively gentle and where the schools are relatively scattered, it seems to me reasonable that people of profound religious belief should be able to have their children brought up alongside members of their own religion and not mixed in with others. It is an important stage of a person's development.
There are also occasions where particular religions will want their food prepared by members of the same religion. Again that seems to me reasonable, although when you find yourself on the wrong end of that and someone whom you have been working with closely refuses to break bread with you because he considers you unclean, it is not a particularly pleasant experience. None the less it appears to me reasonable
460
that the religious should be allowed to pursue that belief even if it hurts the rest of us. I would consider it reasonable, if I was employing someone to help bring up my children, to discriminate as regards the religion of that person if I cared what beliefs my children were going to absorb in the course of their experiences with that person. I would certainly wish to exclude some of the "kookier" sects from that position.
It also seems to me that I do not wish to be obstructed in any way from arguing extremely strongly on the subject of religion. I want to be able to argue bitterly with Catholics about their opinions on birth control and to do everything I can to obstruct the effect that I believe that has on world population and the health of the planet. I want to be able to argue on almost everything with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and to do everything I can to obstruct his beliefs. I do not wish to be halted in that because I think that it is reasonable, within the law, to have views on what scientology is. I do not think that one should feel that one is cut off by the law from expressing opinions in debate and in any other reasonable way that results from religious feeling.
Given the premise that there is acceptable religious discrimination and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, has so clearly shown, a lot of unacceptable religious discrimination, with a pretty grey area between, it is a very hard area for legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, proposes that we limit the religions we apply non-discrimination to. That is certainly one way ahead although there are some Christian sects that are pretty unappealing in their beliefs. The right reverend Prelate discussed the prospect of leaving it to the judges to reflect the feelings of society about what religion is. Perhaps that is a way ahead.
As an alternative perhaps we could look at the question of making the area subject to an ombudsman—someone able to investigate a particular case in all its complexity, local nature and individuality and produce a report which, as ombudsmen in this country have shown, is likely to be taken up by most of those who have a care for their position in society, such as government, major corporations and local government. That might, over time, have a clearing effect on what was considered reasonable and what was considered unreasonable when it came to matters of religious discrimination. That might allow us in the end to legislate in a way which would not cause offence and outrage when people felt their reasonable expressions of opinion and discrimination were being outlawed.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for introducing the debate.
There is no dispute that we live in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. We now have human rights legislation arising from our international obligations; and, following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report, we have the Government's commitment that race relations legislation will be reviewed. The question we need to ask in practical

461
terms is how relevant this legislation will be as far as concerns our diverse community in Britain, particularly when religion is at the centre of such issues.
The public recognition of the importance of religious identity to many of our citizens must be translated into legislation in order that discriminatory treatment on grounds of religion is treated on a par with other factors, such as race, colour or ethnic origin.
I am well aware that the situation here is different from the situation in Northern Ireland. On this particular point, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, will not disagree if I suggest another way in which to incorporate such legislation in statute. In the short time available to me, I will resist the temptation to elaborate on the situation in Northern Ireland and to compare it with the situation in this country.
I do not advocate extending the Northern Ireland pattern of legislation to the rest of the United Kingdom. That legislation is related mainly to employment practices. I have in mind a different approach, a much wider approach, a more holistic approach in all the areas covered by the race relations legislation.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill was at one time adviser to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead when he was Home Secretary. They were pioneers as far as concerns race relations legislation. I shall be interested to know whether at the time of the legislation any consideration was given to the inclusion of religion as a part of the strategy.
There has been a general acceptance from as early as 1968—I have just been referring to some of the parliamentary debates which took place during that time—that when the second Race Relations Act was passing through Parliament, its declaration was confined to discrimination simply on racial grounds; or, to be precise, treating others less favourably on the grounds of race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said.
However, the Act does not outlaw discrimination against a group of persons defined by reference to religion. If, however, one looks at the declaration of human rights, it includes religion among many other forms of discriminatory behaviour. Therefore, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting an amendment to race relations legislation which would extend the scope of the definition of discrimination to include religion.
The interpretation of ethnic origin in the Race Relations Act has created an anomaly. For example, the Sikhs are a racial group but the Muslims are not. In its judgment in the Mandla case the House of Lords held that although ethnic origins have a good deal in common with the concept of race, "ethnic" was used in the Race Relations Act in an appreciably wider sense than the strictly racial or biological sense.
A group can be defined by reference to its ethnic origin if it constitutes a separate and distinct community by virtue of characteristics which are
462
commonly associated with common racial origin. On the basis of this construction, the Sikhs qualify as a group defined by ethnic origins but the Muslims do not.
Islam is one of the great religions of the world. There is now a growing awareness of increased anti-Muslim prejudice and discrimination. I do not wish to spell out details; there is enough research evidence available on this issue. I am aware that the Government have commissioned research to determine the extent to which religious discrimination occurs. We shall certainly await the outcome with interest.
Anti-discrimination laws represent key markers of public policy. To put religion on a par with race, sex and disability would convey the important message that religious identities are valued and respected throughout our society. It would also be evidence of our religious tolerance.
Today, I visited the Millennium Dome with some of your Lordships. How nice it would be if the section dealing with different faiths was to reflect our religious tolerance, incorporated in a legislative framework.
In response to the Macpherson Report, the Home Secretary has accepted the need to strengthen the race relations legislation. We have to develop a shared sense of national identity and a concerted determination to reduce discrimination in its various forms. Religious values are personal and deeply treasured by almost all communities. To deny a section of our community the right to enjoy its religion is a blot on our society. We should never put communities into a position where they have to hide their treasured beliefs to achieve equality. Religious tolerance and the eradication of religious discrimination must, after all, be a sign of our civilised values.
8.15
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lord Ahmed for raising this issue and for giving the House an opportunity to debate it.
I rise to express some scepticism. I have always been a strong supporter of using legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, gender and disability. I have huge sympathy for the feelings expressed and explained to the House by my noble friend Lord Ahmed. But we should exercise considerable caution before extending legislative protection of the kind that exists in the areas of race, gender and disability to the area of religious belief. We would not be able easily to produce legislation that protects only Muslims. It would need to be extended to a range of religious beliefs.
We should bear in mind that we live in a largely secular society. Research published in the 1999 edition of Social Trends shows that UK Church membership, as measured by active adult members, is approximately 8 million out of an adult population of approximately 45 million. With great respect to those who have strong religious beliefs and support faith-based systems, we must take account of other people's views and their ability to challenge all belief systems in a free secular society. There would be many who would

463
see legislation providing protection on the basis of belief systems as a move towards a context of inhibiting people's rights to criticise and to free expression.
I accept fully the need for racial and religious tolerance. The European Convention on Human Rights, now enshrined in the Human Rights Act, provides full protection for individuals to pursue and practice their personal religious beliefs. That is as it should be. But I doubt that we should go further for two practical reasons.
First, my noble friend mentioned the issue of cults. It will be extremely difficult to produce a legislative definition of "religious discrimination" that does not protect cults inappropriately. We know from the work of the Information Network on New Religious Movements that there are approximately 2,000 religious cults in Europe. Many are small; some are innocuous; some are less so. There exists a considerable history of cults preying on vulnerable people, breaking up families and obtaining large sums of money from gullible and vulnerable people.
Some cults pose as religions. For example, I recall that some years ago the Court of Appeal ruled against the recognition of the Scientologists' so-called "chapels" and "ministers". The German Government have taken a very strong line in regard to Scientologists. If we produced legislation in the area of religious discrimination we would see more of this kind of approach, and that would inhibit any government of the day from taking action against inappropriate cults.
Secondly, I should like to touch on the difficult issue of when it may be legitimate to discriminate against somebody in employment and otherwise on the grounds of their religious beliefs. I do so as someone who has been a director of social services and has had to bear those issues in mind when dealing with employment relating to children. It may well be right not to approve somebody as an adoptive or foster parent because their strident and excluding religious beliefs would work against the best interests of a child. One may well have to remove the head of a children's home because he or she seeks to impose their beliefs on vulnerable children in their care. School governors may well think it inappropriate in a multi-cultural society to appoint a head teacher with obtrusive beliefs in a particular religion. These are all real situations that people would have to grapple with in the world in which we live if there was strong employment legislation to prevent people from exercising their judgment when they thought that strong religious beliefs were being used inappropriately in an employment context.
I shall not echo the point raised by my colleague, the noble Lord on the Benches opposite, on the subject of Catholicism and contraception. However, there could well be circumstances such as in a family planning clinic where it would be inappropriate to appoint someone who adhered to beliefs that made them unable to carry out their job. These are just a few practical examples of the problems that I believe
464
legislation preventing some degree of discrimination on the basis of religious belief would cause in the workplace.
The situation in Northern Ireland is special. The tribal badge of religion has been used to do terrible things within that society. I can well understand why the Government have acted as they have in terms of legislation on religious discrimination in order to break out of the straitjacket of the past. However, I suggest that the situation in England, Scotland and Wales is not the same, and for the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the Government will think very carefully indeed before extending that legislation outside Northern Ireland.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, anyone who has met the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, or heard him in action, knows what a sincere, thoughtful and moderate individual he is. I regret all the more, therefore, that I believe that his aims, in this instance, are misconceived for a number of reasons.
First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, speaking on Monday, when he said that there are many,
"who believe that positive discrimination is a can of worms".—[Official Report, 25/10/99; col. 4.]
That applies whether positive discrimination is formal and overt, as it is in one or two parts of the world, or, as it has to be under our existing laws in the United Kingdom, informal and semi covert. The bureaucratic burdens on businesses in Northern Ireland are bad enough, but just compare Lame in County Antrim with Leeds in Yorkshire. The Lame employer has only to try to establish over a period of time a rough balance between Catholics and Protestants, based on the respective proportion of Protestants and Catholics in a particular area. In the case of Lame, that may mean that a workforce must comprise around eight Protestants to every two Catholics. In Leeds, employers would have to try to apportion their workforce between Anglicans, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Jews, Hindus and Muslims, and probably Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists as well.
As for stirring up religious hatred, that is already effectively illegal under existing laws relating to assault, including verbal assault and harassment. I believe that there have been very few prosecutions for such an offence under the more specific Northern Ireland law since its introduction. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that when he replies. If I am right in that assumption, it is not surprising, since antagonisms in Northern Ireland are essentially political rather than religious, even if the insults shouted when people spill out of a pub on a Saturday night might suggest otherwise.
Secondly, anti-discrimination legislation normally applies only to characteristics that people cannot change: race; sex; age (albeit not in Britain); permanent disability; and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out that it is not normally considered right to apply such

465

legislation to voluntary affiliations like religion, philosophy or political opinion, which would open up an even greater can of worms than that warned against by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. As I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, suggests dividing religions into approved and unapproved religions, rather as happens in Germany. That is totally alien to our traditions. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will have something to say about it when he comes to speak.
Moreover, much religious discrimination is more apparent than real. Over 20 per cent of the prison population in England and Wales is Roman Catholic, even though Catholics comprise only 10 per cent of the population as a whole. Some might unthinkingly assume that that must stem from religious discrimination, but clearly it does not. Apart from a tiny handful of errant priests, neither the police, nor the DPP, nor the judiciary will have any idea whether a defendant is Roman Catholic or otherwise. So whatever the explanation for this phenomenon, it clearly has nothing to do with religious discrimination.
For more than 45 years I have known an extended Indian Muslim family, both in this country and in India, spanning three generations. Although we do not see each other more than every few years nowadays, they remain the greatest of friends. At least a dozen members from different generations have worked or studied, and sometimes both, in this country at various times, starting in the early 1950s. As far as I know, none of them has ever suffered religious discrimination, certainly not in this country. Latterly, things are a little difficult for them in India because of the rise of extreme Hindu nationalism, but they have never suffered discrimination in Britain. I think that their secret was that they all individually resolved, without in any way compromising their religious beliefs, to try their best to do in Rome as the Romans do. That, I am sure, was the key to their success and contentment in this country.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Ahmed on introducing this debate, but I am not sure that I can agree with him. However, this is a disagreement amongst friends.
I know a little about discrimination. As a child I came to the United Kingdom as a refugee to escape religious discrimination. Like my noble friend, I support the 1976 Race Relations Act, and I recognise that there are special circumstances in Northern Ireland. What concerns me is the effect of the law of unexpected results in this case.
My concern is that extending the Northern Ireland regulations will slow the changes that are taking place in our religious life today. I think that these changes are happening as a result of greater understanding, of greater tolerance, and a spirit of ecumenism. This breaking down of the barriers between religions is leading to an inevitable increase in marriages, partnerships and friendships between people of
466
different religions, and movement between religions. I like these changes. They are a sign of a real multi-racial and multi-religious society. Indeed, at the synagogue of which I am a member, to make such people feel more welcome, we have a special category of affiliate membership for non-Jews and for their children.
My concern is that should the Northern Ireland regulations be extended, the law of unexpected results will mean that religions will become fixed and categorised. Religious purity will become legalised, and the growing tolerance and understanding being shown towards those in mixed relationships and mixed friendships, and those like the brother-in-law of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who are intrigued with other religions, will become more restrained. I do not want religion to become fossilised in law. I want the law to facilitate tolerance and understanding. These changes reflect the multi-religion society in which we actually live, and I welcome them. That is why I cannot support my noble friend Lord Ahmed.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for introducing this debate. However, I have to say that this is one of those occasions when one's prepared speech goes out of the window. I was quite amazed by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He had every right to make it and I would fight to the death for his right to do so. But he has never done me the courtesy of asking me about my beliefs or discussing them with me. In fact, I find it extremely difficult to accept that he has any idea what I believe. The kind of unthinking bigotry that he has expressed gives rise to discrimination and, therefore, to the kind of discussion that we are having tonight.
I turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. The Chapel Case, as it has come to be known, of which I assume he has made an exhaustive study, did not refer to the religiosity of the particular group concerned; it referred to whether that building was used for religious services. That is a very different thing, as the noble Lord who is to reply will be aware.
I was interested in the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, of the situation in Germany. I agree with him about the idea of having official and nonofficial religions. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, will know that in Germany the Lutherans, the Catholics and the Jews are official religions and are able to advertise on television. The Muslims are not. There is a problem if one happens to be on the wrong side of the line. I made a considerable study of the situation in Germany. I was interested to find out whether one particular group was in the cross-hairs of the German bureaucratic machine or whether other religious minorities were. I discovered that the Germans organise this by having official bodies. They try to control their religious minorities through these official bodies. I met the leader of the Jewish Council in Germany, who has now passed away. I also met an impressive Muslim leader—the leader of the Muslims in the Berlin area—who had tremendous problems because he would not toe the line.

467
I am still amazed by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I do hope that at some stage he will do me the courtesy of discussing my beliefs with me. To dismiss someone without any discussion or knowledge of their beliefs is bigotry.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I apologise if I have unduly offended the noble Lord in what I said. I think I said that I expected that I would want to disagree with the noble Lord about everything and that I wished to maintain my right to disagree with him about everything without falling foul of the law. I did not mean to imply that what he believes is wrong in relation to what I believe—I am just as capable of being wrong as anyone—but that I wished to defend my right to dispute, and hotly dispute, religion with the noble Lord without fear of the law.
Lord McNair: My Lords, as I have said, I support the noble Lord's right as well. Perhaps we can have tea together and then we can do our hot disputing.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I am absolutely assured that tea at the House of Lords will resolve any issue, including religious discrimination.
I believe that a significant part of the House is extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Ahmed for initiating this debate to examine religious discrimination and the anomaly that exists within the law of the United Kingdom. I do not accept the scepticism of some noble Lords. For instance, the professional ethics of doctors in Muslim countries, as in the United Kingdom, practising abortion would apply. It is wrong to suggest that religious practice would prevent that in any part of the globe. It makes me think that we may have a long way to go in understanding the different religions and peoples of the world.
It is now widely accepted that in order to achieve the desirable goal of a multi-racial and multi-faith society, the fight against racism in modern Britain has to be broad and have conviction and courage. The Government, through the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Bill last year, made the stand against racism incredibly stronger. I am hopeful that I may see the day when religious discrimination will be part and parcel of that stand.
The launch in September 1997 of the Runnymede Trust's report, Islamophobia: a challenge for us all, as mentioned by my noble friend, by the Home Secretary was another historic event that makes the clearest commitment to an anti-racist government which gives birth to a new British tradition. According to the report the word Islamophobia" has been coined because there is a new reality which needs naming. Anti-Muslim prejudice has grown so considerably and so rapidly in recent years that change in the vocabulary is needed so that it can be acted against.
In relation to "Islamophobia" in modern Britain, there are a number of areas of concern. In each of these areas English law has not yet developed sufficiently to
468
be fully responsive to the needs of British Muslims. Many Muslims are discriminated against for the simple reason that they are Muslims: Muslim marriages are not recognised; the Muslim education system is just beginning to be recognised; Muslim schools are not funded adequately; Muslim organisations are not funded adequately; and there is vilification, blasphemy, incitement to hatred and violence.
Several pieces of legislation enacted in recent years—notably the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1996—show official recognition of the injustices which can be caused by patterns of discrimination. As has been mentioned, the Race Relations Act, for example, makes it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of race and nationality and on the grounds of ethnic or national origins in the fields of employment, education and so on. However, there is no legislation in England specifically covering discrimination on the ground of someone's religion. Like in most other forms of discrimination it is often the women who suffer the wrath of religious discrimination. I was going to say that it is not reflected in this Chamber. Perhaps I will consider withdrawing that.
Muslim women, obliged to cover their head with a scarf, have borne the brunt of religious discrimination in the workplace. Over the past couple of years there have been hundreds of cases up and down the country of Muslim women being discriminated against because of their faith. But it is not only Muslim women who have suffered. There is evidence to show that other women from minority religious faiths have suffered too. I agree with other noble Lords that enactment of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts of 1976 and 1989 on the mainland would not solve all the problems of religious discrimination, but it might just send a necessary and powerful message of the kind of inclusive society that we desire in new Britain—a new Britain where we do not compare a cult with a religion and where we do not tolerate religious discrimination. I believe that the Muslims of Britain rightly aspire to having that demand met by the British Government. It would be a very small step in terms of law, but a major leap in terms of the efforts towards a just and fair society.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ahmed for initiating this extremely useful and interesting debate. I am conscious that I am the last in a long line of Back-Bench speakers and that much has already been said. I shall endeavour not to repeat but to respond to some of the points made.
Some of the comments we have heard offer powerful testimony to the continued existence of religious discrimination in this society. I say "continued" because such discrimination has existed over many centuries. One has only to look at the story books that I received as a child—which I expect are still in circulation—which look back at the history of this

469
country with reference to the Crusades. They offer an extremely unflattering portrayal of the infidel against whom the gallant English went to fight. Exactly the same kind of message continues in the media's portrayal of some religions in a very unflattering light and in the way in which they are perceived by many people.
We must also recognise an anomaly. As my noble friend Lord Ahmed made clear in his opening remarks, unlike racial discrimination, religious discrimination is not unlawful. If we look around society today, there is plenty of evidence of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and discrimination between religious communities. The other anomaly is that incitement to racial hatred is an offence, while incitement to religious hatred is not.
We must learn lessons from events elsewhere in the world. We must look at the wars that are taking place around the world based on hatred of particular religious beliefs. We have only to look at some of the conflicts that have occurred in the past few years in Europe and in Africa to see the extent to which they are based on religious conflict. Many in this country take the self-satisfied position that it could not happen here. My point is that those feelings exist: they exist under the surface. We must recognise the nature of the communities that are now based in many of our inner-city areas and that they contain exactly the same mixture of passions as exist in various parts of the world. So it is a matter on which we must focus, and we must take it extremely seriously.
My noble friend Lord Warner raised what he described as a series of considerable cautions in regard to the issues that are before us. He said that if there were to be legislation, it would have to cover a range of religious beliefs. And so it would. There can be no argument about that. My noble friend Lord Ahmed volunteered a definition, and was accused by subsequent speakers of defining approved and unapproved religions. But the matter would ultimately need to be defined either in legislation or by the courts. I rather suspect that any sane-minded person would be able to look at certain sets of beliefs and organisations and say, "Yes, that is a religion; this is not. This is outside the definition".
My noble friend Lord Warner also said that we live in a secular society and that therefore this concern is irrelevant. I may be misapplying the—
Lord Warner: That is unfair.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My noble friend says that my remark is unfair. But the fact that we live in a secular society means that those who have sincere and strongly held religious beliefs are even more of a minority; they are even more subject to discrimination than might otherwise be the case.
My noble friend Lord Warner also spoke about the problems that could arise in children's homes and schools if employment legislation were to be introduced forbidding discrimination on grounds of religious belief. But surely the matter would have to be
470
tackled by examining the professional practices of the individuals concerned. It is not appropriate for anyone in a position of authority to "force feed" particular beliefs down children's throats. That would be the ground on which action would need to be taken.
My noble friend Lord Haskel talked about the dangers of fossilising religious beliefs by such a measure. That need not be the case. Some of the legislation considered by this House during the past few years has placed on the new institutions of devolved government the responsibility to promote harmonious relations. That is the lesson that we should learn from the Northern Ireland legislation: the need for positive action on behalf of the structures of society and organisations to promote harmonious relations between different communities, races and religions. That is the way to meet the objective of my noble friend Lord Haskel of achieving a harmonious society where religious beliefs are not fossilised.
I am hopeful that, following the debates initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and myself at the Committee and Report stages of the Greater London Authority Bill, we shall see a similar provision on the face of that Bill by the time it leaves this House. That precedent, and the precedents set in other legislation devolving powers to assemblies, offer a way forward. I hope that when the Race Relations Act is reviewed, as the Government have promised to do, those points will be taken on board.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to say a few words in the gap. I listened to the opening remarks in the debate from the steps of the Throne and I was very impressed. I cannot offer an opinion on the specific question of extending the Northern Ireland legislation to the rest of the UK. However, I rise to support the theme that underlies the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed; namely, that there should be no defence in law for unfair behaviour based on religious preferences. I support that principle profoundly.
Perhaps I may ask a favour of the noble Lord. Will he use his very good office and influence also to help the religious minorities of other countries to fight discrimination?
8.47 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, everyone who has spoken has expressed gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for introducing this important debate. All speakers have contributed in their different ways, bringing their own experiences to the debate. My qualifications for speaking come from my own experience as a secular Jew, a humanist, and someone who helped to frame the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act in the 1970s, and who attempted at the time to knit together the Northern Ireland legislation with the British legislation into some kind of comprehensive code, and failed to do so.
The fundamental question raised, with great power, cogency and eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, is the

471
problem of Islamophobia. It is the problem of how to give British Muslims the right to effective remedies for arbitrary discrimination and unequal treatment of the kind that people like myself have if we are discriminated against as Jews on racial grounds.
I personally find it strange that I should have a remedy if I am discriminated against on racial grounds but, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, should not have a remedy if he is discriminated against on religious grounds When, as an officer in the Army, I experienced discrimination, I could never tell whether the anti-Semitism was on racial or religious grounds. Other noble Lords have referred to the complications, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in his important speech.
There surely has to be an effective legal remedy for the wrong of religious discrimination as well as the wrong of racial discrimination. I suggest that those who raise technical objections to the framing of legislation should concentrate on the need for a legal remedy for British Muslims that is as effective as that which exists for other minorities in this country. That is the pressing social need that must be addressed.
When I hear technical objections being raised I wonder whether we ever look at the laws of other countries. Almost every other Commonwealth and continental European country, as well as Ireland, have in their written constitutions guarantees of equal protection of the law without discrimination on any ground, including religion. It is only because we do not have such constitutional guarantees that we have the incoherent patchwork of laws that act in their place. Surely, it is absurd that my rights as a British citizen should depend on whether I happen to live in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. How can it make sense that religious discrimination is forbidden in Northern Ireland and not in Great Britain? I know of no other country like that. It is no use saying than: there is something special about Northern Ireland. There is nothing special about religious discrimination that is confined only to Northern Ireland. Therefore, I find that argument unpersuasive.
It is also said that to define religion is very complicated. However, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, religion does not have to be defined in statute law. It would be undesirable to do so because then it would be fossilised, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. The Human Rights Act 1998 has a special section that protects freedom of conscience and religion. It does not define "religion" any more than Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights defines it. It is left to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis which religious beliefs and organisations fall within the protection of the law in the event of arbitrary discrimination.
We are bound in international law to do something about the gap in our legal system. Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights is now incorporated into our law. Unfortunately, although it covers education and property, it does not deal with employment discrimination. The Government are to
472
be commended that in June they ratified ILO Convention 111 which forbids discrimination in employment and occupation on religious and other grounds. There is an obligation under the ILO convention to legislate, where appropriate, against religious discrimination in the field of employment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights imposes similar obligations. Speaking as a lawyer, we are out of step with international standards in not providing an effective remedy.
In his speech at Bournemouth the Prime Minister made some very commendable observations about the commitment of the Government to equality of opportunity and access to work. Speaking as someone who had the privilege to work for a previous Labour government in this area, I should be astonished if the present Government showed a more lukewarm commitment to equality and effective legal remedies than did Roy Jenkins in his day. I very much hope that the arguments of those who say that this is technically impossible and do not look beyond the four corners of this country will not count in the end. For those reasons, I support the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, although, like him, I am not wedded to the idea that Northern Ireland legislation is the only way to achieve it.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, even within the extended time I shall not attempt to reflect on all the points that have been made. However, one point that has been universally made is that the whole House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for introducing this debate. I repeat that. I do not say that only in a formal sense. I believe that this is an exceptionally important matter for the future of our multi-cultural society. As has become clear during the debate, it is also a very difficult matter that deserves careful thought. This debate has also assisted the social arrangements of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord McNair, which we hope will lead to greater understanding even within the walls of your Lordships' House.
I was for a while a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. I share the underlying premise of the noble Lord's Question that the whole of our country—Northern Ireland and Great Britain—should as far as possible be governed by the same laws. But the differences in law reflect the special problems of Northern Ireland. Widespread discrimination in employment in Northern Ireland was an exceptionally damaging component of the troubles, which have cost 3,000 lives. That is the background to the Northern Ireland legislation. Some discrimination still exists there. The Northern Ireland fair employment laws of 1976 and 1989, now developed in the 1998 legislation, made very important advances in monitoring, reporting and helping to improve that situation.
Your Lordships should not think that that legislation is without its critics for a variety of reasons: the bureaucratic burdens on employers and the difficulty of recruiting from the other community, whichever it is in a particular case, in districts where

473
only one group lives. Another effect of the troubles is that in particular areas of Northern Ireland there are less mixed areas and sharper differentials. Incidentally, the Northern Ireland legislation does not require or expect positive discrimination. However, it requires affirmative action. Briefly, one cannot, for example, say that because there are too many Protestants one needs to build up the quota of Catholics. However, one can make a particular effort to recruit Catholics in a situation of that kind by the nature of one's advertisements, where one places them and so on.
I do not believe that the remedies aimed at that problem can simply be transplanted to Great Britain, where the situation is different. It has already been pointed out that in Northern Ireland the discrimination which led to the legislation involves only two groups: Protestants and Catholics. These descriptions of the community divide in Northern Ireland conceal its true nature. It is not a doctrinal argument. Some churchmen on both sides are among those who work hardest to bridge the divide. Essentially, the division is tribal. But in Great Britain the religious scene is much more complicated. The discrimination with which we are concerned today concerns Muslims, Hindus and others, but generally worded law about religion would not be confined to them. There are all kinds of churches and religious groups, including the Church of Scientology, Druids, various cults and so on. Even the main religions have sub-divisions within them which often embody some of the sharpest divisions of all. After all, that is the Northern Ireland case. Both communities are Christian but the division is very sharp.
I recall a very difficult problem with which I was concerned when I was a Member of another place about whether places of worship used by the Exclusive Brethren—a special Christian group—were legally churches for the purposes of gaining relief from local rates. The Act said that they should be open for public worship. They were not regarded as open but exclusive. In the course of that argument it was pointed out that for a good part of the time neither monasteries nor nunneries were open for public worship. I believe that that illustrates the difficulty of framing legislation in this area.
If legislation is to be effective, those problems of definition must be solved. They cannot simply be brushed aside. I do not say that they are incapable of solution; I do not believe that. But I do not think that they have yet been solved, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, who gave us one suggestion for the definition of religion. But similarly—it came out in the speech of my noble friend Lord Lucas—careful thought needs to be given to a definition of "unacceptable" and "acceptable" discrimination, because some religious discrimination is acceptable.
We are not totally without legislation on this matter. We have the laws against the incitement to racial hatred in the Public Order Act 1986. But in other respects the law is both haphazard and difficult.
474
We have now the Human Rights Act. I had hoped to hear a little more from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on how he thought that might impinge on the situation; I think that it is probably helpful. However, great care and thought needs to be given to how we go further. We know that the Government have commissioned research. No doubt we shall hear more about that in a few minutes. But the law has a smaller part to play, in my judgment, in these matters than understanding and education in its widest sense. Knowledge of other people breaks down discrimination more quickly and more effectively than ever the law can do. And I believe that the media have as much to contribute as the schools in that respect.
I have remarked previously in your Lordships' House that I think that it does immense damage when the impression is given that all Muslims are fundamental extremists. The vast majority are not. Their family and community values are an example to the rest of us. It is absolutely clear from the debate that we want everyone to set their faces against any religious discrimination. To pick up the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, when opening the debate, no one in this country is a second-class citizen; but, more than that, no one should feel himself a second-class citizen either.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it has been an extensive, interesting and fascinating debate; and for that we should be forever grateful to my noble friend Lord Ahmed for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It has been wide ranging. I have managed to make several pages of notes. I cannot promise today to do justice to all the points raised, but I shall try to run through in general terms the Government's approach to these matters.
My noble friend Lord Ahmed knows, as a Muslim, that issues of religion are important. They are clearly close to his heart and he has often spoken passionately in this House about issues of importance to the British Muslim community. His perspective on these matters greatly enriches your Lordships' House and we should thank him for that—as does the contribution on matters spiritual and temporal made by the other noble Lords who have spoken from a religious and ethical perspective. So it is right that this House should consider issues of concern to our religious communities.
This is a country with a strong Christian history. But it is also a country which enjoys the benefits of a broad and diverse religious landscape. If I may, I shall quote from the multifaith directory which estimates that in the United Kingdom as a whole there are some half a million Hindus, 300,000 Jews, 1½ million Muslims and half a million Sikhs. The list is a long one, with significant numbers of Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Jains, Baha'is and many other minority faiths.
The Government have a clear vision of a multicultural Britain, a Britain where every citizen, every community, earns and gives respect, where rights and responsibilities are well balanced, a nation which

475
values the contribution made by each and every one of our diverse communities, takes pride in our diversity and celebrates it 10 the world. We want to see a truly dynamic society in which people from different ethnic cultural and religious backgrounds can live and work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding, while retaining their distinctive identities. Only in that way shall we be able to reap the huge advantages—economic, social and cultural—which diversity brings.
In order to achieve that vision, the Government are determined to tackle and eliminate discrimination and intolerance. Prejudice, racism, bigotry and xenophobia all blight people's lives; and they blight our communities. My noble friend has reminded us helpfully of how religious intolerance and discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland was tackled effectively.
I want to start with the Government's approach in general terms. The Human Rights Act will incorporate into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights. On 2nd October 2000 we shall bring the Human Rights Act fully into force. This is a major new initiative and will help us create a new culture of rights and responsibilities in the UK. The Act gives further effect to rights in the ECHR. Those include rights relating directly to religion. In particular of course there is Article 9: the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. But other ECHR rights also touch on religion—for example, Article 10; as does Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life.
The ECHR is about balance. Yes, there are rights, but as Strasbourg says, there are limits to those rights. And sometimes the state has to interfere with them. It is a matter of balancing the rights of the individual with the needs of society as a whole. The Human Rights Act is about balance: balancing one right with another and balancing rights with responsibilities.
Nowhere is that balance more important than with religious matters. It is essential that we have an effective dialogue on religious discrimination. And know that the Human Rights Act will be a great help in developing that dialogue. The Human Rights Act is already having an impact.
I should like also to turn to matters relating to race and religion. On the question of racially aggravated offences which were introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, let me begin by making it absolutely clear that there is no question of this Government condoning religiously motivated violence or harassment.
The provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act do not protect some groups and not others. They protect everyone from racist crime. During the passage of the Bill, a number of noble Lords raised the issue of whether those offences would cover an attack made on a Muslim. The Government were also aware of the concerns of some religious groups, in particular Muslim organisations. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary met with Muslim community leaders to discuss this precise issue.
476
We believe in practice that most cases, which may appear to have a religious element, will also have a racial element. We do not believe that when the perpetrators of those offences attack Muslims they do so because of hostility towards the tenets of Islam. They do so because of racist hostility towards the victim and towards the ethnic minority groups that are associated with the Muslim faith in this country. The test of what amounts to "racially aggravated" for the purposes of these offences requires that racial hostility is "wholly or partly" a motivating factor.
It follows that even if there is religious hostility, provided that part of the hostility is racist the offence is covered by these provisions. We amended the Bill to make that absolutely clear. The religious element is immaterial where racism forms even a part of the motivation for the offence. We believe that that will cover the vast majority of cases that involve the Muslim community.
We are alive to the concerns of the Muslim community and others about religiously motivated crime. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear during the debate on the Crime and Disorder Bill in another place that we had not ruled out extending these provisions. We have commissioned research, which is now well under way, to examine the implementation and effectiveness of these offences.
I now turn my attention to the Race Relations Act 1976. The Act makes unlawful direct or indirect discrimination against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, the decision in this House in the Mandla case brought Sikhs and Jews, as groups capable of being defined by their ethnic origins, within the scope of the Race Relations Act.
The reasoning which Lord Fraser applied in that case means that Muslims, Christians and other faiths resident in a variety of cultures are not capable of being defined by ethnic origins and therefore not within the scope of the Act.
This decision has led to the anomaly where certain faith groups receive legal protection from discrimination which is denied to other faith groups. However, in practice, the difference might not be so great. The existing evidence, of which there is very little, suggests that in the vast majority of cases discrimination suffered by followers of minority faiths is based on their ethnicity rather than their beliefs. And where discrimination is based on ethnicity there is protection under the 1976 Act; as in the case of an Asian Muslim woman who is discriminated against as a result of wearing the hijab, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
Is that discrimination motivated by the hijab as a symbol of Muslim identity? We in this House recognise that the hijab is exactly that; a proud declaration of a Muslim woman's identity and faith. I suggest that the mind that harbours ignorant and racist views sees the hijab only as a symbol of ethnicity and the motivation of racism.

477
The Government are alive to the concerns of the minority faith communities on this issue. We do not have a closed mind. The Prime Minister, in addressing the Muslim Council of Britain in May this year (the first Prime Minister ever to do so), said:
"We are listening to those in the Muslim community who want to make sure that they get the right protection under the law".
I suggest that we would all subscribe to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, also mentioned the law regarding incitement to racial hatred. The current law is contained in the Public Order Act 1986. Section 17 of that Act defines racial hatred as:
"hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins".
The definition is the same as that used by the Race Relations Act 1976 and the same difficulties therefore arise as with that Act.
The Government are concerned that the law should be as effective as possible. Let me assure the noble Lord that the Government are aware of the concerns that the provisions of the Act do not extend to incitement to religious hatred. That is a matter to which we shall be giving careful consideration in due course.
The noble Lord's Question was whether the Government would extend to the rest of Britain the Northern Ireland legislation prohibiting discrimination on the ground of religion. The Fair Employment Act 1989, to which the noble Lord referred, is a piece of legislation crafted in response to the particular circumstances that applied at that time in Northern Ireland. I need not remind this House of the terrible history of sectarian hostility and violence that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered and which provided a very real context for this legislation.
One manifestation of that hostility was clear and indisputable cases of discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. In short, whether an individual was Catholic or Protestant influenced his or her ability to secure employment. As yet, no comparable evidence relating to the position of religious minorities in Britain has been put to the Government. There is no quick fix to be administered here. This is a complex and sensitive area and it would be wrong of the Government to legislate without first having a clear understanding of the nature and scale of the mischief that needs to be addressed.
I have made many references in my speech to the paucity of evidence on which the Government are prepared to act in this area. I hope that noble Lords will not think that we see such a lack of evidence as justification for pushing this important issue aside. Nothing could be further from the truth.
478
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Is he aware that the arguments he is now deploying about lack of evidence were used against the late Lord Brockway who had to introduce 12 Private Member's Bills before racial discrimination became unlawful? Is he further aware that the Human Rights Act 1998 will do nothing whatever to provide a remedy for discrimination in the employment field based on religious grounds as distinct from racial grounds?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making those points. Given his experience in this area I defer to his greater knowledge and wisdom in the matter. I am simply making the case that we want to proceed on the basis of evidence and need. That must be fairly considered. It is, I am sure, a point that the noble Lord will wish to take on board.
I refer to research commissioned by the University of Derby whose aim is to assess the scale and nature of religious discrimination in England and Wales. The project has been under way since earlier this year and a report is due shortly. It covers an assessment of the evidence of both actual and perceived religious discrimination. It looks at the patterns shown by that evidence, including the main victims, the perpetrators, and the way in which discrimination manifests itself.
The report will look also at the indications of the extent to which religious discrimination might overlap with racial discrimination, a point helpfully raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. It will also seek to identify the range of policy options available to tackle religious discrimination, including, I trust, looking at the legislative framework. The results of the research will provide us with a basis on which we can make informed decisions, which I know your Lordships value.
In tackling discrimination and disadvantage, we must, from time to time, refer to and use the law. That is important. It sets the framework and the culture by which we approach difficult and sensitive matters such as this.
This has been an important and, as I said earlier, wide-ranging debate. There is a lesson that we can take from the excellent inter-faith dialogue and work flourishing in the UK today and in which several noble Lords engage. The lesson is that discussion of these issues leads to greater mutual understanding. From that understanding comes respect. I humbly submit to your Lordships that the issues helpfully and fruitfully raised in this debate will help to shape and inform the Government's approach to this issue. It is an area where we must tread carefully and also wisely, seeking ways in which we may remedy and address the issues of religious discrimination in our society.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Judicial Appointments
  Judicial Appointments
  Criminal Prosecutions: Expenditure
  Criminal Prosecutions: Expenditure
  Questions for Written Answer: Delays
  Questions for Written Answer: Delays
  Iraq: Child and Maternal Mortality
  Iraq: Child and Maternal Mortality
  Russia: Steel Industry
  Russia: Steel Industry
  Powers of Entry to Private Premises
  Powers of Entry to Private Premises
  Immigration (Carrier's Liability) Act
  Immigration (Carrier's Liability) Act
  Colleges and Universities: Guidance on Mental Health Issues
  Colleges and Universities: Guidance on Mental Health Issues
  London Transport: Disposal of Property
  London Transport: Disposal of Property
  Train Signals Passed at Danger
  Train Signals Passed at Danger
  Millennium Eve: London Transport
  Millennium Eve: London Transport
  King's Cross Area: Regeneration
  King's Cross Area: Regeneration
  Lead Shot Regulations
  Lead Shot Regulations
  Carers
  Carers