Sitting of 21 December 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-post Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 11 January 2001.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    EU Sugar Regime
    Dr. Lynne Jones: If he will make a statement on the reform of the EU sugar regime. [142335]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The compliments of the season to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House. I shall now move on to the ingredients for the traditional fare.
    The present EU sugar regime is unsustainable and reform is long overdue. It requires consumers to pay two and a half times the world price for sugar, and acts as a barrier to imports from third countries other than on specially negotiated conditions.
    The Commission has made proposals which would begin the process of reform, and has also proposed opening up access to the European Union market for sugar from the least-developed countries At this week's Agriculture Council, I argued for a coherent and orderly reform of the sugar regime, which would take into account the interests of the EU industry, but also the EU's obligations to the very poorest countries. Negotiations will continue under the Swedish presidency.
    Dr. Jones: As my right hon. Friend says, the failure to reform the common agricultural policy on sugar means that consumers and manufacturers, such as Cadbury in my constituency, are paying two to three times world prices for sugar at the same time as we are denying the poorest countries access to our markets. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the EU sugar regime will not prevent the
    550
    everything but arms proposal from succeeding and that the reform will not set developing countries against one another?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. At the Council of Ministers, I argued strongly in favour of reforming the sugar regime but, like other Ministers, I drew attention to the everything but arms proposal. It seems to me that the two proposals must be taken in parallel and that market access should be accompanied by reform of the European Union regime.
    Mr. Peter Luff: What exactly does the Minister mean by that response? What exactly is he saying in the Council of Ministers about the inclusion of sugar in the everything but arms proposal? All the letters that I have received from the Government suggest that they remain wedded to the inclusion of sugar, which will have severe consequences for British sugar farmers, for the British sugar manufacturing industry and, of course, for the African, Caribbean and Pacific sugar-producing countries.
    Mr. Brown: The proposal is intended to provide market access for the poorest countries in the world. The hon. Gentleman overstates the dangers, although I accept that the EU industry perceives them to be real enough. The quantities involved are relatively small and there are safeguards in the proposal. The Commission is the custodian of the safeguards. Irrespective of whether the everything but arms proposal has an impact on the European Union market, the case for reforming the sugar regime is blindingly obvious.
    There is nothing new in the proposals. I have with me two pages of quotes from Conservative Ministers arguing for reform. Way back in 1995, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) told the House:
    We are pressing for a price reduction of some 12 per cent. in the negotiations.—[Official Report, 23 March 1995; Vol. 257. c. 479.]
    I have to say that he did not achieve it.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that throughout the country there is broad support for giving access to the least-developed countries and some of the poorest people in the world, and for not allowing that progress to be held up by the selfish interests of small groups of producers?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the two proposals should be taken forward in parallel. We should accord the poorest countries in the world access to European Union markets, but the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is right that it could conceivably impact on the EU's own regime, and it is clear that we should take reform of that regime forward in parallel.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Judging from ministerial responses in a recent European Scrutiny Committee, is the Minister not a little embarrassed that he still cannot say if and when the EBA initiative will begin? Is that not woefully inadequate, given that the first 20 per cent. tariff cut is due on 1 January 2001? Consultation has been almost non-existent and impact assessments will be shown to be worthless.

    551
    When will the Government start to stand up for British interests and seek to halt this over-hasty policy, which will cripple the sugar industry of both the United Kingdom and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is dramatically overstating the case. I was standing up for British interests at the Council of Ministers on Tuesday. It is in the clear interests of consumers and taxpayers in this country that we reform the sugar regime, and there is nothing new in that. Back in March 1990, the then Parliamentary Secretary, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), said:
    We have never disguised our belief that the price of beet sugar is far too high—[Official Report, 8 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 990.]
    Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Conservative party has changed its mind? I thought that Conservatives believed in markets.

    Farm Diversification
    Mr. Bill Michie: What steps the Government are taking to encourage farmers to take up options for farm diversification available under the England rural development programme. [142336]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have publicised the England rural development programme extensively, including writing to all farmers, placing articles and advertisements in the press and attending local farmers meetings. In addition, free planning advice is available to farmers wishing to pursue projects under the rural enterprise scheme; we will publish a free guide to farm diversification over the next few weeks; and the Government are consulting on proposals to provide time-limited rate relief for farmers wishing to diversify into non-farming activities.
    Mr. Michie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. While it is welcome that rural communities and farmers are getting help and consideration, there are many rumours that a lot of open space, good farmland and green belt could be used for other purposes, which will close access and, of course, change the whole character of such areas. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that that is not the case and that the claims being made are exaggerated?
    Mr. Morley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He makes an important point about the pressure on greenbelt and greenfield land, but many farm buildings and sites lend themselves to a variety of conversions for various businesses and for diversification. We want to help farmers to do that—and, of course, we are not talking about cutting through the planning law. Issues such as vehicular access, noise and smells will all be taken into account by local planning authorities, but we want to make it clear that just because a building is a farm or part of a farm development, it does not mean that it cannot be developed into all sorts of different businesses that are good for farmers and the rural economy.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister acknowledge that the farmer's share of the capital
    552
    development necessary for diversification depends on an adequate level of profitability on that farm? Given the present disastrous situation for farm incomes and the modulation of European agricultural payments, is not there a real risk that the good intentions of the plan may be frustrated?
    Mr. Morley: It is certainly true that farmers' incomes have been under pressure in recent years. No one denies that, but the measures are designed to help farmers to extend, develop and adapt their own businesses. Many farmers have taken up those opportunities. MAFF is encouraging the creation of demonstration farms so that people can see what can be achieved and how they can diversify their businesses.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of these who farm in the Pennine chain do so in extremely difficult farming conditions, where there are few options to diversify, yet if they are to maintain the potential for tourism and other attractions in that area we want to ensure that those farms maintain the present balance with nature and, therefore, we need to ensure that they can survive economically?
    Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend. We provide extensive financial support for upland farming because we recognise that it brings social and environmental benefits to our uplands, and grazing in the uplands is needed as part of environmental management.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. Tony Baldry: What meetings he has held with pig farmers representatives in the last month to discuss the state of the industry. [142337]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): My ministerial team and I have, between us, held or attended seven meetings involving pig farmers or their representatives since the beginning of November. Principal among the topics discussed have been the pig industry restructuring scheme, which has now received full European Union Commission approval and is open to both outgoers and ongoers, and the recent outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia, where I am pleased to say that the final area movement restrictions on commercial pig operations were lifted earlier this week. Producers will also have been heartened by the ending of the export, ban on live pigs from Norfolk and Suffolk at midnight last night.
    I am sure that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to Jim Scudamore, the chief veterinary officer, his staff in the state veterinary service and their administrative colleagues for their sterling efforts in controlling the disease, for representing the national interest so effectively at European Union and wider international level, and for responding so swiftly to the many practical problems that the outbreak created.
    Mr. Baldry: I thank the Minister for that statement. However, given the parlous state of the pig industry, will he give the House an undertaking that the funds available for the pig industry restructuring scheme—I think that they come to about £66 million—will be continued, and that if there is any shortfall this year it will be carried

    553
    forward or replaced next year? Will he also undertake to find time to introduce a statutory instrument on the pig industry development scheme as speedily as possible? Indeed, if the Government could find more time in the House to introduce the necessary legislation for the pig industry and less time to criminalise field sports, there would be much rejoicing in Banbury-shire and rural England.
    Mr. Brown: I will take the part of the question that I agree with and welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the development scheme. I will give him the assurance that he seeks—this is not a party-political matter. We are all trying to do our best to help the industry through what have been difficult times. I have to consider the representations made to me by the Meat and Livestock Commission, but the appropriate regulations will be laid as soon as and if it is proper to do so.
    On the moneys, I fought very hard with colleagues in the Government and with the European Union Commission for the outgoers and ongoers scheme. Having got the scheme in place, I want it to work as effectively as possible. The budget is ring-fenced year by year, and uptake will depend on applications under both the ongoers and the outgoers element. It is also important to point out that it is a United Kingdom, not an England only, scheme.
    Mr. David Taylor: Together with my right hon. Friend's colleague, Baroness Hayman, I recently visited the midland pig producers unit near Osgathorpe in north-west Leicestershire. Among the issues raised was the impact of the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia and the risks it posed for the east midlands, and Baroness Hayman was impressed by the responsible attitude that was taken. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the National Pig Association has suggested a levy-based industry contribution to the compensation scheme and will he undertake to bring before the House as rapidly as possible the necessary legislation to introduce that scheme?
    Mr. Brown: I hope to bring the necessary legislation before the House and to make the appropriate arrangements with Ministers in the devolved authorities—it is a Great Britain matter—as soon as and if it is appropriate to do so. I hope that we can proceed on an all-party basis.
    I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the industry's response. It has responded with great courage and common sense in the difficult circumstances of the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister has been able to help the pig industry by obtaining an 80 per cent. discount on the climate change levy. Will he explain why he has not been able to make the same discount available to the horticulture industry through the introduction of climate change levy farm production agreements?
    Mr. Brown: This is slightly off the point, because the question was about the pig industry. However, in the spirit of the season, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, of course, representations were made within Government about the specific circumstances of the horticulture sector.
    554
    As he almost certainly knows, I was able to obtain concessions for it, although I accept that they do not go as far as the industry would have liked.
    Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the reconstruction scheme that has now been approved, but can the Minister give us an idea of when it might commence? What will be the time scale?
    Mr. Brown: Both the outgoers and the ongoers elements are open now, and I have had discussions with Brid Rodgers, the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, about the specific application of the scheme in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that there is particular interest in the scheme there, and the hon. Gentleman and I met pig farmers in his constituency when I visited Northern Ireland some time ago. The urgency of the matter was impressed upon me then.
    Mr. James Paice: May I take the Minister back to the restructuring scheme? He said that the funds are ring-fenced year by year. We should bear in mind the fact that the action plan of 30 March allocated £26 million for this year and that the Minister of State told me in an answer this week:
    While it may be possible for some payments under
    the scheme
    to be made in the financial year 2000–01, we expect all payments to be completed in the financial year 2001–02; at least £20 million will be available for this purpose.—[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 134W.]
    If that money is ring-fenced year by year, will most of the £26 million that the Minister allocated in March be lost because of the delays in setting up the scheme, or will he carry it forward? On this festive occasion, is he going to be Father Christmas or Scrooge?
    Mr. Brown: Neither. It is fair to explain to the House that there was no such scheme under the previous Conservative Government. Having fought so hard for the scheme within Government, it is highly unlikely that I would not want to maximise its impact. However, the hon. Gentleman is on to a good point and I repeat that the budget is ring-fenced year by year. The carry-forward, as the hon. Gentleman knows—or not—is a matter for discussions within Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!] That should not come as a surprise to anyone who has served as a Minister. I am not the sole master of this matter, but I intend to do my very best for the industry. Regrettably, I cannot say more than that.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: That is exactly the point: does the Minister have the power to keep back that money? If he does not, will he ensure that every last available penny in the first tranche of £26 million for the pig industry reconstruction scheme will be available to everyone who can apply in time? The key consideration is that none of the money is lost, because it is precious. The industry is under pressure and it is much needed now.
    Mr. Brown: There has been a great deal of interest in both aspects of the scheme—the outgoers and the ongoers. There has been a substantial number of applications and the amount that is spent will depend on how many we receive. I fought very hard within Government for that

    555
    package of measures and I want it to work. For those people who have the interests of the industry at heart, it is surely a good idea for them to give me some help and support, instead of making it harder than it already is.

    Meat Imports
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on meat imports into the United Kingdom. [142338]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Between October 1999 and September 2000, the period for which we have the most recent figures, about 1.4 million tonnes of meat were imported into the United Kingdom from third countries and other European Union member states.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that brief statement. Does she recognise that, according to recent press reports, some imports from the continent have been from countries with a history of BSE and that some of the imported cattle are over 30 months old? If that is the case, what discussions does she intend to have with EU Ministers on that matter?
    Ms Quin: First, it is important to realise that important decisions have been taken at recent Agriculture Council meetings about strengthening the controls throughout EU countries for meat that goes into the food chain. I welcome that for two reasons: first, because it shows the importance that other EU countries attach to strict controls, and secondly, because it evens the playing field for our producers who have borne BSE-related costs for some time.
    However, on food safety I remind the hon. Gentleman—I must stress this—that that is a matter for the Food Standards Agency and we will take its advice on such issues. The hon. Gentleman will know that agency staff recently visited France, for example, and the agency has issued several public statements on these issues. I am keen that its responsibilities for food safety are widely recognised, particularly since the House voted for the agency to undertake those responsibilities.
    Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a problem with processed meats in particular, and we can deal with that only if we bolster the number of consumer protection officers in county councils and unitary authorities? She is right to say that the Food Standards Agency has responsibility for these issues, which simply draw attention to the reason why we need an independent agency, particularly when we consider the earlier lamentable performance over BSE. We should consider the yo-yoing of the Conservative party rather than the ho-hoing to which Conservative Members keep referring.
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right to remind us of the agency's role, but the rules on processed products were drawn up by the previous Government. The agency is considering the issue. In European forums, the agency and the Government have been active on labelling so that we can give consumers more information.
    Mr. Colin Breed: Is the Minister aware of the problems experienced by many hygiene inspectors in trying to ensure that meat entering the country meets our high standards? They are unable to do so because of the lack of proper labelling, of a traceability scheme, and even of any real Government guidance. What discussions has the Minister had with her ministerial colleagues here and in Europe to try to plug that gap?
    Ms Quin: I am certainly not saying that the legislation that we inherited was perfect in that respect—it was not. However, I exonerate this Government from the charge of failing to issue guidelines or to work with the Food Standards Agency in its issuing of guidelines. There has been a lot of contact with local authority officials who have responsibility on the matter, and we have been backing up their efforts at a local level by the action that we have been taking with our colleagues at a European level.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Should not our single objective be to ensure easy and unrestricted access for our beef products to every country in the European Union? Under no circumstances should we follow the hysterical advice given by the Conservative party, which, for anti-European reasons, simply wants to block the import into the United Kingdom of products from France and elsewhere.
    Ms Quin: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. We export a lot of meat, such as lamb to France, and farmers throughout the country are keen for us to safeguard that trade by our co-operative approach and action within the European Union. However, there is now much wider recognition of this country's strict controls, and it is good to see that recent decisions made at a European level follow the example of some of those controls.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister recall the answer given in the House five weeks ago by the Agriculture Minister? He said:
    This country's public protection measures, which are very powerful, include a ban on selling any beef product derived from animals that are over 30 months.—[Official Report, 16 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 1053.]
    Does she recall an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman on 13 April? He said:
    The fact is that we do not allow meat products over 30 months to be imported into this country.—[Official Report, 13 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 485.]
    A week after he gave that answer, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me saying:
    The sale of meat and meat products from cattle over 30 months in this country is banned.
    Will the Minister now confirm that none of those statements was true?
    Ms Quin: Indeed I will not. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that my right hon. Friend has explained the position regarding the rules that we inherited from the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. Nothing that my right hon. Friend has said has contradicted that legal position.

    557
    However, let me in turn congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the inconsistent record of the Opposition Front-Bench team: he managed to contradict himself within 24 hours on this very issue. He was quoted in the Financial Times of 24 November as saying:
    If consumers are to have any confidence, the Food Standards Agency must not be seen to be a creature of ministers. Politics is once again intruding on issues of food safety.
    Yet the same day he said:
    Far from cosmetic checks by the Food Standards Agency, what the British consumer wants is an immediate ban on French beef.
    Mr. Yeo: As it happens, that is exactly what the British consumer wants. The public are entitled to believe that statements that are repeated time and again by Ministers in Parliament are accurate. Will the right hon. Lady now admit that food products made from potentially BSE-infected imported over-30-months-old cattle may have been and may still be sold to British consumers? Is not the only reason that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has claimed otherwise in Parliament that the Labour Government are so craven in their attitude toward France and other European countries that they prefer to put British consumers at risk, rather than tell the truth about the dangers of French, Irish or German meat?
    Ms Quin: If we followed the hon. Gentleman's example, we would end up isolated in Europe on the issue, instead of having the rest of the European Union on our side. I note that the hon. Gentleman did not deny the quotes attributed to him. He has to be consistent—he cannot have it both ways. He must either approve of the Food Standards Agency, which I understand to be the overwhelming will of the House, or be in favour of party political meddling in food safety issues. We know where we stand: on the side of the independent Food Standards Agency.
    Mr. Phil Hope: The point is that my constituents are wondering to whom they should turn for advice. To whom should they listen? Should they listen to the advice of the Conservative agriculture spokesman, who has already contradicted himself, or to the advice of Sir John Krebs, chairman of the independent Food Standards Agency, which produces fully informed scientific analysis, rather than the sort of bigotry we hear from the Conservatives?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Food Standards Agency was set up with those specific responsibilities. Having entrusted it with those responsibilities, we should let it get on with the job that I believe it is already doing most effectively.

    BSE
    Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the efficacy of testing for evidence of BSE in cattle over 30 months old. [142340]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): There are three approved tests that can be used for testing cattle aged over 30 months. All were evaluated by the EU last year in trials in which known BSE samples and BSE-free samples from New Zealand cattle were tested blind. All three tests could
    558
    identify the BSE samples with 100 per cent. accuracy. The BSE samples consisted of brain material from cattle at the clinical stage of disease. We used the prionics test in a survey last year of approximately 4,000 cattle entering the over-30-months scheme.
    Mr. Heath: Is it not true that validation is possible only at the clinical stage, as the Minister said, and not when cattle are asymptomatic? Therefore, has not the European Union chosen a rather insufficient tool on which to establish its entire BSE strategy in the coming year? Does not processed meat derived from over-30-months-old cattle continue to be imported into this country? Do not serious questions now need to be asked about that policy and the future of the EU's strategy to deal with a BSE crisis developing in continental Europe?
    Ms Quin: First, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point when he says that the tests are 100 per cent. accurate only at the clinical stage of BSE. However, he would not be right to say that the whole anti-BSE strategy is based on those tests, because the EU at recent meetings has also made important decisions regarding the elimination of meat and bonemeal from animal feed, which is important in terms of safety, consumer confidence and making a more even playing field in the EU for our producers, who have not been allowed to access such meat and bonemeal for a number of years.
    It is important to examine BSE measures in total. I have explained what legislation on processed food provides. None the less, the Food Standards Agency is rightly considering the issue in terms of controls. As for processed products, the signs that we have from manufacturers and retailers are that they use meat that has been deemed safe for human consumption—in other words, not over-30-months beef.
    Angela Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is partly because of the Conservative party's actions over BSE that the Food Standards Agency has been warmly welcomed by many people throughout the country and by the House? Part of the reason for the crisis was that decision making came behind scientific evidence, and that that evidence was not taken into account when decisions were made. For that reason, all scientific information should be made available. The public have lost confidence because of the Conservative party's actions.
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right to raise these matters.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: The Tories are laughing.
    Ms Quin: I cannot understand why any amusement should be caused on the Opposition Front Bench in respect of such a serious point. We need to learn lessons from what happened in the past. Obviously hon. Members on both sides of the House are studying the Phillips report. We believe that by establishing a separate food safety authority we have already done a great deal to tackle some of the problems that have been identified. We believe that the distinction between food safety issues and food production issues is an important one to safeguard for the future.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: The House will be aware of the rigours of the regime that has been imposed on the beef industry to ensure that British beef is perfectly safe. Will the Minister tell the House why it has been impossible to answer the question that I first tabled on 15 November? I asked what powers Ministers have
    to regulate the safety of beef imported into the United Kingdom from France.
    That question was not answered before Parliament prorogued last month, and I had to table it again on 13 December. Earlier this week I received a holding reply that reads:
    I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
    That seems to indicate that the Government have no powers to regulate the importation of meat from France. If they do—I see the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nodding—why has it taken two months to tell me what these powers are?
    Ms Quin: I think that my right hon. Friend was shaking his head, not nodding. I am not familiar with the specific question that the hon. Gentleman has asked. He did not tell me in advance that he was going to raise the matter. It may be that he has tabled the question to the wrong Department and that it is basically a question for the Food Standards Agency. There is still a great deal of confusion—sometimes I believe that it is deliberate confusion—and Members try to get MAFF Ministers to pronounce on issues that are not within our remit. However, I undertake to look into the reply to the hon. Gentleman and to let him know the outcome as quickly as possible.

    Floods (East Sussex)
    Mr. Norman Baker: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the recent floods on the farming community in East Sussex. [142341]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I know that East Sussex, like a number of areas, has experienced exceptional flooding over recent weeks. Those affected by these extreme circumstances have my full sympathy, as the hon. Gentleman knows, given the debates that we have had on the issue.
    Following the autumn floods, the Government immediately made available a further £51 million to accelerate river flood defence works. This is on top of the extra £30 million announced in the summer spending review. Moreover, we are examining with the farming organisations the scope for changes in national and EU scheme rules which would help farmers affected by flooding. My colleague received a positive response at this week's Agriculture Council to just such a request.
    Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that some farmland at Iford in my constituency has been continuously flooded since 12 October, and remains flooded to this day? What is worse, the farmers affected have to pay a drainage rate for the so-called services of a useless 40-year-old Environment Agency pump at Rodmell which is not doing its job. Is he aware that grassland is being killed off, with all the implications that that has for livestock units on those farms? Notwithstanding the steps that he is taking,
    560
    which I welcome for the future, what practical steps can he offer my farmers now to help them out of the present situation?
    Mr. Morley: These are extreme conditions—we have had the wettest autumn for 230 years. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that some farmland has been flooded for long periods, and in some cases has been repeatedly flooded because of changes in the rivers. We are examining the way in which the regulations laid down by the European Union work, particularly in relation to area payments for arable crops. We are trying to make sure that there is maximum flexibility in the application of those regulations, to assist farmers in the present circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been discussing these matters with the farmers organisations to see whether we can do anything else to provide support.

    Energy Crops
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What steps he is taking to encourage farmers to grow energy crops. [142342]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We launched the energy crops scheme on 3 October with a £30 million budget to encourage planting of short-rotation coppice and miscanthus, and to encourage the formation of producer groups in this sector. The Prime Minister recently announced a further £50 million of support for renewable energy, including from biomass. In addition, we are pursuing a promotional strategy including industry events, codes of practice and a dedicated website.
    Mr. Thomas: As someone who recently declared a visit to Denmark to study wind power—a very different industry from energy crops, but with some similar problems—may I urge my right hon. Friend to urge our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look kindly on energy crops, and to offer additional support, beyond what she announced in the rural development plan, with a more favourable tax regime for biofuels?
    Ms Quin: I welcome the interest that my hon. Friend has taken and the visit that he mentioned. In the pre-Budget report, the Chancellor issued his green challenge to industry to consider different ways of promoting renewable energies and the use of renewable materials. I welcome that and hope that it will lead to a great deal of worthwhile work in the alternative energy sector.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Let me put the question asked by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) a little more bluntly. As biofuels derive from energy crops, and as the Government have tried to excuse a huge hike of 34 per cent. in petrol duties by saying that it was for environmental reasons, is there not an inescapable duty on the Government significantly to reduce the tax on biofuels, not least because they produce fewer carbon emissions?
    Ms Quin: I mentioned the initiative that the Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report. I do not suppose that

    561
    the hon. Gentleman expects me to make tax announcements in Agriculture Question Time. [HON MEMBERS: "Go on."] Even though Christmas is approaching, I cannot be tempted to that extent. Departments are working together closely. The Prime Minister's initiative, which I announced, involves a considerable sum of money. The Treasury, MAFF and the Department of Trade and Industry are working closely together in this sector. MAFF is doing an enormous amount in that regard, compared with when the previous Government were in office.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: In addition to supporting the biofuel system, does my right hon. Friend support the building of power plants where the crops are grown? We should bring jobs into rural areas. There is a proposal to build a massive plant on the outskirts of my constituency, which will bring the fuel from a 100-mile radius and bring hundreds of heavy goods vehicles into my constituency. Will not that defeat the object of environmental improvement? The power plants should be in the area where the crops are grown.
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Without doubt, it is important to look at the travel and transport implications of the strategy. I am glad that Project Arbre is being commissioned in Yorkshire and that a number of Yorkshire farmers are growing short-rotation coppice to supply that power station. There are good examples that we should follow, but we should certainly be aware of the transport and overall cost implications of what we are doing in that sector.

    The Solicitor-General was asked—

    CPS
    Mr. David Kidney: If he will make a statement on progress with his plans to equip the Crown Prosecution Service with modern computer systems. [142366]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): I know that my hon. Friend has long taken an interest in this matter, and I am pleased to report that the first step of the programme to equip the CPS with modern computer systems began its national roll-out to the 42 areas in November, and will be completed within the next 12 months. The Connect 42 project provides basic IT tools and enables staff to be connected to each other and the police. The project also successfully gained accreditation to the Government secure intranet, which will enable the CPS to join up electronically with its criminal justice partners.
    The second step, the Compass project, will use the Connect 42 infrastructure to provide a case management system.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his answer, and congratulate him on responding positively to my prompting. Will he confirm that a common ambition of the CPS, the police and the courts is to achieve modern and compatible computer systems so that
    562
    they can speed up the processing of court cases? Does he believe that all three agencies will achieve that common ambition at about the same time—or does he think that somebody will be first and somebody else last?
    The Solicitor-General: Certainly, the three agencies are working together, and I confirm that things are moving forward quickly. It is not simply a matter of greater efficiency in the operation of the agencies, but a question of individual prosecutors in the CPS being able to access databases, Archbold and similar sources so that they can do their job better. The police are moving forward as well and, as I said, the programme will be in operation by next November. In my hon. Friend's own area, it will be in operation by next June, I believe.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: But will the new computer system that the Solicitor-General is rolling out help in cases such as that in the Royal Courts of Justice last week? There was an attempt to get bail for Stephen Downing, only for the CPS barrister to get up and say that he had not heard about the case until 4.30 pm the day before and was leaving the country to go on holiday that day. Bail was therefore refused. Will the new system help to stop that kind of thing?
    The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in this matter, and has had a meeting with my right hon. and noble Friend the Attorney-General. The point was made that the CPS had behaved in a proper way and that the problem seemed to be with the court. Certainly, modern IT systems can help the CPS and the courts to operate more efficiently. There is no doubt that that was an unfortunate case, but things ought to get better.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will understand the extreme anger of my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Willis who were not informed by the CPS of the date of an appeal hearing here in London against the sentence of a driver who caused the death of their son Gareth by dangerous driving. Will my hon. and learned Friend express the feeling that everyone who is waiting for appeal hearing dates will be informed in future and not left in the dark?
    The Solicitor-General: I am not aware of the particular case raised by my hon. Friend. However, as a general principle, victims and their relatives ought to be informed of these matters. It is most unfortunate that in this case that did not happen. We have said that victims ought to be brought more centre stage in the criminal justice process and that their views ought to be taken into account. In the case of death by dangerous driving, it is especially important that their interests are taken into account.
    Mr. John Burnett: Earlier this year, a survey on the Crown Prosecution Service was published. It disclosed that morale was at rock bottom. Since then, additional funding has been made available to the CPS. Will the Solicitor-General conduct or cause to be conducted another independent survey into the CPS? If he does so, when will the results be published?
    The Solicitor-General: As I have confessed to the House previously, the survey showed that there was a

    563
    problem of morale. I have also explained that, historically, the CPS was underfunded by the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that we are investing much more money in the CPS. This year, we are investing another £15.8 million and there will be an 8 per cent. real-terms increase over the next three years—I emphasise that that is a real-terms increase and will not occur merely in money terms. In addition, a pot of money containing more than £500 million is available to the various criminal justice agencies. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor have said that the CPS claim on that pot of money is a priority. Decisions will soon be made about the matter. Inasmuch as money and resources are the problem, we are remedying the situation that we inherited from the previous Government.

    Human Rights
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the impact of the implementation of the human rights convention on criminal prosecutions. [142368]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): As expected, challenges based on the convention are being heard by the courts in criminal cases. Prosecutors are well trained and have been well prepared for those challenges. We have also established a system to identify appeal cases that have such wide implications for criminal justice that they should be recommended for fast tracking to an earlier ruling from the higher courts. Our experience in the first three months is that we have not seen an explosion of cases or chaos in the courts.
    Miss McIntosh: Is it not a source of embarrassment to the Solicitor-General and the Government that defendants in criminal cases are now pleading a right to silence under the European convention on human rights, especially in road traffic cases? Is not their embarrassment compounded by the civil courts' recent decision to rule that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot be judge and jury in planning policy decisions and that that right will be withdrawn? Will the Government accept that the implications of introducing the European convention on human rights into UK law are far beyond the realms of anything that they imagined in terms of possible interference with this country's justice system?
    The Solicitor-General: I am not embarrassed at all. The hon. Lady will know that recently, in the Privy Council, the court said that the right not to incriminate oneself was not absolute. The so-called speed camera case—it was called that even though it had nothing to do with speed cameras—clearly established that the devices were effective. The court said that the matter is one of balancing rights. In the leading judgment, Lord Steyn said that one has to take into account the rights of victims and others, in addition to the rights of defendants.
    The hon. Lady also spoke about the planning cases. Yes, the divisional court held that the provisions were incompatible. We are appealing the case and the matter is sub judice. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are not
    564
    interested in human rights, as is demonstrated by their interventions. We have said that it is a matter of changing culture.
    Mr. David Taylor: Can the Solicitor-General reassure the House that the courts will have the resources and powers to deal with appeals more speedily than they are often dealt with in alternative environments?
    The Solicitor-General: It is the case that the fast-tracking procedure has worked effectively with a number of important challenges on human rights grounds to particular criminal provisions. The criminal division of the Court of Appeal has already heard appeals and we are expecting a judgment either today or tomorrow on a number of important challenges, one of which concerns the bail provisions.
    I return to the point that this is not simply a matter of examining the decisions of the courts. The Human Rights Act 1998 will be judged a success not in terms of cases in the courts, but in terms of changing the culture of public authorities ranging from the largest Departments to public bodies operating in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Is not the greatest attack on human rights the Government's proposal to introduce, for a third time, a discredited measure to restrict the right to jury trial? We all know that the Solicitor-General is a man of huge influence in the Government. Why does he not use that influence to persuade them to drop the Bill?
    The Solicitor-General: Well, we have been around that particular track a number of times. The point is that the royal commission appointed by the previous Government—and the Narey inquiry—recommended that particular change and it is sensible that judicial resources be matched to the nature of the case. Trivial or small cases ought not to have the full weight of the Crown court, for example, directed to them.
    However, we halve introduced a number of protections. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we introduced a right of appeal so that defendants unhappy with the decision of the magistrates court that a matter should remain in that court can appeal to a Crown court judge. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, of course, conducted a campaign against the legislation, but we say that it is an element of modernising the criminal justice system, which, unfortunately, was left in bad shape by the previous Government.

    CPS
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: What assessment he has made of the morale of the Crown Prosecution Service. [142369]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): On my frequent visits to CPS offices around the country, I have been impressed by the commitment and professionalism of staff. Earlier this year, the CPS received a clear indication of the views of staff as a result of the staff attitude survey. Ccnsequently, the CPS board has agreed to a number of measures to improve morale—for

    565
    example, enhancing the support systems for keeping staff better informed of changes. Long-term planning has also been addressed through the staff attitude survey and stress audit steering group. I return to the point that, importantly, the CPS has been encouraged by additional funding, which is to be made available. That will greatly improve morale and enable staff to do a better job.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank the Solicitor-General for his response, which shows that historic underfunding is at least in part responsible for poor morale. Is he convinced that the new resources will be sufficient to address the problem and thereby improve morale?
    The Solicitor-General: I certainly am, but it will be hard work, especially in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend. London faces particular difficulties, but the resources will be provided, new recruitment will start in January and I am confident that the combination of resources and particular measures taken in the CPS will greatly improve efficiency.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the best route to higher morale in the CPS would be for the service to deliver and to know that it is delivering an improved service to the public? To that end, can he tell the House what specific
    566
    targets for better service delivery have been set, the time scale in which they are expected to be achieved and how the service is doing?
    Mr. Peter Luff: Briefly.
    The Solicitor-General: Briefly, there are a number of targets—for example, for the turnaround of cases—and they are constantly monitored by the inspectorate. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) knows, we have put the inspectorate on a statutory basis. It is better resourced, does much more work and constantly reports on the operation of areas.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Solicitor-General think that CPS morale would be improved or otherwise if it were to deal with the cases of about eight members of the Equitable Life board who have scuttled away like rats leaving a sinking ship? Should the matter be investigated by the CPS?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. If it were a responsibility of anyone under my aegis, it would be the Serious Fraud Office, but I am not saying that it has gone that far. I am sure that my hon. Friends in the Treasury are considering the matter very closely.

Business of the House
10.30 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the week after the House returns from the Christmas recess?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for the first week after the Christmas recess is as follows:
MONDAY 8 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Homes Bill.
Motion relating to the Electoral Commission.
TUESDAY 9 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill.
THURSDAY 11 JANUARY—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day—Half-Day—Second Part]. There will be a debate on the Sixth Report from the Science and Technology Committee on Cancer Research: A Fresh Look, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration at 4 o'clock.
FRIDAY 12 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 15 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Capital Allowances Bill.
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 17 January, there will be a debate relating to sport in European Standing Committee C.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall during January 2001 will be as follows:
THURSDAY 11 JANUARY—Debate on energy and other non-food crops.
THURSDAY 18 JANUARY—Debate on the Fifth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee on the Greening Government initiative.
THURSDAY 25 JANUARY—Debate on Meeting the Basic Skills Challenge.
[Thursday 11 January:
Relevant documents: A Fresh Look (HC 332) and the Government's response thereto (Cmnd 4928]
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House. Following the Second Reading and programme motion on the Hunting Bill yesterday, there will be just one day of Committee on the Floor of the House for consideration of the Bill. Is she able to tell us the date on which that will take place? Many Members will want to clear their diaries so that they can participate in that important debate.
May we have a debate in Government time early in the new year on the intelligence services? That would be most welcome, not least to members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
568
Will the right hon. Lady request a statement in the new year from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the guidance given by the Government, which might have influenced the method of operation of the board of Equitable Life? Given that the Treasury's insurance directorate suspended that guidance two days after the House of Lords judgment on Equitable Life, the House will want to question the Chancellor, not least because there might have been a duty of care that could result in compensation to policyholders.
In conclusion, I wish the Leader of the House, you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. Members a happy Christmas and, I hope, an interesting new year.
Mrs. Beckett: I seem to remember that "may you live in interesting times" is a Chinese curse. I thank the hon. Lady for her good wishes, and return them to her, to all hon. Members from every party, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the staff of the House.
I cannot tell the hon. Lady when the day on the Floor of the House for consideration of the Hunting Bill is likely to be, but we shall try to give Members as much notice as we can. I take her point.
I also take note of her request for a debate on the intelligence services, and we shall undertake to discuss that through the usual channels.
Guidance that might have influenced Equitable Life is primarily a matter for the Financial Services Authority, particularly at this stage. It is my understanding that the authority has been asked to examine the matter and report. As that information comes together, the House will no doubt have opportunities to raise the matter in different ways.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is it possible to have a debate on international affairs in the first or second week after the recess, especially about the serious situation in the middle east in its widest sense? That includes the Palestine-Israel conflict, the serious problems in Turkey and the problems between Turkey and its neighbours because of the damming of major rivers, which is resulting in water shortages in neighbouring countries? Does my, right hon. Friend accept that the problems in the middle east could lead to a wider escalation of the conflict, and that it would be useful if the House had an opportunity to discuss them?
Mrs. Beckett: As ever, pressure on time for debates on the Floor of the House will be fairly tight early in the new year, because the Government will want to make progress with legislation. Members have already expressed wishes to discuss matters with which it has not been possible to deal before the Christmas recess. However, I note my hon. Friend's request. As he probably knows, questions to the Foreign Secretary will take place on 23 January; and the subject that he has raised is also particularly suitable for debate in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Tom Brake: Will the Leader of the House make time available at the earliest opportunity for debate on a subject that is of great concern to Londoners—the future of the Government's part-privatisation proposals for London Underground? If the public-private partnership is to be ditched, Parliament would like to discuss that.

569
Will the right hon. Lady also provide time for a debate on the fiasco that has been the selection process for the national lottery? Such a debate would give the Government an opportunity to explain why they have chosen to abandon their manifesto pledge of a not-for-profit lottery.
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman will know, negotiations and discussions on the future of London Underground are continuing, and the Government will be seeking the best-value approach. As far as I am aware there is nothing to report so far, but no doubt the matter will come to the House in a variety of ways in the future.
I do not immediately see a logical thread linking the national lottery with London Underground, but never mind. We said in our manifesto that the Government would seek to identify a not-for-profit provider, and it is clear that a study has been undertaken. It is equally clear that the not-for-profit bidder has not yet been able to satisfy those whose purpose is to judge the bidder's case.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deferred voting system that we have used for the past two weeks has been a great success? Its operation has been straightforward, and it has produced clear-cut results. It is a very simple system, which I am sure appeals to Members on both sides of the House. However, does not the fact that only a handful of Members have voted against some motions suggest that the House's time has been abused in the past by small numbers of mavericks who have forced unnecessary votes in the early hours?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the deferred voting system is a source of disagreement in various parts of the House, but I agree that it has already proved its worth. On the second of the two occasions on which we have used it, voting could have taken three hours on the Floor of the House, without a minute of debate.
All Members are well aware that many issues on which votes could take place are not contentious across the House. As my hon. Friend says, on a number of such issues only a handful of Members wish to express a view. I think the House will, in time, accept that, while it is of course right for Members to have an opportunity to debate issues, it is not practical to keep tens, if not hundreds, of others hanging around just to exploit the use of time.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Last week, the Leader of the House said in answer to a question from me that there were no present ambiguities in the European defence imbroglio. Was that a subjective statement on her part, or an objective statement on behalf of the Government?
Mrs. Beckett: I think that most of my statements, and indeed most statements made in the House, are subjective. I am aware that there are those who claim to be objective human beings, but I cannot say I have ever met one.
Mr. Syd Rapson: Will there be a chance to debate today's award of a contract to BAE Systems to build type 45 destroyers? We need a debate because it seems that Vosper Thornycroft has been excluded from participating in the contract, which comes
570
as serious news for Southampton and Portsmouth. We would like to be able to debate the matter sensibly in the House in the near future.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I am not aware of the particular arrangements that he is describing. I also understand his wish on behalf of his constituents—no doubt other hon. Members will join him—to have the issue aired, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a debate on the issue on the Floor of the House. However, the far greater opportunities available in Westminster Hall may be attractive to him. Furthermore—depending, of course, on Mr. Speaker's view—my hon. Friend might find an opportunity to raise the issue in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, on Tuesday.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I introduce an unseasonal note? Could the Foreign Secretary be asked, over Christmas and new year, to prepare to come to the House to make a statement on the case of the British citizen, Krishna Maharaj, who was sentenced to death 13 years ago, on a seven to five verdict, and whose appeal has been turned down by the Florida supreme court? The Foreign Secretary will have received a letter from Clive Stafford-Smith, of the Justice Centre, who says that Krishna Maharaj is the most likely of the 300 cases taken up by the centre to be innocent. It is not an issue that can be debated now, as I cannot apply for an urgent debate. However, the work is urgent.
The alternatives are to ask the Florida supreme court to waive the death penalty, repatriation or to allow a 62-year-old man to go through another 13 years of appeals at the federal level. As the trial judge was taken away in shackles after being accused of taking bribes in another case, there is significant doubt not only about the process, but about Krishna Maharaj's guilt.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, and it clearly is a case of some concern. I have no doubt that he has already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who, I am sure, will take the matter very seriously. However, I do not feel that it would be right, at this moment—when my right hon. Friend might only just have received the hon. Gentleman's letter—to suggest that he make a statement to the House on the case. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find other ways of raising the issue.
Angela Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 61, which deals with working on Christmas day? It states:
[That this House cherishes Christmas Day as a special day, particularly for families and children, and welcomes the campaign by USDAW, the shopworkers' union, on behalf of the 2.6 million shopworkers of United Kingdom; regrets that many shops remain open on Christmas Day because employers put undue pressure on shop workers to abandon their family responsibilities on this important religious and public holiday; notes that the vast majority of shop workers are parents who should be able to spend Christmas with their children; notes that current law offers no protection to such workers when Christmas Day does not fall on a Sunday; further notes that Christmas is an extremely busy and stressful period for shop workers

571
and believes that they deserve at least one day off; and calls on the Government to protect shopworkers on Christmas Day.]
May I also draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the petition introduced earlier this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), and the petition that I shall introduce later today? Is she aware that many people working in shops in Britain have no legal protection against having to work on Christmas day unless it falls on a Sunday? Is it not time that we had a debate in Government time on the issue? We have a whole year before next Christmas to ensure that people are not forced to work on Christmas day and that they can spend time with their families.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand, of course, the concerns expressed both by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who, as she said, has tabled the early-day motion. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand those concerns and might wish to air the issue. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in Government time. May I, once again, recommend to her the attractions of Westminster Hall?
Sir Sydney Chapman: The right hon. Lady will recall my raising, last week, the High Court decision on the planning powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I understand that the Government have appealed against the decision, so there the matter must rest for the time being. However, I believe that the issue is part of a wider problem. Will the Leader of the House find time reasonably quickly in the new year to have a debate in the House on the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998, which certainly seems to have the effect of requiring the courts to move in mysterious ways?
Mrs. Beckett: From memory—I hope that the House will bear with me, because I am speaking only from memory—I did not think that the decision had very much to do with the Human Rights Act. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: as I suspected last week, the Government have decided to appeal, which means that it is a matter for the courts. As things settle down and time passes, it is likely that fewer stories will be linked to the Human Rights Act when there is only a tenuous or disputed connection.
I well remember hearing a report the other day—I do not recall the precise case—in which it was claimed that there was a dispute with the Human Rights Act. I heard a very cross interviewer continuing to ask the interviewee, "Isn't this because it has fallen foul of the Human Rights Act", to which the answer was, "No." When things settle down and there is a little less hysteria about the Act, we will know better where we stand.
Mr. Martin Salter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of Labour Members would like to debate the fact that the facilities of the House of Commons are being used to host gatherings of a right-wing grouping that publishes racist and anti-semitic material in its magazine, "Right Now"? Is she also aware that speakers at the meetings have included the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for
572
Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and that regular attenders include self-confessed racists and former National Front activists?
In the absence of any attempt to cleanse the Conservative party of racism, what procedural advice can my right hon. Friend offer hon. Members who do not believe that racism should be given house room in this, the mother of Parliaments?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend has identified, nor of the organisation to which he refers and which he describes. However, I can tell him that any hon. Member who comes across evidence indicating a misuse of the House's facilities should convey that information to the House authorities. They will then look into the matter.
Sir Robert Smith: The Leader of the House will know that fishing communities around the United Kingdom face a winter of crisis and a very depressing time following the recent Fisheries Council meeting. Pursuant to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which appears at column 809 of Hansard for 14 December, is she any closer to fixing a date for the promised fisheries debate? In particular, does she recognise that it is urgent that she find time for that debate, so that the House can have an input to Ministers before the cod recovery programme is debated in Europe on 18 January?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I had not forgotten what I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed from the business that I announced earlier, we have not yet identified a suitable opportunity for that debate, but I am mindful of the wish that it be held. Indeed, that was part of what I had in mind when I told my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) a few moments ago that, for perfectly reasonable reasons, there is a good deal of pressure on Government time in the new year. I have not forgotten the commitment that was made, and we are looking for ways to honour it.
Mr. Phil Hope: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 101, dealing with the payment of fees by volunteers to the Criminal Records Bureau? It states:
[That this House welcomes the decision of the Scottish Parliament that criminal record checks for volunteers working with children in Scotland will be free; notes with regret that volunteers in England and Wales will still be required to pay £10 for identical checks to be made with the Criminal Records Bureau in the coming year; and urges the Government to emulate the excellent example of the Scottish Parliament.]
Will she arrange for a debate on this issue in the Chamber? Many voluntary and children's organisations fully support measures to protect children, which require that adults with unsupervised access to children must undergo a criminal records check. However, that costs money, and organisations in the voluntary sector are concerned about the impact of those costs on the volunteers whom they deploy. We need a debate on this matter to see whether some flexibility can be found in

573

the regime, so that voluntary organisations are not unduly disadvantaged and so that volunteers are not put off from taking part in work with children in this country?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these issues, and that he chairs the all-party group dealing with voluntary organisations. I am aware, too, of the great interest that exists across the House in the matter. My hon. Friend will know that no announcement has yet been made about the exact arrangements involved. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but many opportunities are open to hon. Members to keep up pressure on the Government until the relevant decisions are announced.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Leader of the House has nominated the Second Reading of the Capital Allowances Bill for 15 January. Can she confirm that that is the first Bill to emerge from the tax law rewrite exercise? Will she ensure that, on Second Reading, Ministers couch their remarks in such a way that they touch on the more general work of the Joint Committee and on the wider question of tax simplification? Will she describe what further stages the Bill will go through after Second Reading?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is right: the Bill is the first fruit of the tax law rewrite project, which I believe he was instrumental in initiating when he was a Treasury Minister. I am aware, too, that it is part of an on-going project of simplification, and that there has been pressure from hon. Members of all parties to make progress on these issues.
I cannot at the moment give the right hon. Gentleman any further information about how the Bill will proceed after Second Reading, or at what pace, but no doubt he will be able to seek that information through the usual channels.
Mr. Edward Leigh: With regard to future programming and votes on the Hunting Bill, did the right hon. Lady notice that something quite interesting happened last night? The West Lothian question was a dog that did not bark in the night—or rather, it just squeaked. Only six of her colleagues from Scotland voted on Second Reading last night. Therefore, most Scottish Members have taken the very correct attitude that they should not vote on matters that affect only England. To do so would be as insensitive as crashing around a neighbour's house and taking down the pictures without letting that person into one's own house.
The right hon. Lady knows how much I admire her. Will she now put her name into the history books and proclaim the Beckett convention—that Scottish Members should not generally vote on matters that solely concern England?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I am afraid that I will not. As for the West Lothian question not being a dog that barked, I should have thought that baying was a more appropriate term on this occasion.
I am aware of the argument put by Conservative Members, and have long believed that they have not fully thought it through. After all, it is not at all clear what
574
their candidates in Scotland and Wales will say at the next election. Perhaps an appropriate slogan would be, "Vote for me and I will do half the job that everyone else at Westminster is doing."
As the hon. Gentleman will know, during the quite long periods in which the Conservative party was in favour of devolution, it took the view that there should not be two different classes of Member of Parliament at Westminster. That remains the view of this Government. He will also know that in the long periods in which there was devolved government at Stormont, the previous Government relied quite heavily on the votes of Northern Ireland Members.
Mr. Graham Brady: The right hon. Lady will be aware, following press reports at the weekend, if not before, that a ministerial group has been set up informally to examine why 100,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in the past year and why the unemployment rate is rising in the north-east, the north-west and the east and west midlands. Clearly, the Government have some political concern because unemployment is going up in areas that are more heavily represented by Labour Members. As a ministerial group has been established, may we have a statement from a member of the group to explain which of the Government's policies the group believes is responsible for the increase in manufacturing unemployment?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the whole House is concerned about unemployment, particularly in manufacturing. It is perfectly understandable. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman identifies only the concerns about unemployment; he does not mention that the group will look, I feel confident, at other issues, such as how we have managed to succeed in increasing investment in manufacturing for the first time in many years and to increase exports for the first time for some time. The group will consider a range of manufacturing issues.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government are concerned and wish to work with industry to see whether they can take any steps to deal with difficulties that the industry faces. He is also right that some jobs are being lost although not, of course, at anything like the rate at which they were lost under the previous Government, and it is true that many such jobs are in parts of the country represented by Labour Members. However, I am happy to say that as a result of the last election, there is Labour representation in all parts of the country.
Mr. Peter Luff: I remind the right hon. Lady that I am joint chairman of the Middle Way Group, which supports a compromise solution on hunting with dogs and gained the support of the Home Secretary yesterday. Does she understand that there is genuine concern about whether it is possible to deal with the complexities of the three issues in a single day on the Floor of the House? Will she use her very best endeavours to ensure that no ministerial statements are made on that day?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that a day is insufficient. The House will make a broad judgment on the options. I think that most right hon. and hon. Members are already perfectly well aware to which option they incline. It will then be for the House to continue later with further and more detailed discussion. I believe

575
that last night my right hon. Friend cited the precedent of the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which contained many more, and more complicated, options.
Mr. Luff: I was against that too.
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman was against that too, he has the merit of consistency. However, it does not alter the fact that that was thought sufficient time by the Government he supported to debate a number of options in exactly the way that this Government propose. However, I take his point. He will know that we are continually being pressed to make even more statements than we do, but we are mindful that there are particular days on which we seek to avoid cutting into debate time, and I will bear that in mind. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking, but I am conscious of his point.
Mr. Colin Breed: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Health, following the disturbing news from the authorities at Derriford hospital in Plymouth, which serves my constituency, that they contemplate requiring an additional consent form from patients about to undergo surgery so as to absolve the hospital of responsibility and blame for any problems that might arise due to inadequate facilities or hygiene? Is not that disturbing news that might have implications throughout the country?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman perfectly legitimately makes what he clearly feels is an important constituency point. I am not familiar with the details, as he will anticipate. Although I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the matter, he is in the Chamber and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make further inquiries and, should they confirm the concern he has just expressed, he may find an opportunity to raise the matter on 10 January when we debate the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the planning system? In two villages in my constituency, large former mental institutions are currently being redeveloped—mainly for housing. One is in Calderstones, near Whalley, and the other is in Whittingham. If both developments take place, they will alter dramatically the character of the nearby villages; in Whittingham, 950 houses are being considered.
The Government have introduced PPG3; we want to test how effective that is in ensuring that residents and local and parish councils can defend the interests of villages against wholesale development. If the guidelines are not effective, perhaps further guidelines will be necessary to protect those villages. The best Christmas and new year present that we could receive from the Government would be for them to ensure that the PPGs are effectively tightened to give better protection to local people against the influx of extra housing.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I am aware of such developments—they take place in many constituencies,
576
including mine, and sometimes cause concern. From what he says, the matter would appear to be rather more for the local authority than for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. However, if on mature consideration, the hon. Gentleman comes to the view that it raises issues about the nature of planning guidance, although I cannot promise him a debate I remind him that there will be questions to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 16 January.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Can the Leader of the House promise us a statement during the first week after the break on the continuing crisis of confidence in the sub-post office network? We were told that there was to be an announcement about the universal bank before Christmas—that does not seem to have occurred. The outcome of the lottery decision is unlikely to benefit the Post Office. The bottom has fallen out of the sub-post office market. What are the Government going to do about that? Does not this crisis demand a statement during the first week back?
Mrs. Beckett: Discussions are continuing about how best we can safeguard the rural post office network. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the matter as one of considerable difficulty—not least, of course, because of the way in which the Conservative Government, whom he supported, bled the Post Office white over so many years, ensuring that it had no resources for investment, which had a bad effect on the whole network. The Labour Government will certainly do their best to protect and to save the network. However, although the matter is of concern and Ministers continue to work with the relevant authorities to do what we can to assist, the hon. Gentleman says nothing that suggests to me the need for an urgent statement in the new year.
Mr. John Bercow: I want to raise a matter that there was no chance to highlight at Agriculture questions. Given that the pig industry has been losing up to £4 million a week and that, over the past two years alone, 25,000 people have left the sector altogether, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is important to have a statement from the Government, as a matter of urgency, to confirm that they intend to review the proposed operation of the integrated pollution prevention controls and to confirm that they will not be applied in a way that militates against the British sector relative to our continental counterparts? Finally, will the right hon. Lady take it from me that if such a statement is forthcoming, it will be received by my constituent, Mr. James King of Cowley farm, Preston Bissett in Buckingham, as an extremely welcome wedding present?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that that is a worthwhile reason for the Government to take such a major step. As the hon. Gentleman who is a regular attender at business questions, will recall, the matter has been raised frequently over recent months. We are conscious of the problems in the pig industry and the Government have provided special help to it.
The hon. Gentleman raises the particular issue of the IPPC. It is my recollection that the Prime Minister has been discussing the issues with the National Farmers Union. I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman time for further

577
discussions or statements on that matter, but I can and will undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I renew my request to the Leader of the House for a statement or debate on the folly of a European army, particularly as it has now been described by a likely future assistant to President-elect Bush as a dagger pointed at the heart of NATO? While we are on the subject of President-elect Bush, does the right hon. Lady agree that the result of the US presidential election shows that to achieve an electoral victory it is not enough for a party to have had at its head a sharp-suited but shallow individual?
Mrs. Beckett: I rather think that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question was a boomerang.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of defence and the conversations about the European rapid reaction force. I note that he moved from people in a previous American Administration to likely future assistants to the new Administration, which is a matter of concern. No doubt this Government and other European Governments will be anxious—as will the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson—to reassure the incoming American Administration about the facts of what is proposed in the European context, and that it is not in any way a risk to NATO. As for the lessons to be learned from the American election, they are many—not least that those who say that it makes no difference whether people vote have learned a sharp lesson.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Leader of the House share my concern at the reported loss of 24,000 agricultural jobs per annum? Four hundred and fifty people are drifting from the land every week. Will the
578
right hon. Lady arrange an early statement or debate to discuss employment and training opportunities and assess what special assistance can be given to people who have lost their jobs?
Mrs. Beckett: I am indeed aware of what the hon. Gentleman rightly identified as a drift from the land. He will know that, although I do not take it lightly, that trend has occurred over generations, not just recent years. I do understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and he knows that the Government have worked hard, and will continue to do so, with representatives of the farming community to assist with what is certainly—the Government do not seek to disguise it—a continuing and serious crisis in agriculture. We will continue to try to identify a way forward, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be part of those discussions, particularly in relation to the part of the Province that he represents.
Dr. Alan Whitehead rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I note that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) is standing. I like to be generous, particularly at this time of year, but he must be able to hear what the Leader of the House has to say. I might have called the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot because he was not present to listen to the statement by the Leader of the House.
Dr. Whitehead: I was collecting information that has only just become available which was relevant to the request that I intended to make to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I was therefore unavoidably absent from the Chamber.
Mr. Speaker: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's difficulty about that, but when one is a Back Bencher, one has to try to find other ways to make a point.

Adoption
11.4 am
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper, "Adoption: a new approach", which I am publishing today.
Every child should have the best possible start in life. As a country with one of the largest economies in the world, we should be aiming to provide opportunities for all children, whatever their backgrounds. The Government have a special responsibility to ensure that every child in our society has the opportunity to grow up in a stable and secure family. That is why we have taken action to lift more than a million children out of poverty, to raise child benefit by record levels and to increase support to families through the working families tax credit. In all, we are spending an extra £6 billion each year in real terms on financial support for children. It is also why we have taken action to strengthen safeguards for children, with new legislation, new resources and new programmes, such as the sure start and quality protects schemes. Together, those two programmes alone will provide investment of more than £1.8 billion over the next three years in services helping some of the most vulnerable children in the country.
Ultimately, stable families and strong communities provide the foundations for a fair society. Children do best when they grow up in a stable, loving family. When children cannot live with their birth parents, we have a shared responsibility to make sure that they can enjoy the loving family life that most of us take for granted.
As every hon. Member knows, the opportunity to grow up in a stable family environment has not been properly extended to looked-after children who, for one reason or another, cannot live with their birth families. It is not only the children who have lost out; society as a whole has paid a heavy price for that failure. At any one time, local councils look after 58,000 children. Seven in 10 of them leave care at 16 without a single qualification. Almost four in 10 male prisoners under 21 have been looked after at some stage in their lives; 25 per cent. of the people sleeping rough on the streets of London have been in care. That is not a failure of the child in care; it is a failure of the system of care.
Those children, perhaps above all others, need the safety, stability and loving care of a permanent new family, and they need that stability as quickly as humanly possible. That is not the case at present. Children stay in the care system far longer than they should. More than 28,000 children have been in care continuously for more than two years. Too often, despite the best intentions of all involved, they are passed from pillar to post inside that system. Nearly one in five looked-after children have three or more placements in a single year—some have six or more. For those children, the care system does not provide the stability that they need to overcome their troubled past and build a successful future. Those children need a better chance in life. They deserve a better deal.
Adoption can provide just such a new start in life for a looked-after child. Too often, adoption has been seen as a last resort when it should have been considered as a first resort. In some councils, 10 per cent. of looked-after children are adopted; in others, less than 1 per cent. are. As adoption services are run on a local basis, children and
580
adoptive parents can miss the chance that adoption brings. Overall, the system, including the courts, can be slow, cumbersome and unfair. Of course, the safety of every child should be of paramount concern, but, on average, children are waiting almost a year and a half before it is decided that adoption is best for them. Even after a decision is taken that they can be adopted, they wait longer still. Overall, the average time taken to adopt a looked-after child is three years—an eternity in a child's eyes.
People who want to adopt children from the care system need a better deal as well. We are short of adoptive parents, but the system deters people from adopting; it is slow, intrusive and sometimes simply inappropriate. There have been cases, as all hon. Members know, of potential adopters who have been told that they cannot adopt simply because they are too old or too middle class. Such blanket bans can have only one effect—they fail to put the needs of children first. Families who adopt children overwhelmingly do a brilliant job for those children. It is not an easy job, because many of the children are not easy. They and their adoptive parents deserve more support. Adoption services and adoption laws are in need of reform. The Adoption Act 1976 is based on legislation that dates back to 1958, and is inconsistent with the Children Act 1989.
In February this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched a thorough review of adoption. He commissioned the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office to consider the evidence and make recommendations for action. The report was published for consultation on 7 July this year. It found that there was clear scope for many more looked-after children to be adopted. The Prime Minister made it clear in July that the Government accepted some of its key recommendations. In particular, he announced that new legislation would be introduced next year.
The White Paper that I am publishing today outlines the most radical overhaul of adoption law and practice in 25 years. New legislation will seek to place children's safety, welfare, and interests at the heart of the adoption process. It will link adoption more closely with the principles of the Children Act 1989, and extend the options that courts have to secure a permanent family life for looked-after children. A new special guardianship order will be created for those children who want a more legally secure permanent family than can be delivered through foster care or residence orders, but who do not want to sever all legal ties with their birth family.
A clearer legal duty will be placed on local councils to plan for and provide comprehensive support services for adoptive families. Families who adopt children will be entitled to have their needs for support services properly assessed. They will have access to a comprehensive package of post-adoption support, including adoption allowances, in a way that is more consistent across the country. We are already consulting on introducing paid leave for adoptive parents, and for potential adopters whose application is rejected we will introduce a new right to an independent review.
Local councils and voluntary adoption agencies will need to make substantial improvements to their adoption services. Some are already doing so. Last year, the number of adoptions rose from 2,200 to 2,700, but much more needs to be done. New resources will be made available to produce better results. The Government will

581
provide £66 million of investment for local authorities over the next three years to help transform adoption services for children. In exchange for this investment, I will expect to see clear improvements in performance.
In future, we expect the majority of councils to do what the minority are already successfully doing: working collaboratively with other councils and voluntary adoption agencies. Council performance on adoption will be more rigorously monitored, not least through the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission. If a council is persistently failing to deliver, I will not hesitate to use my intervention powers to transfer its adoption services to another agency.
An adoption register for England and Wales will be established. It will match children with adoptive parents across the country when a local family cannot be found or when a child needs to move away from the local area. I am today issuing invitations to tender for the new register, with a view to its becoming operational next summer.
The courts, too, will need to improve their performance. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has been looking carefully at the causes of delays in dealing with children's cases. The White Paper sets out how we will speed up adoption cases. In the coming year, the Lord Chancellor's Department will increase the number of judges specially trained to deal with family work, and make better use of the available expertise. It will set up pilots to evaluate the benefits of concentrating adoption work in specialist adoption courts with experienced judges and court staff. It will also work with the president of the family court division on guidance to courts on better case management and take further steps to improve the way in which the courts deal with adoption cases.
Next year, too, the new children and family court advisory and support service—CAFCASS—will be set up, bringing together services for children in one comprehensive agency, allowing them better to meet the needs of children.
However, these changes in local courts and in local councils will not, by themselves, be enough to bring about the step change in adoption services that children need. Today, therefore, I am also publishing for consultation the first ever set of national adoption standards. They will help to drive up the standards of service for children and adoptive parents in all parts of the country. The standards set challenging new targets to speed up adoption processes.
Six months after being looked after continuously, every looked-after child will have an agreed plan for permanence. That might cover efforts to rehabilitate a child with their birth family, but if adoption is the plan for permanence, suitable adoptive parents should be found within a further six months That will be a major improvement on the current position and will almost halve the average time that it takes to find an adoptive family for a child. For foster carers who want to adopt a child, and if it is in the child's best interest for that to happen, we will go further still. Applications by foster carers who want to adopt a child in their care will be processed in just three months.
The standards will also set out how prospective adopters will be welcomed and treated in an open and fair way. There will be no blanket bans on people because of their age, health or other factors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,
582
hear."] For example, it is clear that the best family for a child is one who reflect their birth heritage—we certainly need to do much more to recruit adopters from diverse ethnic backgrounds—but no child should be denied loving adoptive parents solely on the grounds that the child and the parents have different racial or cultural backgrounds. The child's interest—their safety and well-being—will be the crucial factor in determining their adoptive parents. I hope that the measures will help us to treat and support adopters better so that we can attract more people successfully to adopt more children.
It is right that we are ambitious for looked-after children and for prospective families. There is no shortage of children who are looking for a stable and loving permanent family. A 1999 report for my Department found that 2,400 children were waiting to be adopted and 1,300 adopters were waiting for children. Adoption must become a first-choice option for looked-after children who cannot return home. Therefore, the White Paper sets a new national target to deliver a minimum 40 per cent. increase in lasting adoptions by 2005, although I hope that the measures that I have outlined today will help us to achieve a 50 per cent. increase over that period. Our aim must be to give many hundreds more looked-after children the chance to live as a permanent member of a stable, secure and, above all else, loving new family.
Children get only one chance to grow up. A looked-after child should have the same life chance as any other child. They should have an opportunity to belong, to have a stake and to get on in life. For too long, too many have been denied that and have been the innocent victims of a system that has failed to meet their needs to provide a permanent and secure loving family. It is a failure that we would not tolerate for ourselves; we would certainly not tolerate it for our own children, and we should not tolerate it for other children. The reforms to adoption that I have announced will transform the life chances of hundreds, hopefully thousands, of children. They deserve no less. I commend the proposals to the House.
Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that statement and, for the second time in two days, for making a copy of his statement available to the Opposition in advance.
Those of us who have worked professionally with the social services and have experience of the adoption process wholeheartedly welcome the announcement. We often say that children are the most vulnerable members of our society, but looked-after children are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. Therefore, as the Secretary of State said, it is extremely important that they are given the chance to experience a stable and loving environment out of what is too often a failure of the care environment.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will strongly welcome many of the proposals. It would be outwith the spirit of the season if I did not congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on his hard work. It happens in politics that the boss gets to steal the glory much of the time, but I am sure that the House will want to pay tribute to his contribution.
There is a general feeling among those involved in the adoption process that far too little importance is given to the child at the centre of the adoption, and far too much to the bureaucracy, the system and other people

583
surrounding the child. That is the central thrust of today's statement, but I should like the Secretary of State to expand on one or two of the items that he mentioned.
I welcome the concept of the national register, especially if, as I hope, I am correct in assuming that national objective criteria will set out the qualifications for being an adoptive or fostering parent, that they will be the same throughout the whole United Kingdom, and that they will form the basis of any appeal that might arise. Standardisation is one of the most important factors in encouraging parents to come forward. Currently, because standards are so varied throughout the country, people fear that they will be subject to local prejudice and other factors, so many are dissuaded from coming forward to give children the chance of a stable home. Only this week, we had brought to our attention the case of a couple who, because they had applied for IVF, were told that they were unsuitable to adopt. That is a disgrace and something that the whole House would strongly deprecate.
I welcome the concept of permanence, as set out by the Secretary of State. As he knows, during discussions on the Care Standards Bill we urged that provision be made to ensure that, after a period in care, children would automatically go forward for adoption. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has set out a constructive version of that theme, which we welcome, but will he consider making another provision for which we asked when we considered that Bill? Will he provide access to some mechanism to ensure that children maintain contact with groups outside the care environment before they start out on the process of adoption? As the right hon. Gentleman says, the adoption process is difficult and time-consuming for the children involved; if they were enabled to maintain a link with a family, a church group, a charity, or some outside influence that could give them a cultural experience broader than the one that they find in the care environment, that would be a positive step forward, which we would welcome.
I think that the Secretary of State accidentally missed out one element when he talked about the monitoring of performance. He mentioned the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission, but am I not correct to assume that the National Care Standards Commission will be involved in monitoring adoption standards? That provision already exists in legislation, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman accidentally omitted to mention it. In addition, when he says that, if a council persistently fails to deliver, he will use his intervention powers to transfer its adoption services to a different agency, what sort of agency does he have in mind? Is he talking about the privatisation of adoption services? If so, we would not object.
I have three short and specific points. First, the Secretary of State mentioned the courts. How long does the average adoption process take in the courts? His statement was not clear about that element in delays, but it makes a difference to our approach to reform. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the culture and training of social workers. Given that they are the ones who will have to execute any big change in the process, any improvement in that respect would be most welcome.
Thirdly, of the measures that the Secretary of State has outlined today, which will require primary legislation and which secondary legislation? If there is a point of
584
difference between us and the Government today, it is that we have to wait for legislation, given that we all agree on the need for reform and on many of the reforms themselves. The Secretary of State says that children need stability as quickly as humanly possible; well, we could provide it more quickly. The Prime Minister accepted the recommendations of his review in July and we could have implemented some of the measures in the Care Standards Act 2000. The Government have found time for legislation on other matters, but not for legislation on adoption. I ask them to think again and to get a move on.
The Secretary of State is right to say that children need action. We do not need to wait another year. We shall support the legislation if is introduced on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman has set out today, so let the Government put their legislation where their mouth is and get on with it. That is the best Christmas present that they could give to children in care.
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm support for the measures that I have announced. I think that overwhelmingly they will command support throughout the House. I very much hope that they will.
I join the hon. Gentleman—I did not have the opportunity to do this earlier—in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and other members of the ministerial team. My hon. Friend has taken a lead on the issue and has done a first-class job. It is nice to be able to get that on the record.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in future we must do what seems to be a simple thing, but is pretty difficult to achieve. We must examine the entire adoption process through the eyes of the child rather than through the eyes of those who are administering the process. If we can do that and produce that culture change, we shall introduce major improvements in the system, particularly in making it quicker, more accessible and more appropriate.
The register will be separate from the national objective criteria that we are setting. I hope that the register will be up and running—invitations will be issued for tenders today—by about July next year. The hon. Gentleman is right about national standards. They will be enforced throughout the country, and that is the right thing to do. As a point of information for the hon. Gentleman and the House, a statutory code of practice will accompany the standards and the proposed legislation. I will be ensuring through section 7 statutory guidance that local authorities enforce the standards that we are setting at national level to ensure that children and potential adoptive parents throughout the country get a fairer deal than hitherto.
The hon. Gentleman said that children in care should be able to maintain contact with those outside the care system. That is absolutely right. As he is aware, the Children Act 1989 places a primary requirement on social services to provide such contact, especially in relation to a child's extended family. That should be the first point of contact that any child in care is given by the social services authority.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the National Care Standards Commission. It will have an important role when it comes on line in 2002, both in regulating adoption agencies and inspecting local social services departments and their adoption functions.

585
There are two possible routes for the transfer of adoption services from a local authority. The first is transfer to another local authority. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, many local authorities are voluntarily entering into consortiums arrangements with others. That provides a larger pool of children, a larger pool of parents and a larger pool of expertise. It is a good thing, and we want to see more of it. Secondly, it will be possible to transfer adoption services to a voluntary adoption agency where local authority services are failing. Many agencies do an extremely good job and we want to see their role enhanced.
At present, we do not have information about the time that is taken in the courts. We are seeking to elicit that information as an element in speeding up the court process. There are two separate delays. One is within social services departments and the second is when the case gets into a court, where further delays compound the problem for both the child and the adoptive parents. We shall be examining these matters closely.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that we need to make some major changes to social work culture and training. In the past few months, I have announced that an extra £41 million is going into social work training to ensure that we have more qualified social workers who are appropriately trained.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about primary legislation. I repeat for the benefit of the House what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said and the commitment that he has given. We shall be introducing legislation next year. The hon. Gentleman asked about the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I do not know as yet what it contains, but adoption legislation to carry forward our radical programme of reform will need a large piece of legislation—larger than would normally be possible through a private Member's Bill. Furthermore, the two measures that the hon. Lady has said will be included in her Bill—a national adoption register and consistent national eligibility criteria—do not require primary legislation. We shall be getting on with those things now.
Mrs. Llin Golding: As joint chair of the all-party Back-Bench group on adoption, I welcome this enormous step forward for children. I thank everyone at the Department for the hard work that has been done to produce such a good package. There are very few questions to ask—perhaps only how the commissioner for care will link into it. For those most deprived children, Father Christmas has come early.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the work that she and the all-party group have done. It is always useful for Ministers to have a bit of pressure—not too much. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been feeling the heat, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) feels that the pressure that she and others have been applying has achieved the right response.
The role of the commissioner or director will be extremely important in the future, and will involve taking a broad view of how well children's services are being delivered. That is right. We are setting in place various mechanisms to make sure that we get the right balance between speeding up the adoption process and ensuring
586
that appropriate safeguards are in place. We will not compromise on quality in order to achieve the quantity targets that we have set. That is very important. We know that the best local authorities achieve both. They manage both to speed up the adoption process and to deliver a high quality service. I have a simple view on that: if one local authority can do it, every local authority can.
Sandra Gidley: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not become too bored by the fact that most of us welcome the White Paper. The only regret is that it is long overdue and no place was found for it in the Queen's Speech.
I particularly welcome the setting of national standards, which will end the heart-breaking experience of many prospective adoptive parents when they try to find a council whose criteria they fit. I also welcome the right of appeal to an independent body; the £66 million that local authorities will be given to invest in improving adoption services; and the recognition of the importance of after-care and support following adoption. However, I can find no mention of on-going funding for that process.
Social services around the country are hard-pressed for cash, so will there be an input of money from the Government to fund this worthwhile scheme? We need to make sure that adoptions last. Many of the children come from damaged backgrounds. Three years is a long time for a child to be in care before being adopted, and we must do everything possible to minimise the long-term effects of that. Can the Secretary of State confirm that funding to local authorities will be on-going throughout that process?
I have a couple more quick questions. What will the special guardianship order mean in practice? Finally, the PIU report in July showed that there was scope for a much higher proportion of looked-after children to be adopted. There was no mention of any measures proposed to attract a wider pool of potential adoptive parents. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on that?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome for the proposals. The special guardianship order will be particularly important for older children who want to maintain contact with their birth families—who do not want to sever their ties with them, but want more than all the benefits that long-term fostering can offer. That order will end councils' legal responsibility for looking after the children. That will become the responsibility of the family with the special guardianship order, which will be particularly attractive to the children themselves.
Incidentally, it is worth saying that in the course of preparing the White Paper, we consulted various agencies and so on, but we also took the trouble to consult some children in care, as well as children in the adoption system and some who have been adopted. I hope that their views have informed the final product.

The White Paper has been published on time. I do not know where the hon. Lady got the idea that it had not been.
On-going support is important. We know that about 18 per cent. of adoption placements—one in five—break down. It is therefore very important that, as we increase the number of adoptions, we increase the support that families get. Adopting a child is not an easy process for the child or the family, and we should not assume that it

587
is straightforward: it is not. It requires help and, sometimes, cash, which is why I expect local authorities to spend a good proportion of the £66 million that we are providing on adoption allowances for families who do not always have great wherewithal.
As part of the on-going support, we have given local authorities three years of funding. This is the first time that they have ever had that, and the funding is part of the quality protects money. I know that we shall never satisfy Liberal Democrat Members on that point. Every time that we put money in, they always want more, but they never say where that should come from. The problem is that, in the end, I am afraid, one must take decisions about where the money is coming from. Two things are involved: the money to be spent and the money that one gets. One has to balance them both.
Ms Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I am quite emotional about it because I have the privilege of being an adoptive parent. My right hon. Friend could not exaggerate the hideousness of the procedure that so many people go through, and could not exaggerate the awful trauma that so many children experience. I stand here as a privileged mum of a 20-year old who has been, and will remain, my two eyes. I am therefore grateful for the statement.
When my right hon. Friend mentioned the independent appeals procedure, I, for one, said, "Yes!" I was 32, had gone through awful episodes—as one could well imagine—and was told by social services that I was too old to adopt. That broke my heart, and my husband's heart. The fact that we were Christians and attended church gave us the opportunity to adopt Philippa. However, that should never ever be the case. I cannot say that I am a brilliant parent, but I think that I am two thirds a good parent. I would not like to exaggerate, but many people want to take part in bringing up children, and the proposal will give them the opportunity to do that, as the appeals procedure is vital.
Perhaps this is a personal beef, but was no consideration given to having a national bureau for adoption? I know that we have national standards, and I like that. However, having been the victim of a local authority decision and having had no recourse, may I ask whether any consideration was given to establishing a national body? Lastly, may I ask the Secretary of State, as a good friend of mine, what support will be given to the birth mother who, in making her decision, goes through an awfully traumatic time, both before and after adoption? Support is therefore crucial. As a mum—a privileged, adoptive mum—and on behalf of my partner, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement?
Mr. Milburn: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for what she said and all that she has done. She is right that the current processes are horrendous. One would think that there were too many potential adoptive parents in this country and too few children in care. However, the position is quite the reverse. The way in which the system has operated has deterred adoptive parents and prevented children in care from getting the support and the loving permanent family that they need. The White Paper is important—as will be the legislation—as it will turn that situation around.
588
My hon. Friend raised two specific matters. On the creation of a bureau, we looked carefully at that in the course of our consultation, especially after the PIU report was published in July, but there were mixed views on it. The primary thing to keep in mind is the importance of maintaining the strong; linkage between local adoption services and local child protection services. That is why, in the end, we chose the model that we did. It will keep adoption services local, but at the same time, ensure that there is a national adoption register, which will provide a bigger pool of prospective parents and children and, we hope, get the match right.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about birth parents. Anybody who thinks that giving up a child is easy has got it wrong. The White Paper advocates some simple things that we can do in respect of birth parents. For example, we can change the form that birth families have to sign when they give up their child. It currently states that they give up their child freely and without regret, but such wording is not appropriate. In future, the form will make it clear that parents are signing because they believe that the adoption is in the child's best interests. I hope that that will be a small step towards making the process slightly easier.
Mr. Julian Brazier: As co-chairman with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) of the all-party group on adoption, I strongly welcome the statement and congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on a series of measures that will make a material difference to some desperately disadvantaged children whom Parliament has failed for far too long. I especially welcome the moves on post-adoption alliances, as well as the introduction of the national register and the fact that it is being put out to independent tender. I welcome also the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for parents who have been turned down and the time framework that is to be imposed on local authorities.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that, in delivering all those measures, the voluntary organisations and local authorities will be fishing in the same limited pool of social workers. His parallel consideration of social work training and of the culture of the social services departments—an issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred—will be critical.
I leave the right hon. Gentleman with one more thought. Although I strongly endorse his remarks about changing the wording of the forms for birth parents who are genuinely agonising about what is best for their children, I ask him not always to be sympathetic to birth parents. He must bear in mind birth parents such as those of a little chap who was adopted recently in my constituency. They had kept him locked in a cellar for so many years that he could not speak. Another child was left outside for so long that doctors had to consider amputating his feet because of gangrene. There are some good birth parents, but also some bad ones; the balance is difficult to strike.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on a splendid package.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As he said some very difficult balances must be struck. Anybody who thinks that there are simple solutions has got it remarkably wrong.

589
On social workers and social work training, we need two things. First, we need more staff. We are trying to tackle the current shortage of appropriately trained staff, not least by giving those who are already working in the social care world the opportunity to train in order to obtain a social work qualification. The £41 million that we have made available for the next three years specifically for that purpose will help us in achieving it. Secondly, we must ensure that the training is more appropriate. The White Paper and, previously, the PIU report, concluded that the training that is currently given and the product that we get are not appropriate. That must change. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman spoke about cultural changes. That is the correct term; some big cultural changes must be made, and they will take time to take effect.
Ms Jenny Jones: As somebody who worked in adoption some years ago, I wholeheartedly welcome the review, which is long overdue. Everybody in the profession realises that it is about time that the fundamental changes that are proposed were made.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the quality of the vetting of adoptive parents is given a thorough overhaul? That should be done not only to remove some of the false barriers that good adoptive parents face with regard to age and all the rest of it, but to prevent the devastation that can affect some children, who, having spent some years in care, believe themselves to be going into a loving home, only to find that they have entered an abusive one. That has happened most often because the social workers have not kept their eye on the ball or managed to find the signals of abuse. Nothing could be more devastating for a child. Will my right hon. Friend reassure hon. Members that he will keep that at the forefront of his mind when the adoption process is speeded up?
Mr. Milburn: I can certainly give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that there will be no compromise on children's safety or children's protection. Two important points should be made. As she is aware, the Criminal Records Bureau will come on line next summer, and that will be a great help in pooling our knowledge about abuse and abusers. Voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities will be allowed direct access to that bureau, which will be helpful not only in finding information, but in finding it more quickly.
Assessment is crucial in ensuring that the child's safety and well-being are taken fully into account and that we achieve the right result for both the prospective parents and the child. As part of the White Paper proposals, we shall review how the assessment criteria are used. That review will begin next year, and will probably take some time to take effect, but I believe that the end product will be a better and more rigorous set of assessment criteria that will achieve the right result for more children and more prospective parents.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that probably the biggest cheer that he received for his excellent statement was for the passage in which he condemned blanket bans resulting from a form of reverse racialism that holds that loving, white, potential adoptive parents should not be allowed to adopt black children? Can he throw some light on the puzzlement that hon. Members on both sides of the House
590
feel about how such attitudes ever came to be prevalent? Can he reassure us that the sort of people who held such disgraceful attitudes will not be in a position to inject more poison into the system? I conclude as I began: I congratulate him on an excellent statement.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm words.
We must ensure that the child's safety, well-being and interests are at the centre of everything that we do. That is what counts: end of story, bottom line. The figures are appalling. One child in five with an adoption plan is from a black or minority ethnic background. Black children wait, on average, five months longer for placement than white children. Kids themselves lose out as a result of such nonsense. It is right that local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies alike take due note of the figures and of the clear guidance that my Department has issued: first, that the heritage of a child should of course be fully taken into account in making the assessment and the placement and, secondly, that there should be no racial barriers to ensuring that a child receives the loving, supportive and permanent family that he or she needs.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): I, too, am a proud parent, with my wife Rosemary, of two grown-up adopted sons, Damien and Luke, who bring great joy. It is great that adoption is possible, but it should only ever be secondary to the possibility of children remaining with their birth parents.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that a definite, permanent solution will be found after six months, which is good. However, will every effort be made in those six months to give the right support to natural, or birth, parents to establish whether there is any possibility of the children remaining with them? One often hears complaints against social services, usually relating to lack of resources, that little effort is made in that period and that matters drift. Birth parents feel aggrieved, upset and distressed that they were perhaps not given the support that they needed to find out whether they could make it. Although I agree that there comes a point—perhaps in six months—when a decision must be made, it is important that birth parents are given every opportunity.
Mr. Milburn: I agree. As we know from current practice, about half of all children who end up in local authority care are back with their birth families within two months. As my hon. Friend knows, under the Children Act 1989, social services departments' primary requirement is to ensure on-going contact and, if possible, re-placement with the birth family. When appropriate, that must be the right action to take. In addition, as he said, we must set a time limit that is fair for the child. Although six months might not sound long to us, it is a substantial proportion of the life of a child aged two, three, four or five. The truth is that the current system is far too slow and cumbersome, and it does not deliver the goods for the birth family, for the potential adoptive family and, most important of all, for the child.
Mr. Christopher Chope: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that adoption should be the first resort rather than the last. Will he extend that principle to the advice given by the statutory agencies to

591
people who are considering having an abortion? At the moment, there is a dearth of advice about the alternative to an abortion: that is, giving birth and giving the child for adoption. Does he think that many more children would be born rather than aborted if the system enabled the birth mother to identify prospective adoptive parents in advance, and to have a say in the decision on which family should be given the child on adoption?
That principle operates in the United States. I have a relative who has adopted two children at birth in the US having discussed adoption with the mother beforehand. Surely that system should be applied in this country. Unlike those on the "Today" programme, I have not seen the White Paper, but I hope that it contains such a proposal.
Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the "Today" programme team has seen the White Paper, he has another think coming. I shall let him into a little secret: I did not get the White Paper back from the printers until 10 o'clock, and the "Today" programme goes off the air at 8.59, but maybe he is right and I am wrong.
On the issue that the hon. Gentleman has just raised, what counts is choice. He does not have the right to make the choice for others any more than I do. It is the woman's right to make the choice, and she should be free to do so.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Today's statement will be excellent news for my constituents who have adopted children recently or are going through the difficult process right now and have lobbied me about equal rights with birth parents, especially on adoption allowances and paid leave. Those announcements will be very welcome to my constituents. When all the excellent proposals are put in place, will future adoptive parents be on an equal footing with natural parents in terms of paid leave, allowances and benefits?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is aware that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he announced his Green Paper proposals on parental and other leave, said that we will consult on precisely the issue that he has just raised. We are doing so, and there is undoubtedly a very strong case for that in many people's minds. That consultation is taking place, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will take part in it.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the statement. Clearly, a child is far happier with a loving mother and father than in an institution. Does the Secretary of State intend to facilitate or allow adoption by same-sex couples?
Mr. Milburn: We have no plans to change the current law, which is clear. That law operated under the previous Government, and will continue to operate under this Government. I shall make one important point. This issue is not about the rights of any individual or any couple to have a child. It is about the rights of the child. It is the
592
child's interests, the child's safety and the child's well-being that come first. With respect, neither the hon. Gentleman nor I can decide what is in the child's best interest. That is a matter for those who handle these difficult and sensitive issues, and in the end it is a matter for the courts.
Caroline Flint: I welcome the statement. I am sorry to pop the bubble of festive consensus, but although some Conservative Members clearly felt strongly about this issue, from 1979 to 1997 nothing was done by successive Tory Governments to address it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have done more to support family life in the past three years, whether for natural parents or adoptive parents, than any Government for many generations?
In his statement, my right hon. Friend said that a permanent placement would be sought after six months. Will he ensure that social services departments do not make unnecessary excuses for denying a child a permanent place? The problem is that there are too many children in the care system. They are damaged by their natural families, and then damaged by the system that they are put into. By the time they reach an age at which it is thought that they can go to an adoptive family, the damage has already been done.
On too many occasions, social services departments have not given enough support to adoptive parents. They have not informed adoptive parents of the background of the children—of their needs and, possibly, of the abuses that they have experienced. In such circumstances, it is important that discussion takes place—for the sake of those children, but also for the sake of those who will be adoptive siblings.
Mr. Milburn: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. There are important lessons to be learned. To be fair, however, I must say that some local authorities—along with some voluntary adoption agencies—are doing a good job. We should not lose sight of that. The problem is that there are too few such organisations, which is why we must set national standards, establish a clear national adoption register and review the criteria for assessment, ensuring that they apply nationally as well as locally. Those are the things that we must do to eradicate what many would describe as one of the worst forms of the lottery of care that has been all too prevalent in the care system as a whole.
Yes: I think that, with the good will of voluntary adoption agencies, local authorities, the Government and, I hope, the House, it will be possible to bring about a fundamental transformation of the way in which the adoption system works

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 2000
City of Newcastle upon Tyne Act 2000.

Points of Order
11.57 am
Mr. Tim Boswell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a written answer given to me yesterday—it can be found at column 228W of the Official Report— the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), confirmed that a 15-person delegation from Britain and British overseas territories had attended the November triennial conference of Education Ministers in Halifax, Canada. It was led by Mr. Jack McConnell. He is not a Member of either House of this Parliament; he is, of course, a member of the Scottish Executive, and a Minister in the Scottish Parliament. I note from an earlier parliamentary answer that on at least one occasion a Scottish Minister has led a British delegation to a European Council meeting.
As the House will know, I have an interest in Commonwealth education, and have served as an education Minister with responsibility for, among other matters, international affairs. I was used to leading—I hope, successfully and amicably—multi-territorial delegations to international meetings. While I do not criticise the individuals who made up the delegation to Canada, I regret that no Ministers in the House of Commons ordered their diaries in such a way that they could attend the meeting.
More seriously still, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider how we can achieve the accountability to the House of persons who speak in the name of the Government. This is not simply a matter involving unelected civil servants or officials, who can speak, or are responsible, through their Ministers; it is a question of a person, purporting to speak for the United Kingdom, who holds a partial mandate in one part of that kingdom.
Education is a sensitive cultural matter. Although I have not checked, I do not think that the delegation to Canada can possibly have been led by the Education Minister of the province of Newfoundland, let alone that of, for instance, Quebec.
My substantive point is this: whoever was selected, if that person was not a Member of Parliament here, we have no possibility of questioning him here. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on the propriety and wisdom of the situation that Ministers have created.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I am afraid that I cannot help him, as it is a matter for the Government as
594
to who represents them at overseas conferences. However, the Government remain accountable to the House for the choice of the delegation and for the outcome of the conference as it affects United Kingdom interests. The hon. Gentleman can therefore pursue his interest in the conference by using the usual procedures of the House.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on whether it is in order for Departments to refuse to supply information which is available to them by using the device of providing blocking answers to named-day written questions. I refer specifically to the announcements on type 45 destroyer procurement which were made this morning and to three named-day written questions that I had tabled for answer last Friday.
Mr. Speaker: The answers or lack of answers from Ministers are not a responsibility of the occupant of the Chair. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. By raising his point of order, he has put the matter on the record, and I am sure that the appropriate Minister will note his concern.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You heard, as I did, the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and the Leader of the House about facilities of the House being used for apparently racist reasons. May I ask whether any checks are made on whether facilities of the House, such as meeting rooms, are used for purposes that could be considered to be, for example, racist? If so, can any action be taken to stop such use? Although I appreciate that meeting rooms are booked by hon. Members, I think that it is totally unacceptable that—if my hon. Friend is right—such facilities should be used to spread racist poison. Would it be at all possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to make inquiries into the matter?
Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member booking such facilities should always be careful about how the facilities are to be used and ensure that they are used only by reputable organisations. We have domestic Committees, and I am sure that they—particularly their Chairmen—will note the comments of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). I dare say that they will look into the matter. Certainly if it were ever proved that such an organisation was operating in the House, I would take a very serious view on it. I hope that that is of assistance.
Mr. Winnick: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.

Social Security
12.3 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 13th December, be approved.
This order and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 2000 increase pensions, provide more help for families with children and do more for people with disabilities and carers than ever before. We are able to make the increases because we are now seeing the results of our reforms to the welfare state. Because we have more people off benefit and in jobs, we are spending £4 billion less this year and £4 billion less next year on the costs of unemployment.
At the previous general election, we promised that we would cut the bills of economic and social failure, and we have. As a result of that and other action, social security spending is now under control, for the first time in three decades. Consequently, we can spend more where it is needed, giving greater security to those who are retired or cannot work, just as we promised to do. Indeed, social security spending would be decreasing in real terms, for the first time since the second world war, had we not deliberately chosen to spend more on families with children, people with disabilities and pensioners.
All that stands in stark contrast to what happened in the 1980s, when, as we remember—in 1988, 1989 and 1990—Tory Secretaries of State came to the House to announce that they would freeze child benefit. By contrast, last year, we were able to announce a record increase in child benefit—which, this year, is being increased yet again.
Today's uprating order will increase most income-related benefits by the Rossi index, which is 1.6 per cent., in the usual way. However, there are a number of areas in which we want to do more than that.
First, we want to do more for children. We are determined to eradicate child poverty in this country, and to halve it in 10 years. When the Government came into office, one child in three was living below the bread line. That is unacceptable. It is economic madness, and it is also morally wrong to hold back a whole generation of children.
As a result of our Budget measures, a million children will be lifted out of poverty. That will deliver real opportunity for everyone, not just the privileged few.
However, from April next year we will go further. That is why we are increasing child benefit, and introducing the new children's tax credit. As a result of these measures, and of the working families tax credit, a single-earner family with two children, on half average earnings, will see its living standards rise by 20 per cent. this year—the biggest annual rise for a quarter of a century. By the end of this Parliament, we will be spending almost £6 billion extra a year on support for families with children, with most of the help going to the poorest families.
Mr. Steve Webb: I rise to seek clarification about the children's tax credit. I understand that the Inland Revenue does not know who the children
596
of tax payers are, as such information is not part of the tax system. As a result, it sent out 7 million forms, just over 2 million of which have been returned. Apart from those 2 million families, what will be the situation for all other families who pay tax? If they have not returned the form, do the Government have a plan to find them? How will they get their money? What is the latest date by which forms can be returned so that families can still get the money in April?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman knows that responsibility for the Inland Revenue rests with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will make a point of asking my right hon. Friend, or one of his Ministers, to write to the hon. Gentleman to outline the Inland Revenue's plans in that respect. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the tax authorities do not necessarily know who has children. That is why the Inland Revenue wrote to all those taxpayers who it thought might be eligible. From next year, the child tax credit will be worth £10 a week, and will be a valuable help to families on modest and low incomes. We are anxious to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from it, and I will certainly ask one of my colleagues to write to the hon. Gentleman with details of what we propose to do.
The important point to note is that the Government are not extending financial help alone. Other measures—such as the sure start initiative and our general objective of raising standards in education, which we are now achieving—are ensuring that millions of children get a far better opportunity and start in life than in the past.
In particular, we want to do more for families on low incomes who are bringing up children with disabilities, and to help with the extra costs that they face. That is why from April, for the first time, we will extend benefits to severely disabled three and four-year-olds. As a result, some 6,000 disabled children and their families will be better off by more than £38 a week.
We are also raising the disabled child premium by £7.40 a week, on top of the normal uprating. That means that around 80,000 children will see a rise in the premium, from £22.25 a week to £30 a week. That will be a real increase for some of the poorest families in the country who need that extra help.
Secondly, we want to do more for adults with severe disabilities. As I said in my statement to the House on 9 November, we have decided to introduce the disability income guarantee for people with severe disabilities from April next year at a far higher rate than originally intended. We had intended that it be introduced at the rate of £128 a week, but in fact the rate will be £142 a week—an extra £14 a week. For couples, the rate will be £186.80.
In addition, from April next year young adults disabled early in life will benefit from an extra £27.60 a week. Until the changes were introduced, those people got so little money that they depended on income support for most of their lives. I do not consider that to be acceptable in today's society, which is why we are increasing the amount that they get by £27 a week. All of the extra money has been made possible by the changes that we made two years ago.
Thirdly, we are doing more for carers. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have long recognised that the carer's contribution needs to be properly recognised. That is why we are increasing the

597
carer's premium by £10 a week on top of the normal uprating. That means that the premium will rise in April from £14.15 to £24.40, helping more than 200,000 carers on low incomes. We are also increasing the earnings threshold for the invalid carer's allowance from £50 to £72—the rate of the lower earnings limit.
In total, we will be spending nearly £200 million more on supporting carers and people with disabilities next year, and every year thereafter. That is something that the Tories never did—what is more, they never could do it because of the cuts guarantee to which they are committed. It is interesting that so few of them have turned up for the debate. [Interruption.] I have found one. There is a Tory sitting at the back. I apologise to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)—he is lurking under the Gallery, and I did not see him in the gloom. He will no doubt tell his colleagues of all the good things that the Labour Government are able to do for people, thanks to our economic policies.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: That will not take long.
Mr. Darling: In addition to the measures that I have outlined, we are also introducing measures to improve the vaccine damage regime. In case the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) raises the matter again, I would like to take the opportunity of saying that we will be introducing the necessary legislation to reduce the disability threshold from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent., and to increase the time limits for claiming for children to the age of 21. We propose that these changes be introduced in the regulatory reform order as part of the Regulatory Reform Bill, which is now before the House. I said in the summer that we would act, and we will. With regard to the main changes that I announced in the summer to increase the vaccine damage payment to £100,000 for claims made after 22 July, those payments are now being made. That is the main step that I announced and it is being implemented.
No doubt the Conservatives—or, at least, the two of them on the Front Bench and the one on the Back Bench—will criticise us for not doing more sooner. However, the previous Government had 18 years to sort this out and they did not. We have made the necessary changes, which will go some way towards helping the families affected. I hope that most people will accept that.
I now turn to pensions.
Sir Robert Smith: Before the Secretary of State talks about pensions, could he answer the question of a 24-year-old constituent of mine? Have the Government any plans to alter the housing benefit system, because my constituent does not understand why, at the age of 24, his housing need is considered to be less than his neighbour who is 26? In a constituency like mine, if young people are to stay and work in the community, we must tackle the cost of housing for them.
Mr. Darling: I do not know whet her the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to read the Government's response to the consultation exercise that we carried out after publishing the Green Paper on housing. We have said that we want to
598
broaden the definition of the single room reference rent to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which will help those under 25 in many parts of the country.
Mr. Webb: If I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, he might have been referring to the fact that the applicable amounts for the under-25s are lower than for those over 25. For a person in a low-paid job, for example, the tapering away of the rent rebate starts at a lower level for a 24-year-old than for a 25-year-old. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to address that issue?
Mr. Darling: We have made it clear that we do not propose to change the general regime, which is different from that for the under-25s. As I said to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith)—who is no doubt capable of asking his own question—we have broadened the definition, which will go some way to help. However, if the question is whether we propose to remove the distinction between those over 25 and those under, the answer is no.
I shall now deal with pensions. Most national insurance benefits will rise in line with the retail prices index, which is 3.3 per cent. However, as the House will know, we want to do more than that to help pensioners. First, we want to tackle the scandal of pensioner poverty. Secondly, we want to ensure that every pensioner shares in the rising prosperity of our country. Thirdly, we want to reward pensioners for their saving instead of penalising it, as was the case under the system that we inherited.
Our first priority was to get more help quickly to the poorest pensioners; that is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which is already helping almost 2 million of the poorest pensioners. It is worth remembering that when we came into office, just three years ago, a single pensioner, aged 70, on income support, would have received a weekly income of £68.80. As a result of the measures before the House, the minimum income guarantee will rise to £92.15 from April, so that same pensioner—who would have been living on £68.80 three years ago—will be nearly £18 a week better off, over and above inflation. That is an example of how Governments can make a real difference in the standard of living of some of the oldest and poorest people in the country.
As we move towards the pension credit from 2003, we are increasing the basic state pension, which we believe should be the foundation of pension provision. It is part of the partnership between state and funded pensions that is essential if people are to retire on a decent income in the future. We want to raise the basic state pension by £5 a week for single people and by £8 a week for married couples; the pension will rise again in the following year. As I told the House in November, I can also confirm that widow's and bereavement benefits will rise by the same amounts.
That is on top of the £200 winter fuel payment, worth nearly £4 a week. Eleven million pensioners have already been sent their winter fuel payment; many of them appreciate that it makes a major contribution towards meeting their fuel costs at what is, traditionally, a time of great worry for many pensioners.
Mr. Webb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: Yes, why not? The hon. Gentleman is determined to make his speech through interventions, so as it is Christmas I shall help him out for once.
Mr. Webb: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My question is straightforward and factual. Will he confirm that, next year, he plans to cut the winter fuel payment to £150?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Government make their proposals for pensions annually; we shall continue to do so as appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman might have been good enough to acknowledge the fact that the Government have gone a long way towards tackling the problem of fuel poverty—especially among older people—which he periodically raises in the House. We have cut VAT to the lowest permissible amount and we have also increased the winter fuel payment; that is making a real difference to many pensioners.
As for next year and the years after that, the hon. Gentleman will just have to wait. However, when people look back over the past three years at what the Government have done for pensioners, they will realise that we have done exactly what we promised—we have tackled pensioner poverty and ensured that all pensioners are able to share fairly in the rising prosperity of our country. In fact, we have done far more than the Liberals ever promised to do. The hon. Gentleman sometimes gives the impression that he has never read the manifesto on which he stood for election, but I remind him that the Liberals never promised to do even half of what we are doing.
As well as the changes to which I have referred, we have introduced free television licences for the over-75s; that is worth a further £2 a week.
Mr. David Drew: Given the European judgment on the payment of the winter fuel allowance to 60-year-old men, will that payment be made regardless of whether such men are in full-time work? Will it continue without affecting their tax and benefit in any way? Will my right hon. Friend clarify those points?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Following the judgment in the Taylor case last year, the Government announced that they would make payments to men aged over 60 and who were under the age of 65. All those who applied before the beginning of November should have received their payment. It is open to them to apply whenever they want and they will receive their payment as soon as it can be processed.
The advantage of the winter fuel payment and the free television licence—to which I am about to return—is that they are tax free and benefit free; if they were consolidated into the basic state pension, that would not be so.
When we debate these matters, it never ceases to amaze me that the Conservatives now oppose winter fuel payments and free television licences. Someone kindly reminded me of a private Member's Bill that had escaped my attention. It was introduced at the beginning of this Parliament and would have given free television licences to the over-75s. I was surprised to find that its promoter was the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs
600
(Mr. Flight) and that it its sponsors included the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley); the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury no less—the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin); the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who, I think, also holds a Front-Bench position; the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who was sitting on the Front Bench this morning before she left to pursue other activities; and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who, I think, has something to do with the Tory manifesto.
In 1997, all those Members were in favour of giving free television licences to the over-75s. Surprise, surprise: the bandwagon is now running in a different direction and they are all against it. I look forward to hearing, when the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security gets to his feet, how he squares what his colleagues, now on the Front Bench, said three years ago with what they say now. He will no doubt explain it to the additional Conservative Member who has now appeared in the Chamber since this debate began, bringing us to a grand total of four.
Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that before he became a Member of Parliament, virtually all his present Cabinet colleagues then in Parliament—including the Prime Minister—were good enough to vote for my private Member's Bill, the Free Television Licences for Pensioners Bill, on 16 January 1987? It was defeated on a Friday by strenuous Tory whipping. Have not our Cabinet colleagues honoured what they voted for then by starting the process of giving free television licences to the over-75s?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of that. It took a little longer than we hoped to deliver our promise. I Unfortunately, 10 further years were to elapse before we were elected to government.
The crucial point is to recognise the significant problem of pensioner poverty in this country. It is scandalous that in this country, the fourth largest economy in the world, there are pensioners living in poverty. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel payments, and free television licences to help the oldest pensioners.
In total during this Parliament, we are spending £8.5 billion more on pensioners than the previous Government planned to do. We can do that only because we are delivering stable economic growth and reforming the welfare state, so we can make the necessary funds available to tackle these problems.
Earlier this year, I set out our plans to reward pensioners for saving and to take the next steps towards the integration of the tax and benefits system for pensioners. From 2003, the new pension credit will mean that, for the first time ever, pensioners will be rewarded for their thrift. That credit, which is opposed by the Conservatives, will help 5.5 million pensioners—half of all the pensioner households in this country. The message is clear: it will always pay to save.
As part of the transition to the pension credit, the order would double the lower capital limit for the minimum income guarantee from £3.000 to £6,000 and increase the higher limit from £8,000 to £12,000. As a result, half a million pensioners will gain.

601
We shall go on to abolish the capital limits completely when the pension credit is introduced from 2003. At that time we shall also abolish the tariff income, which assumes an extraordinarily high rate of return, which many pensioners find difficult to understand.
I believe that the pension credit, which is the third stage in our pension reforms, will mark a sea change in the way in which the social security system operates. For the first time, we will have removed the disincentive to save. That will ensure that, when pensioners do what successive Governments tell them to do, they will see the gain resulting from it. I find it extraordinary that the Conservatives should oppose, to coin a phrase, a common-sense measure.
We are able to spend more money on pensioners, families, people with disabilities and their carers only because of the measures that we have taken over the past three years. No doubt, in a few minutes' time, we shall hear the usual complaints from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who speaks for the Conservative party, but he must explain how he will be able to achieve anything like the measures that we have announced today, when his party is committed to £16 billion of spending cuts.
Regarding social security alone, we know that the Conservatives do not support the earnings-related minimum income guarantee. They are opposed to pension credit. They want to keep a system that penalises thrift. We know that they want to the process of privatising the basic state pension, scrap the new deal for lone parents and take £90 million out of the social fund, which will hit some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country.
We also know that the Conservatives want to get rid of industrial injuries benefit, which will impose a jobs tax on employers. We also know the Conservatives would axe the winter fuel payment, the Christmas bonus and the free television licences for pensioners. That is some manifesto. The best that they can offer pensioners is a mere 42p a week instead, and that is before tax and benefits. Of course, 2.5 million pensioners do not get the full pension, or even any pension at all, and men aged 60 to 65 will all lose out completely under the Tory policy—all because there is no new money. It is almost tempting to go canvassing with a Conservative to find out how that goes down on the doorsteps.
We know that there is no new money because the shadow Chancellor has said so, and he should know. It is becoming increasingly obvious to those of us who attend Prime Minister's Question Time and note that the shadow Chancellor sits one step further away from the Leader of the Opposition each time, that he is becoming acutely aware of the problem that he faces: £16 billion-worth of cuts to find, and more and more spending commitments being made here, there and everywhere. He knows that his sums do not add up.
We know that the Conservatives are dedicated to cutting public expenditure because of the policies to which they have committed themselves. So there would be no extra money to look after pensioners, disabled people and carers, just as there was no money to do so during the 18 years in which the Tories were in power. We know what they would do—there would be no new money for pensioners, for children, for families and for people with disabilities or their carers.
602
There is a clear choice to be made between us and the Conservative party. That choice is becoming clearer day by day. Poverty, inequality and division do not happen by accident. They happened as a result of the deliberate decisions that the Tories took over 18 years, and if they got the chance, they would do exactly the same again.
We will tackle poverty and inequality because not doing so is indefensible in the 21st century. We believe in opportunity for everyone—a fair and more just society. The measures that I have announced today will help deliver that promise. I commend the proposals to the House.
12.26 pm
Mr. David Willetts: I shall begin by reducing what might otherwise be the high drama of this occasion by saying that the Opposition will not vote against the uprating of benefits. We shall wait to see whether the Liberal Democrats repeat the mistake that they made last year, but this will not be a nail-biting debate because we do not want to stand in the way of pensioners receiving the uprating in their benefits. Perhaps we are enjoying the spirit of Christmas, as the debate on such measures is taking place a little earlier than usual.
I have some specific criticisms of the measures. We are worried about the position of people in care homes. In fact, we are worried about the Government's treatment of those people generally, because the Government do not seem to understand their interests or problems. We are concerned about the possible long-term implications of what the Secretary of State calls the simplification of rates in the minimum income guarantee.
I shall not go through all of our specific concerns, but I shall try to price out exactly the strategy that lies behind the various measures under debate. Our frustration is that, in debating with the Secretary of State, it is difficult to get a sense of exactly what the Government's social security strategy involves. I think that they thought that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) had a welfare strategy. He did have a strategy, but I agree with the Secretary of State: the right hon. Gentleman's figures never added up, and the strategy was never what it was cracked up to be. However, following the right hon. Gentleman's sad disappearance from the Government, we now have the Secretary of State with his head down, reading out his briefs, rather than giving us any clear sense of the direction in which they want to take the social security system.
In what direction might the social security system go for pensioners? As Christmas is coming, perhaps an illuminating way to think about that is to tell the story of the Christmas bonus—one of the few payments not being uprated. That story reveals much about the long-term problems that the Secretary of State's approach will create for the social security system. Of course, the Christmas bonus was introduced by the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). It was their special payment to help pensioners at Christmas time.
A Labour Government came into power in 1974, found that they had inherited that special payment—they probably called it a gimmick—and wondered what to do with it. Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—sadly, he is not in his

603
place—pressed the then Secretary of State for Social Services on what she was going to do about the payment. In a debate, she said:
there will not be a Christmas bonus. A bonus is bound to be somewhat arbitrary in coverage and excludes a number of people who benefit from a general uprating.—[Official Report, 22 May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 1624.]
The Labour Government decided that they were not going to retain the special schemes introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Instead, they would put the money into a general increase in benefits.
The trouble with special schemes is that there is no provision for their annual uprating. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked, in an earlier debate, what the value of the Christmas bonus would be if it had been uprated from its original 1972 value of £10. The answer is that by April 2000, a prices uprating would have taken its value to £76.75.
The social security system contains a series of special payments that are left over as a kind of historical deposit from different Governments trying their own special wheezes to help pensioners. They include the over-80 payment—a very good concept, but it has never been increased from 25p. That has been a source of anger and irritation to pensioners. We also have the Christmas bonus, left over from the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. No one, apart from the previous Labour Secretary of State for Social Services, has ever abolished it, and since it was reintroduced it has not been uprated. No pledge has been made to uprate the winter fuel payment. That is a political decision taken every year; I agree with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on that point. At present, the Government's official position seems to be that the payment will be cut next year from £200 to £150.
If we go on in this way, we shall have a social security system with a variety of special payments for pensioners, each with its own political or historical justification. It would be much better if all that money, and more, were put into the basic state pension. The Secretary of State fails to explain why he believes that a pension system that is growing all those extra payments for special circumstances will be superior to one in which a guaranteed amount of money is put into uprating the basic weekly state pension.
Mr. Darling: About 2.5 million people who do not receive the basic state pension receive the winter fuel payment. There are also people who do not receive the full pension. If the hon. Gentleman were to take away the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the Christmas bonus, what would be the cost of ensuring that all those affected would have the same amount of money returned to them in full?
Mr. Willetts: All the money saved would go to all pensioners in receipt of the basic state pension. That includes many pensioners who, for a variety of reasons, do not benefit from the Secretary of State's special schemes. Pensioners who are on income support, or who are having their costs met in residential accommodation or nursing homes, do not benefit from the winter fuel payment. Our payment would go to all pensioners in receipt of the contributory pension.
604
I heard the intervention by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about television licences, and I understand all the arguments pro and con. However, many pensioners over 75 live in a household with someone under 75, who would normally pay for the TV licence. Therefore, the chances of the free TV licence bringing an extra £104 to every pensioner over 75 are, sadly, limited. For example, many pensioners live with a son or daughter, who normally pays for a licence. Are those sons or daughters likely to say to their elderly parents, "Here's £104, because we now have the benefit of your free TV licence"? Our proposal is simpler and more straightforward, and will reach pensioners who do not enjoy the benefit of the winter fuel payment or the free TV licence.
Mr. Darling: I might have missed something, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman answered my question. Some 2.5 million people who receive the winter fuel payment and the other payments do not have a full pension; some of them have no pension. Will the value of all the benefits—the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the Christmas bonus—be restored to them in full?
Mr. Willetts: I have made it clear that our policy is for all people in receipt of the basic pension. There would be a full uprating for pensioners who are not receiving the full value of the basic pension. The costing of our proposal includes giving the full increase to all pensioners who receive the partial or full value of the contributory pension. That is our policy. It has a much greater logic than the various special schemes—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) should remember that parliamentary private secretaries are meant to be silent, certainly when they are sitting down.
Mr. Willetts: They should be seen and not heard.
We should compare the distributional consequences of our measure, which would go to all pensioners in receipt of the basic pension, including those who receive it at less than full value. It would help pensioners who, for various reasons, will not benefit in full, or even partially, from the Secretary of State's proposals. For example, pensioners in sheltered accommodation pay a reduced rate of £5 for a television licence, but the full value of the increase would be consolidated into their basic pension. Out package would also help pensioners in residential accommodation and nursing homes. It is better designed than the schemes that it would replace.
Mr. Winnick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that people who receive the full pension often pay tax, and will therefore have to pay tax on the additional sums, which are now tax free? What would a Tory Government's approach be to people who are not entitled to the state pension? Presumably, his package would mean that they would not receive a penny of what is being provided by the television licence scheme and the winter fuel allowance.
Mr. Willetts: On the second point, I explained that our package is for people in receipt of the contributory

605
pension. The hon. Gentleman has studied the subject for many years. If we compare the various groups who, for whatever reason, will not be able to participate fully in the Government's special schemes, but who would benefit from a substantial increase in the basic pension, we will find that overall, the distribution of that package would be more beneficial than the alternatives, because it would go to every pensioner.
As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear in his original statement that we recognise that, although the special payments are tax exempt, the basic pension is taxable. That is why we have said from day one that we would adjust tax allowances, which we could do by using the device of the age allowance for pensioners. Therefore, the package would not increase the tax taken from pensioners. I regret the fact that the Secretary of State goes on and on as if we had never said that. The costings of our proposal show that there is no special device to collect extra tax from pensioners to help finance it. It is straightforward and simple.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Has the hon. Gentleman agreed that policy with the shadow Chancellor? What is the estimated cost of the package?
Mr. Willetts: I am pleased to say that the package was agreed with the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition before we launched it. The point is that it is tax neutral. No extra tax would be taken from pensioners, so no one would be worse off. That is what we announced on day one, and it remains our policy. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) seems to be baffled by that. I should be happy to take a further intervention, but ours is a straightforward position, and I am grateful to him for giving me yet another opportunity to make it clear.
The real task is not only to tackle pensioner poverty now but to try to ensure that the next generation of pensioners is not in poverty. Above all, we must encourage more funded pension provision. Perhaps the most worrying economic statistic under this Government is the savings ratio—the percentage of income that pensioners are saving. I am pleased to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) here because it gives me a chance to praise his record as Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he left office in the second quarter of 1997, households were saving 10.7 per cent. of their income. That figure has fallen to 3 per cent. That statistic is very worrying because it means that future generations of pensioners will retire with an income much lower than they expected. I support the Government's pension statements initiative. It is a useful measure to try to encourage people to understand what the value of their total pension package may be when they retire.
The evidence shows, however, that over the past few years there has been a significant decline in occupational pension provision. The average number of occupational pension schemes being set up each year has fallen from 9,000, when we were in office, to fewer than 5,000 since 1997. In 1999, only 3,000 schemes were set up. In addition, 14 per cent. of final salary schemes are closed to new members. The number of personal pensions being taken out is declining.
The combination of the extra tax that the Government have imposed on pensions, and planning blight as people wait for the arrival of stakeholder pensions, means that
606
we face a significant decline in funded pensions. The danger is that although we in this country have been complacently patting ourselves on the back because our funded pension provision is way ahead of that on the continent, the boot may soon be on the other foot.
I will make a modest bet with the Secretary of State that if we carry on at this rate, within a few years the annual flow into funded pension savings in Germany will exceed that in Britain. The right hon. Gentleman, or any subsequent Secretary of State, will then be under understandable pressure to introduce yet more special schemes or other measures to increase state benefit income for pensioners, because they will not have enough pension savings of their own. That is the long-term problem that we face, and far from tackling it, the Government have, if anything, exacerbated it through regulatory complexity, planning blight and extra tax.
What is the Secretary of State's agenda? Whenever I refer to all the changes that are due in 2003, he looks rather baffled. I wonder how many Labour Members are fully aware of what is supposed to happen in 2003. It is frustrating that the only explanation the Government have given us of those proposed changes is Treasury working paper No. 5, from November 1999, "Supporting Children Through the Tax and Benefit System". There is a much consulted chart, which all the pundits love, on page 40, with graphs showing the current and new arrangements for financial support for children.
The Chairman of the Social Security Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is in his place, and I am pleased that the Committee is conducting a study of that important subject. We face turbulence in the benefits system because the Secretary of State hopes, within one year, not only to introduce a pensioner credit but to abolish the working families tax credit and introduce a new integrated child credit and an employment tax credit. There will be considerable confusion.
Those charts in the Treasury working paper show the point at which welfare reform disappears up its own rear because the second chart has exactly the same distributional effect as the first, but is achieved by a different means. The game of going through all those changes simply to deliver to every family exactly the same income as they get at the moment, but through a radically changed organisation, does not seem worth the candle. Coming up with a different way to deliver exactly the same distribution of benefits is a perverse and unnecessary exercise.
I presume that the Government are embarking on the exercise only because they want to change some of the ways in which people gain from taxation and benefits. I think that they will encounter a paradox. Their main additional proposal is the employment tax credit, which is received by people in work on low earnings, regardless of whether they have children. Therefore the main distributional impact of measures that are supposed to help children will be to extend a benefit to low earners without children.
The Secretary of State might disagree, but I think that he will find that the main impact of introducing the so-called family package in 2003 will be to help people without children—that is where the additional expenditure is likely to be made. I see him shake his head, but he intends to introduce an employment tax credit, and he will

607
not be able to withhold it from people who do not have children, so they are likely to be the recipients of the extra expenditure in 2003.
Mr. Darling: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's interesting lecture. Our strategy is quite clear. He asks about in-work measures. We want to make sure that work pays, but we inherited the problem that many people were better off on benefits than in work. That is the logic behind an earnings tax credit. We also want to do more for families, especially those on modest or low incomes, who have children, while working towards achieving our objective of reducing child poverty. That is the logic behind the child credit. Rather than engage in academic debate, the hon. Gentleman should face up to his own problem, which is that he cannot give more money to eradicate child poverty, nor allocate the funds necessary to make sure that work pays, because he is committed to making massive cuts in public spending.
Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State might think that the debate is academic, but all I am trying to do is elicit from him a coherent statement. His Department has never issued anything to tell us what he thinks is the purpose behind all the changes that the Government hope to introduce in 2003. He talks as if no help has ever been given to families on low incomes, but it has—family credit, for example. All the changes that he plans to implement will do is deliver to the person in work the money that family credit would have delivered to the caring parent. It is doubtful that there is any purpose in changing the delivery system in that way.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows the history of the Labour party in this respect. It is ironic that what he thinks he is doing by making these radical reforms—although perhaps the Chancellor is behind them—is exactly the same as what the Labour Government tried to do in 1964. Lord Houghton was going to be the man who integrated tax and benefits, and he worked on it for years. The Secretary of State should read Richard Crossman's explanations of what went wrong as the Labour Government wasted years trying to integrate tax and benefits. They even had a precursor to stakeholders, in the form of "superfunds", which were going to encourage more funded pensions among those who did not have funded pension schemes.
Labour Governments have been through all that before, and I tell the right hon. Gentleman that tax-benefits integration will not deliver what he thinks it will. He cannot sit on his hands and say that everything comes down to the Treasury, or that I am delivering a merely academic lecture. In 2003, he will implement massive changes in the British tax and benefits system for which no person in his Department has ever offered any coherent explanation or justification. The right hon. Gentleman cannot wash his hands of the matter; it will come back to haunt him.
Oddly enough, an alternative strategy rests on an insight from Beveridge himself: that targeting is not the same as means-testing. Means-testing, either in the traditional way through benefits or through the tax system, is not the only way in which to target assistance on families and other groups who need help. If the categories of recipient are defined carefully enough, categorical
608
benefits can be distributed in a way that is quite well targeted. That is why, before I became a Member of Parliament, I argued that help should be focused on families with children younger than five. Families with younger children tend to be those on low incomes. We know also that poorer pensioners tend to be older pensioners. That is why the help in our package is especially focused on the over-75s. If those elementary age rules are used, we could achieve quite good targeting without means-testing.
Mr. Webb: The hen. Gentleman has had an influence on my thinking on this issue. That is partly why Liberal Democrats advocate serious pension rises for older pensioners. The only respect in which the hon. Gentleman's policy does more for the over-75s is the fact that he would replace in cash the benefit that they get in kind. It would not give a penny extra to the over-75s.
Mr. Willetts: There are two ways in which our policy does help the over-75s more. As I have said, there are a significant number of pensioners over 75 who are not paying for their television licences, whereas they would all get the pension. Secondly, we have tried to direct the extra £320 million that we would gain from savings elsewhere in the social security system to the over-75s in particular. I think that the philosophy that lies behind the original higher rate fir the over-80s, like that in respect of the over-75s, is correct.
Mr. Darling: If we are to have an academic seminar—and as there are only a few of us in the Chamber, we might as well go down that route—let us take a pensioner over 75 who currently receives no pension, or even a part pension. The hon. Gentleman admitted a short while ago that that pensioner will not get a penny from what the Tories propose, because they will take away the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the Christmas bonus. I suspect that quite a few over-75s do not get a pension for historical reasons, and they will lose out. What the hon. Gentleman has said is not true.
Mr. Willetts: Our package applies to all pensioners, including those with only a partial pension.
Mr. Darling: What about pensioners with no pension?
Mr. Willetts: The right hon. Gentleman talks about those with no pension. I might as well ask about those who do not pay for their television licences. What about those who are not benefiting from the winter fuel payment? Our package puts all the money into the basic state pension, and there is also the minimum income guarantee—that is the old income support, which was renamed—for pensioners regardless of whether they have a basic pension.
Mr. Darling: There are about 500,000 pensioners who do not get a pension, and the hon. Gentleman will take seven quid a week from them. That is the logic of what he is saying.
Mr. Willetts: The right hon. Gentleman is talking as if his package will somehow help every pensioner. He should remember the shambles of the early years of the implementation of the winter fuel payment. The

609
Government had to track down a pensioner unit—a concept hitherto unknown to the social security system—so that each of them could have a winter fuel payment. There are problems for pensioners in nursing homes, and, as I have said, for pensioners who are not paying for their television licence.
The right hon. Gentleman's proposals are not universal, but he is talking as if they were. Our proposals cover every pensioner in receipt of the basic state pension. The right hon. Gentleman talks all the time as if the Government had put a great deal of money into helping the poorest pensioners, but the vast majority of their expenditure has not gone into the minimum income guarantee. Instead, it has gone into a variety of schemes, whose distribution impact is, to say the least, difficult to assess, because they do not amount to a straightforward package for every pensioner in receipt of the basic pension.
I shall finish with some other quick points. I am taking the opportunity of the debate—the attendance is less than massive—to try to tease out from the Secretary of State what he is trying to do with social security. I have talked about means-testing and about what will happen in 2003. It is frustrating that we do not seem to be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to offer a statement on the position in 2003. It is ironic that the best explanation that he can find of the case for tax benefit integration and tax credit is the Green Paper written by my distinguished colleague Lord Higgins, who is the Opposition's spokesman on these matters. He wrote the Heath Government's Green Paper in 1971, and it still remains a more articulate, better argued, more coherent and wider-ranging account of the case for tax credits and tax-benefit integration than anything that we have had from the Government. Such is the irony of political debate.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to poverty several times. I draw his attention to what I am sure many people are talking about in connection with the Government's initiatives. There is a problem in social security, and more widely; in fact, it is to be found in the Government's social policy initiatives as a whole. That is the extraordinary number of new schemes and special schemes that are introduced, supposedly with the aim of helping the most deprived parts of the country.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Ministers' motives when they say that they are trying to help the most deprived areas. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we have an extraordinary variety of such schemes—I am aware that they are not all DSS schemes. We have employment zones, education action zones and health action zones—and I believe that there are other zones. The previous Government needed a cone line, and the present Government should have a zone line, so that we can make a telephone call if we spot another zone.
The problem with all these zones is that there is no consistency between them. There is no correlation between area-based initiatives in different areas and how they score in terms of any objective measure of deprivation. In August 1997, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), announced the setting up of the social exclusion unit. It was probably a bid to get on
610
to Labour's National Executive Committee, and I think that he failed—but he said that the case for the unit was as follows:
There is a proliferation of programmes with insufficient collaboration between the different agencies involved at national, local, and area level. As a result we are spending vast sums of money, often over and over again on the same people through different programmes, without improving their ability to participate in the economy and society.
That was the critique with which the right hon. Gentleman launched the social exclusion unit in the summer of 1997.
However, two years later, when the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit reported, it said:
the clear evidence from those on the ground and from the PIU's own analysis is that there are too many Government initiatives, causing confusion; not enough co-ordination; and too much time spent on negotiating the system, rather than delivering.
Labour Members should reflect on the experience of those who are doing their best in the most deprived areas. These people tell us over and over again that there is initiative fatigue. They say that they are spending all their time bidding for penny packets under a variety of initiatives that are often not coherently put together. Instead of the competent delivery of core programmes, people are spending too much time chasing individual schemes that have been launched to get 48 hours of media coverage. Insufficient attention is paid to how they can be competently delivered.
Mr. Darling: This will be my final intervention, because we seem to have left benefit uprating way behind. I assume that Conservative Members find themselves in complete agreement with everything that the Government are doing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that what matters is the outcome of policies. We will take 1 million children out of poverty as a result of what we are doing. Education standards are improving, and 1 million more people are in work. That is all the result both of our general policies and of some of the particular policies to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. His problem is that he is committed to cutting public expenditure and investment by £16 billion. Were he to return to office, we would face exactly the same problems that we inherited, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland described in 1997.
Mr. Willetts: Before the right hon. Gentleman speaks so complacently about the Government's record, he should read, if he has not yet done so, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation publication of only a week or so ago. It assesses the Government's record on social exclusion. [Interruption.] That document is an assessment of the Government's record, based on the fullest information that the foundation had. The right hon. Gentleman has no extra information that was not available to those who produced the report. It covers everything, from help from social services for pensioners living at home, and the number of pensioners with no income other than state benefits, to the position of children, including the poorest children in our society.
In many instances, the foundation identified either no change or a worsening trend. The trend of low-birthweight babies is worsening. Before the right hon. Gentleman becomes complacent about what is going on, he should take account of the best external independent audit of the Government's record on poverty and social exclusion,

611
because poverty and social exclusion are an important benchmark of the effectiveness of all the Government's special schemes. The fact that I make these criticisms of the Government's approach—the flurry of initiatives within the DSS, and more widely across Government, getting in the way of what matters—should not be taken by the Secretary of State as evidence that I think that everything in the benefit uprating is marvellous or brilliant.
Like the troops fraternising as they emerged from the trenches on Christmas day in 1914, I was trying to take the opportunity of the privacy of this debate, before the House rises for Christmas, to raise one or two wider questions about social policy and the Government's approach.
Mr. Darling rose—
Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State wants to intervene again. We must be setting a record. Of course I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Darling: Even in the spirit of Christmas, the hon. Gentleman will not get away with that nonsense about the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report. As the authors freely acknowledge, the report does not cover many of the measures that we introduced over the past two years. If the hon. Gentleman read the report, he would see that many of the things about which it complains, such as the increase in poverty and disadvantage, happened during the time that the Conservatives were in government and he was a Minister.
I am happy to be judged on what we have done during this first Parliament, and I hope that we will get the opportunity to be judged as a result of what we do in a second Parliament. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, far from acknowledging that poverty had to be tackled and eradicated, one of my predecessors, now Lord Moore, spent some time trying to prove that poverty did not exist. No wonder the Tories did nothing about it.
Mr. Willetts: I see the Government Whip looking restless, as he has a train to catch, so I shall not go further down that route. More of my speech has been taken up with the Secretary of State's interventions than with my remarks about social policy.
Had we had more time, we might have debated some of the other things that the Secretary of State is doing, in the absence of any coherent overall approach to social policy, any coherent statement about what the Government are trying to do in 2003, or any serious attempt to learn one of the most important lessons that can be learned from Beveridge about how to target assistance on the people who most need it. We have had no clear and authoritative statement of what will happen to the organisation of the Department. I will watch with great interest to see what happens as the right hon. Gentleman tries, for example, to merge the work for unemployed people done by the Department for Education and Employment with that done by the Department of Social Security. However, that is a matter for a separate debate.
612
We will not oppose the uprating, although we have various specific criticisms of it. I wish the Secretary of State and his team, the House, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a merry Christmas.
1.2 pm
Mr. Vernon Coaker: In his speech, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) attacked the Government's record on dealing with poverty. When we reflect on what the Government have achieved in their first Parliament, we can rightly be proud of the anti-poverty measures that they have introduced. A key feature of the uprating order, which we cannot discuss in detail in the time available, is that it is part of the welfare reform programme that the Government are pursuing.
Without a fundamental reform of the welfare system, the poverty that has blighted many of our communities for so long will continue. When we examine the benefits system and see the people who have been entitled to benefits, it is clear that without reform of the system we would merely have continued to pay people benefits. In five years, their children would have been on benefit, and in 20 years their grandchildren would have been on benefit. The culture of benefit dependency in some communities would be perpetuated. That has been one of the factors driving me on in politics.
The welfare system cannot carry on confirming people in poverty; radical reform is necessary. That is the purpose of the range of measures that the Government have introduced, particularly those designed to get people back into work. That is fundamental to tackling poverty. We must help people back into work, and at the same time ensure that those who remain on benefit have security.
The benefit uprating package is a part of a radical programme of which the Government can be proud, especially as it sets about challenging the culture of dependency.
I shall deal first with pensions. The Government have produced a programme of measures to help pensioners. As is well known by those of us who attend debates such as this—one always seems to see the same faces—one of the Government's priorities was to tackle pensioner poverty. I support that, My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in detail the increased help available to the poorest pensioners as a result of the measures that we have taken.
The minimum income guarantee included in the uprating order will bring about significant increases for the poorest single pensioners and pensioner couples. One of the criticisms of the minimum income guarantee is that it rewards the feckless who have not bothered to save for their retirement, but it is clear from the profile of the poorest pensioners that they are mostly the oldest pensioners and mostly women who have had no opportunity to build up a contribution record.
I do not believe that the vast majority of people who depend on the minimum income guarantee are those who have not bothered to save for retirement. They deserve our support. If the welfare state means anything, it must mean supporting such people. The minimum income guarantee is one of the ways in which the Government have tried to help those at the bottom of the income scale in their old age.
One of the problems associated with such a benefit is the difficulty of getting people who are entitled to it to claim it. It might help if we spoke about it differently

613
in the House and told people that the minimum income guarantee was part of the welfare state. People who shrink from claiming means-tested benefit do not have the same problem when it comes to claiming housing benefit or council tax benefit, which are also means-tested benefits. We must persuade people that if they are not embarrassed to claim those benefits and do not feel that that is scrounging from the state, they should have the same attitude to the MIG, which is also part of the welfare state and for which they have built up an entitlement over their lifetime.
Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that we should be more proactive in telling people about their entitlement? The Government have had a carefully planned programme to tell people, through the Employment Service or the Benefits Agency, what they should be claiming.
Mr. Coaker: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Often, the Government do not get the credit for what they are doing. I know that, as a Back Bencher, I would say that. When the Government introduce the pension age agency, that will also make an immense difference. It will be dedicated to provision and support for pensioners and elderly people. One of the things that elderly people tell me is that they do not like the DSS Alice because they associate it with people who are out of work. The change in the delivery of benefits for the elderly will help to get people to claim those to which they are entitled. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to talk about the minimum income guarantee as an entitlement that people can claim without feeling guilty, just as they do not feel guilty about claiming council tax benefit or housing benefit, even though those benefits are also means-tested.
Mr. Webb: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is talking a lot of sense. Is he disappointed that more progress has not been made on the following matter? It is true that lots of pensioners do not mind claiming rent rebate and council tax benefit. Evidence shows that half the pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled claim housing benefit or council tax benefit. As they have to give all the information necessary to calculate their income support to claim housing benefit, is the hon. Gentleman disappointed about that and will he do something to ensure that his colleagues—who, on the whole, do not listen to me—get those two systems together? That has been going on for years, but all the information is already in the system. We do not need a separate system, because the information is there; it simply needs to be passed on so that pensioners can get the money.
Mr. Coaker: That is a fair comment. Anything that would increase the number of people claiming an entitlement is important. The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do, that there are experiments throughout the country in which local authority housing benefit officials are working with DSS officials in DSS offices to try to do that. It is perfectly sensible so to marry the available information that we get the money to those people who need it.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I, too, agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He put his finger on
614
one problem when he said that claiming the minimum income guarantee is a matter of practical difficulties and a philosophical problem for a lot of pensioners. I agree that it is a philosophical problem, but is it likely that pensioners can be persuaded out of that?
Mr. Coaker: Again, that is a fair comment. It is possible to persuade people out of that, but Members of Parliament and people outside will have to adopt a different attitude to the MIG. We must continue to argue that people should claim housing benefit and council tax benefit, which are means-tested benefits but do not have the same stigma. There might be a philosophical problem, and we all encounter that in our surgeries. However, if we talk about the MIG as an entitlement that people have built up in their lifetime, just as they have built up their entitlement to access to other welfare state benefits, we can go a long way to achieving that aim. There are practical difficulties with getting people to claim, and we need to continue to search for ways to overcome that.
We have made progress on other measures for pensioners. The winter fuel payment and free TV licences are important. Before becoming a Member of Parliament I was aware that people felt strongly about the winter fuel payment. They demanded that the Government do something, as they felt that it was wrong that individuals were frightened to turn their fire on in winter. The Government have attempted to address that. They told people that they would make a special payment so that they need not be frightened to heat their home and turn on the fire. That is not a gimmick, but a sensible response to something that was being demanded of all of us when we looked at the problems faced by pensioners trying to heat their homes in winter.
The pension credit builds on the pension reforms in the uprating report. When people study the pension credit, they will see it as another part of the Government's reform programme for pensioners. It is easiest to describe it as almost a reverse income tax. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right that pensioners and elderly people want to be rewarded for their saving and do not want to be penalised for thrift. We would all agree that we need to address that important matter. The pension credit will bring people up to a minimum income and will pay them for the savings that they have accumulated or their small occupational pension, which will be seen as another important stage in our reforms.
People also feel particularly strongly about the unfairness of capital limits, whereby a small amount of money disqualifies individuals from entitlement to a range of other benefits. I am pleased that capital benefits will be raised in April to £6,000 and £12,000, and abolished altogether in 2003. Again, that sends out an important message that, having started with poorer pensioners and having reformed occupational pensions, the Government are looking to reform the pension credit as well. The Government are delivering a package of systematic and affordable step-by-step reforms.
It is important to recognise that the uprating report includes considerable increases for some of the poorest families with children with disabilities. The child premium on income support for a disabled child will go up from £22.50 to £30, which is £7.40 a week more than the normal uprating and will be a significant improvement for those people. Throughout the country, 80,000 children will benefit from that. The disability income guarantee

615
will ensure that none of the poorest families has an income of less than £142 a week for single people and £186.60 for couples. Again, the Government are delivering for some of the poorest people in the most difficult circumstances. As with the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, we need to talk about the disability income guarantee as an important benefit to which people with disabilities are entitled and which the Government have provided as an important element in the welfare state.
Carers can be pleased that the carer premium on income support will be increased. Again, the Government made a pledge to do something to support carers, and the premium will be raised by £10 to £24.40. An estimated 200,000 carers on low incomes will be supported as a result of that.
I have talked about increases in benefits and important changes made by the Government. We all recognise that, if we strip away the politics and the political point scoring, the benefits often go to very poor people, who are in exceptionally difficult circumstances. I say to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), that we must keep an eye on the level of all benefits, as one sometimes thinks, "My God, is somebody having to live on that money, which is not an exceptional amount?" I think Members on both sides of the House could agree with that statement. In particular, we need to stay focused on the level of two significant benefits in the uprating: the disability living allowance and the attendance allowance. Those benefits are extremely important for the way in which society is developing, as there are people with all sorts of different care needs. I know from my mother-in-law's experience with attendance allowance that it is an important benefit.
Mr. Willetts: In asking the hon. Gentleman a question, I am also looking to the Minister, who will reply to our debate. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the value of benefits. Of course, it is important that benefits for disabled people are delivered competently and promptly. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as I am, about the increasing evidence of delays in getting attendance allowance to claimants and an apparent deterioration in performance evident from the unacceptable periods that people have to wait, especially if they appeal against a decision not to allow them benefit?
Mr. Coaker: We are all concerned. That is not a political point, as we are all anxious about unnecessary delay. I am sure that, as a constituency Member of Parliament, the Minister sees constituents who are worried about things that sometimes go wrong with the system. Of course, that is important, and we must make sure that the benefit system delivers to those people as quickly, effectively and efficiently as possible. My point is that the level of those benefits is crucial to some people who are living in very difficult circumstances.
I am delighted with the extension of disability living allowance to three and four-year-old children. Before the change, many of us had experiences of those children being excluded from the DLA provision. I also welcome the extension of incapacity benefit to young people under 20.
616
The uprating order deals with huge amounts of public money. We have had a good debate on the reforms and on what the benefits should be. The welfare state, as it is currently constituted, has contributed significantly to the society in which we live, but it cannot remain static and must change with the times. It must reflect the development of society. There will always be debate about the reforms that are required to achieve that, but I am proud that the Government are consistent and have remained true to the principles of the welfare state, while recognising that it needs to be changed and modernised.
I am pleased that the desire to help the poorest people first is at the heart of our welfare changes. I am pleased also that those changes relate not only to the payment of benefits, but are also about looking at our society and challenging the culture of dependency. They are about telling communities where large numbers of people have not worked for years and many families have existed on benefit for a long time that we must try to get people off benefits and into work while providing support for those who must remain on benefit.
In future, we will look back at a radical Government with radical policies who have brought about genuine change. There will be differences of opinion on how such change can be achieved, but today's debate will contribute to the reform process, which is, above all, about how to do the most that we can for some of the poorest people in society and tackling the problems of social exclusion that we see around us.
1.21 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: I begin by apologising to the House. As I am feeling slightly under the weather, I might not be present for all the subsequent contributions. Indeed, I might have to curtail my remarks, although it has struck me that no one would object if I did so. I suppose that I should not worry too much about courtesy, as the Secretary of State did his usual trick and did not even stay to listen to the first speech made by a Labour Back Bencher. Obviously, he does not think that he has anything to learn from any hon. Member, which is regrettable.
I do not want to keep the House in suspense any longer, so I inform hon. Members that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats will seek to press the motion to a Division. This debate is a good opportunity to discuss the question of where the system is going and to exchange some ideas, as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) tried to do, so it is unfortunate that the House has been treated in a regrettable manner.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) used an interesting phrase in his contribution, which was, as ever, thoughtful and considered. He referred to a package of systematic, step-by-step reforms. The word "systematic" is the one word that I would not use about the Government's welfare reform process. Instead, I would use the phrase "make it up as you go along", for reasons that I shall expand, especially in relation to pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security, is considering in depth the strategy for families with children, so I shall touch only briefly on that matter.
With regard to pensioners, the Government have a story. It sounds at first as if something coherent is going on, but the more I consider their policies, the less sure I

617
am that much coherence exists. After the election, the first announcement that the Government made was that the minimum income guarantee—as income support was renamed—would rise in line with earnings. Few people disagree that the level was too low and that extra support for poorer pensioners was needed, so I associate myself with that decision, which was the first step. However, the next step was curious.
In the winter, the Chancellor found some spare cash that had been released by an underspend on his EU contribution, or something similar, and he wondered what to do with it. He decided to make a winter fuel payment to pensioners. The House may forget that it was introduced at £20. The policy was met with a fanfare, although I suspect that a similar payment would now cause a riot. The amount for those on income support was £50. The argument for that was that it targeted more help on those in need.
There is a fundamental inconsistency in the Government's strategy. Depending on whether there is an "r" in the month, they focus either on helping the folk who are most in need or on giving universal support as a way of providing tax-free help to everybody. A policy of granting a tax-free £200 payment to every household in the land is as untargeted as possible. However, when the Liberal Democrats said that 75p was not enough and asked the Government why they were not paying more, they told us that a general increase in the pension would be poorly targeted and that they wanted to spend money on those in need. They are facing both ways at the same time, and have done so throughout.
The Government could have said that they needed a mix, that they were only partly targeting those who were most in need and that pensioners as a group needed to do better. One might have had more sympathy with such a view. When it suited them, as it did with the 75p payment, they said that they had to help those who were most in need. When an election is imminent, however, they grant a winter fuel payment of £200.
When I questioned the rate of the winter fuel payment for the coming year and said that it would fall from £200 to £150, a few hon. Members queried that, and said that it could not be right. The hon. Member for Havant has asked about that. I do not know whether he has seen a written answer published this morning in response to a question that he tabled. He may not have spotted it, but I had nothing better to do over breakfast. He asked about the rate of the winter fuel payment next year. His question received the following opaque reply:
The level of the Winter Fuel Payment for next winter … is set out in The Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment and Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 2000, and is included in the Government's spending plans.—[Official Report, 20 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 224W.]
There is a shorter version of that answer, but I think that it was felt to be embarrassing. I went to the Vote Office to obtain a copy of the regulations to which the answer referred. Initially, the document was unavailable, so one senses that there has not been a big demand for it. On finally obtaining it, I saw that in a paragraph of the regulations that set out the winter fuel payment, it stated:
there shall be substituted the sum "£ 150"
618
I always try to be fair to the Chancellor, so I remind hon. Members that when he announced the £200 winter fuel payment figure in the pre-Budget statement, he said that it was a special payment for this year. I am not questioning that.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Then why are you giving the wrong impression?
Mr. Webb: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain my point.
The Government's pensions strategy, such as it is, is all heading towards 2003. Everything between now and 2003 is described as transitional. In other words, the Government are introducing measures for the next two years, until they can get the new system in place. Thus, a big pension rise has been announced for next April and an above-inflation rise has been announced for the following year, albeit only a pound or so. Why, then, is the winter fuel payment not also dealt with transitionally? Why does it not apply for two years at the £200 level? The answer is that, between this winter and next winter, something will happen.
I think that that approach is extraordinarily cynical. Pensioners have seen the winter fuel payment move from £20 to £100 to £200. If we went out into the streets and asked pensioners to predict next winter's fuel payment, I suspect that we would not find one who would expect the Government to cut it by a quarter. Clearly, that message has not been conveyed. Will the Under-Secretary tell us whether pensioners were notified when they received this year's winter fuel payment that it would be cut next winter? Do pensioners know? I suspect that they do not. It is cynical to increase a benefit immediately before an election, to cut it afterwards and to hope that nobody will ask the awkward question.
The hon. Member for Havant spoke about what his party wanted to do with the winter fuel payment. I have a point for him to cogitate about on Boxing day. He announced that, were he given the opportunity to do so, he would introduce not the £5 increase to which the order refers but a £9.50 increase. I think that that is the figure for newly retired pensioners. Roughly speaking, that sum comprises the fiver that the Government are giving anyway, four quid for winter fuel and 50p for which the hon. Gentleman has scrabbled around in the social fund and elsewhere. However, if the Government provide not £4 a week but £3 a week—the hon. Gentleman has discovered that that is what they plan to do—the Conservatives could afford not £9.50 on the pension but £8.50. That applies unless the hon. Gentleman can find £1 a week for every pensioner household in the land, which amounts, I think, to £500 million. I shall have a word with the shadow Chancellor. I will tell him that he must either find another £500 million for the hon. Member for Havant or announce a smaller pension increase than he planned.
Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Government have got into an extraordinary position in respect of the £200 and £150 payments. The Opposition's package consolidates the £200 into the basic pension and then uprates it. We have formulated the package on that basis, and it has been agreed with my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. The problem with special payments is

619
that they are not included in the basic pension and there is no requirement to uprate them. Thus, in some years they are not uprated and in others they are cut. Indeed, the Government's official position, on which I have received a more explicit written answer than that to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is that they will cut the rate next year.
Mr. Webb: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, unless he thinks that the general election will take place in the current financial year, which I assume he does not. Let us assume that the general election will happen in May. Government spending plans for 2001–02 include a winter fuel payment of £150. Consolidating that in the pension, if that is what he proposes, represents £8.50, not £9.50. Strictly speaking, I am straying somewhat, so I return to the orders.
Another issue relating to the pensions strategy is take-up. It was clear on Monday that the Secretary of State was trying to run a line. I accept unreservedly and on the record that there is a role for means-testing—there always will be. I do not query that, but balance is important. We have criticised him for using an approach that relies so heavily on means-testing. He says that the Government have put a lot of money into the means test, which is true. When we ask about those who do not take up benefits, the Government refer to the take-up campaign. However, there is less to the campaign than meets the eye.
The Government sent letters to 2 million people offering free money. A third replied. Of that third, it appears that about 60,000 or 70,000—perhaps a few more—have received their money. Government figures suggest that 500,000 pensioners are not taking up their entitlement to income support, and Thora Hird and friends have reached 70,000 of those. That leaves 430,000. The Secretary of State's line is that there is no stigma in the mind of pensioners about applying for income support, but 2 million pensioners received a letter offering them free money and two thirds did not reply. To me, that suggests that fear of complexity and stigma may be out there, alive and well. Even on Government estimates, and even with the 70,000 taken off the figure, 430,000 pensioners entitled to income support are not receiving it. Almost all of them have received a letter from the Government telling them about their entitlement, but have not responded.
I would be interested to hear from the Government about those 430,000 people. Presuming that most received the letter, why did they not respond? What aspect of the system put them off replying?
Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time, because I know that he follows these issues carefully.
There is another puzzle that the Minister might tackle in his winding-up speech. The hon. Gentleman assumes that 500,000 pensioners are entitled to but not claiming the minimum income guarantee, but if he reads the Government's annual statistics on entitlements to means-tested benefits he will find that they have retrospectively reduced their estimate. Before the figure of 500,000 gains currency, it is worth remembering that,
620
until recently, the Government estimate was, from memory, about 500,000 to 800,000. They have cut their estimate of the number of non-claiming pensioners for reasons that are not entirely clear.
Mr. Webb: At the risk of allowing the debate to degenerate even further into an academic seminar, I think that the Government have discovered that pensioners are under-reporting their capital in the family resources survey. Therefore, they are making a further adjustment. The 500,000 figure is the mid-point of the current range of estimates, but in opposition Labour went into the election campaign having a go at the Tories about the missing million. The figure of 1 million was at the top of the range, but the Government now tend to use the middle figure, which is much more sensible.
Will Ministers discuss take-up with their officials, many of whom I used to work with on take-up statistics at the Institute for Fiscal Studies? Will Ministers consider whether more resources might be provided to bring the take-up figures up to date? We have only just received take-up figures for 1998–99, although we have received the 1999–2000 poverty figures—those for households below average income. I appreciate that extra processing has to be done between getting the survey and producing both the HBAI figures and the take-up figures, but, given that take-up is central to the Government's means-testing strategy and that we rely on figures that they say are years out of date, that is unsatisfactory. I hope that they will consider the timeliness of the take-up figures, especially as the take-up campaigns are taking place now. Whenever we criticise the Government's figures, we are told that they are out of date. Well, that is not our fault.
Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for being absent for the early part of the debate.
The take-up figures are behind time, but the take-up campaign marks the difference between the past and the present. It is freely admitted that all past take-up figures and those in the system are estimates based on statistical surveys, not on real people. We have written to almost 2.5 million individuals by name, and that has given us a much better idea of the level of unmet need. I am not saying that the system is perfect, but although the take-up campaign will take some time, as I have acknowledged in answers to parliamentary questions, the information that we will gather as a result of it will make a big difference. All previous estimates are just that: gross statistical estimates based on small sample surveys. With the best will in the world, they do not represent real people.
Mr. Webb: One knows where the Minister is coming from, but the family resources survey, which is one of the biggest social surveys, receives responses from 25,000 households a year, and a good chunk of those are pensioner households. Every pensioner whom the survey identifies as entitled to but not receiving income support is a real person. Short of talking to all those 2.5 million people, we will never get to the whole lot. However, the survey is a legitimate way to arrive at a figure, and those who reply are real people.
I do not have a problem with the take-up campaign, but saying that it proves that there is no stigma attached to claiming puts a gloss on matters. The campaign proves the contrary; two thirds of those offered free money said

621
no because they were bewildered by the system or did not like the means test. The Minister shakes his head. Will he do any follow-up work or research on those who received the letter but did not reply? I hope so, because that might help to resolve the issue.
The key point is that the Government have relied heavily on means-testing, and they will double means-testing by introducing the credit. Their answer to the take-up problem is, "We have a take-up campaign." The campaign has got money to 70,000 people, whether one describes that figure as good or bad. That is great for the 70,000, but more than 400,000 people at least—that figure is still our best guess—are entitled, but not receiving. They were offered free money, but turned it down. Where do the Government go next with them?
Mr. Coaker: I tried to make a thoughtful contribution, and the hon. Gentleman is doing the same, because the matter is immensely difficult. Take-up of the minimum income guarantee is not the only problem because those who will not claim it are prepared to claim means-tested housing benefit and council tax benefit. There is also a difficulty with take-up of non-means-tested attendance allowance. That is a big issue and we all need to address the problem. The Government are trying to consider all the ways that they can of encouraging people to take up benefits, whether means-tested or non-means-tested.
Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of good points. Clearly there are take-up problems with non-means-tested benefits as well, and those need to be tackled. Support and advice are necessary, and I would like citizens advice bureaux to be backed by central Government at local level. It is unacceptable that local councils are left to their own devices—some help, some do not—when local citizens advice bureaux, which do a fantastic job on take-up, struggle from hand to mouth.
Heavy reliance on means-tested benefits represents a structural problem: it will hit the target for some, but miss it for others. Despite Thora Hird's best efforts, the target is being missed for 400,000 or 500,000 people who, by definition, are the poorest pensioners in the land. Their income is less than income support, which itself does not even cross the poverty line. They do not receive income support, which is why my party is committed to the basic state pension and why, like the hon. Member for Havant, we are particularly committed to increasing substantially the pension for older pensioners—not by 46p, or whatever the figure is, but by £5, £10 or £15. Older pensioners should be guaranteed that money, which is why we decided on such a strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The hon. Gentleman refers to three figures—£5, £10 and £15. Under the Liberals' proposals, when would each of those be introduced?
Mr. Webb: They would be introduced simultaneously. Pensioners under 75 would receive £5, those aged between 75 and 79 would receive £10 and those aged 80 and over would receive £15. That is our proposal.
For several years, I and my colleagues have argued in the House that £250 of capital for £1 a week of income is absurd, and that the capital limits discourage people.
622
We batted away for years, and suddenly the Secretary of State announced on Monday that the Government have always thought that the capital limit rules were silly and will now change them. We welcome the sinner repenting, but we had to put up with an awful lot of rubbish while the Government tried to defend an unjustifiable system.
There is an important practical question. Under these orders, from next April pensioners with £6,000 in the bank will not have a penny imputed from their savings. If that money is in a 5 per cent. interest account, they will get £6 a week actual income. When the Government switch over to using actual income for the purposes of assessing means-tested benefits, what will happen to those people? Will there be a £6 disregard so that no one with £6,000 capital will lose out? Have the Government decided that yet? I know that consultation is taking place. The Minister shakes his head, so perhaps the Government have not decided yet. I urge them to ensure that pensioners with modest savings who have no imputed income—even from capital of £6,000—do not lose out, particularly once the orders are in force. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that that is the Government's goal for that group. It would be perverse if the opposite were true.
The Government are still incapable of paying all pensioners their pensions on time. We have raised the NIRS2 computer problem many times in the House. These pensions increases will not reach pensioners on their pension date, in some cases because of the computer problems. After three and a half to four years, the excuse that it was the other lot's fault starts to wear a bit thin. We have been promised that this matter will be resolved by certain dates, and every one of them has been missed. I hope that as a Christmas present to Britain's pensioners, the Minister will tell us finally whether before the next election every pensioner reaching pension age will get their pension on time.
On a more upbeat note, an announcement was made during the year on the widows' state earnings-related pension scheme proposals. That was a welcome change of heart. People will not lose their inherited SERPS entitlements, provided that they have already reached pension age. I stress how much we welcome that.
The document contains many welcome measures, such as the additional support for carers and for disabled people. We welcome the £5 on the pension. It is not clear why the arguments that justify a £5 increase this year justified only 75p last year. As I have argued, the Government's strategy is incoherent and inconsistent. It would be nice to think that we will have a response to the specific points that have been raised, but experience suggests otherwise. As it is the festive season, I shall live in hope.
1.42 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson: The Secretary of State said that I was the only Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber. I am sorry to say that that remains the case, but I promise him that I am not a token Back Bencher, because I serve on the Select Committee on Social Security under the expert guidance of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I also served on the Standing Committee considering the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill a short while ago, so I take an interest in these matters. I do not intend to speak for

623
long, but I want to make a few comments about the current situation on pensions and about future pensions. I also want to refer to some of the points that the Secretary of State made. I am sorry he is not in his place to answer my points.
The more one considers an issue, such as law and order or Northern Ireland—two subjects that I am also interested in—the clearer it becomes that there is no one big answer to any of those problems, and that that is so with all aspects of social security, especially pensions. I share the Government's stated objective of relieving poverty among the poorest pensioners. Although it is difficult to define poverty, we all accept that many pensioners are poor, especially elderly women. Their position cannot be corrected in one go, because although people may not be particularly poor when they retire, given the income that they receive, as they get older life becomes more difficult. Things that they bought new when they were 65 are not new when they reach 80. Problems may come about simply because they have got older. Although the problem may be solved for someone of 65, it could recur when they get older.
What the Government are doing is not necessarily helping. Given the spirit of the debate and the fact that Christmas is approaching, I shall not be too critical or unfair, but it is a little easy for the Government to say that they are providing the minimum income guarantee so that no one should be on less money than that minimum. The Government know that many people do not take up the MIG—we have heard eloquent speeches explaining why that is so. The fact that people do not take it up must be taken into account, regardless of the reasons.
At a Select Committee meeting, the Secretary of State said that we should judge a system by how effective it is, and I entirely agree with him. He hung himself with his own words. The system is not effective because people are not taking up the minimum income guarantee. Why are they not doing so? I take the point that the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) made. As well as the practical difficulties, there are philosophical arguments. I accept that those people claim housing benefit and council tax benefit, but there is a crucial difference. They get bills for rent and for council tax, and that provokes some action, whereas they have to be proactive to claim the minimum income guarantee. Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's view, I think that there is a difference. If the MIG were part of the basic state pension, they would automatically claim it, because there is a philosophical expectation of that pension. They understand correctly that they have paid into the system all their lives and are entitled to claim a pension. If they see the minimum income guarantee as welfare, they do not believe that they have paid in all their lives for that, even though they have. There is a very big difference.
It is fair to say that the feeling on the Select Committee is that the MIG is unlikely to be taken up universally unless it is part of the basic state pension. I shall quote one of the witnesses to the Select Committee. He may seem to be making a point that is opposite to the one that I am making, but I shall explain what I mean.
624
Mr. Andrew Dilnot, a director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said:
If our only concern is targeting the standard of those living on the lowest incomes, then we will always be driven towards relying more on means-testing and less on universalism. If our key concern is upholding the dignity of the elderly, then we are driven towards universalism.
He is saying that, in theory, the means-tested benefit is precisely what is needed for the poorer pensioners, but in effect that is not happening. The second part of that quote explains why that is not happening: it is because it challenges the dignity of people who have to claim the benefit.
There are also the practical problems of claiming the MIG. Are elderly people, whom we accept are probably the poorest in society—whether they are men or women does not matter for the purpose of this point—the most likely or the least likely to claim the minimum income guarantee? I suggest that such people, by virtue of their age, are probably the least likely to claim the MIG, yet they are the very people who need it. It is almost certain that it will fail.
If the problems are philosophical or about practicalities and not about information, is the take-up campaign likely to succeed? As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said, the system is not working. Regardless of the philosophical arguments that we have all made, the fact that the system is not working should be taken into account.
When preparing its report on pensioner poverty, our Select Committee stopped short of recommending a restoration of the earnings link, although many members favoured that. One factor was our wish to see how the pension credit system would work before returning to the issue, but I warn the Government—I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, the Chairman of the Select Committee, will agree if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—that we may return to the subject if it is felt that pensioner credits are not doing enough. I suspect that the evidence received so far suggests that they will not do enough.
Our report called for an increase in the state non-means-tested pension sooner rather than later. It also called for an increase in the basic state paid pension for those aged over 80 to minimum income guarantee level, so that the income of the poorest members of society could be guaranteed.
When we—Members on both sides of the House—are trying to make political points, we tend to stress that the United Kingdom is the fourth largest economy in the world. I am proud that it is, but when that fourth largest economy apparently cannot afford to do what it should be doing, we should question the motivation that may be involved. It horrifies me to think that members of my family might have to claim under the minimum income guarantee, and I suspect that other hon. Members may also not be too happy about the idea.
Pensioners are clearly not happy about proposals for the future. Labour Members must receive the same letters that we receive; pensioners must visit their surgeries, as they visit ours. They must have heard pensioners complaining about the level of the basic state pension only a few weeks ago, in Westminster Hall.
Although I have suggested that the basic pension should be increased, I recognise the problems posed to continual uprating by demographic changes. I speak from

625
memory, but I believe that 50 years ago there were about five and a half contributors to every pensioner. I think that the figure is now 1.8; the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. Those figures suggest that there is a problem—and the figure of 1.8 is due to fall over the next few years, and as we enter the next century. I do not accept that we have entered the next century yet: I am one of those who think that will start at the end of the current year. Anyway, the figure will fall as we reach 2030, 2040 and 2050.
I accept that, in the long term, we shall find it difficult to provide a basic state pension that will retain the degree of comfort and dignity that the recipients deserve. That is why the Conservative party wants a pensions system that is funded. Why have a number of pensioners—not all, of course—become better off recently? Because they have taken up occupational or private schemes. Although I have made criticisms of the Government's approach, I accept—as I have said—that it is difficult to provide a basic state pension that enables pensioners to live as they would want to live, and as we will want to live when we reach their age.
It is rather disingenuous of any Labour Member to suggest that we would scrap the basic state pension. That is certainly not our policy. I am sure that, if it were proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), it would not be accepted by the Conservative party, and I do not think such allegations serve politicians—or, indeed, the House—very well.
Many general elections ago, we were accused of planning to abolish the national health service. We won many general elections, and did not do that. We have no intention of scrapping the basic state pension now, and I would not support it if it were a proposal; but saying that is very different from making plans to help and guide people to provide for a better future. We betray those people if we do not stress the importance of their making their own pension provisions. Whatever our argument, and on whichever side of the House we sit, the fact remains that that is the only way in which those people will enjoy any prosperity in their old age.
It will come as no surprise to Conservative Members that our proposal to allow people to opt out of the state pension and, perhaps, to receive a rebate that can be invested in a private scheme is not unique. Other countries are well ahead of us. As I have told Front Benchers, two years ago I went to Mexico and studied its pensions system. Mexico is already up and running in this regard: the proposal is not exactly revolutionary.
When I was in Mexico, I asked Ministers whether there might not be a bit of a black hole in resources, given that those in retirement would continue to need funding. They said. "We feel we can manage that", adding, "We would rather face the problem now than pass huge burdens to our children and grandchildren". That, I think, is a very responsible attitude for a so-called developing country to take, but it is too revolutionary for the fourth largest economy in the world.
Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is an expert, and has contributed useful information about the reforms in Mexico. He is quite right.
Attending a conference on this subject, I was struck by the radicalism of the Chinese Government's proposals. A former general in the Red Army, who is now roughly the equivalent of the Minister of State—[Laughter.] He
626
spoke of the desirability of encouraging more funded pension saving in China, so that people would be less dependent on pay-as-you-go systems. My hon. Friend is right: this is an international trend.
Mr. Robertson: China, of course, boasts two systems. There is a political system, in which people say what they really think should happen, and an economic system, in which people have come to realise what must happen. Anyway, I am delighted to learn that the Chinese are also showing us the way forward.
We have developing countries and Communist countries, and here we are lagging behind, in the hope that if we are elected on 3 May—or, hopefully, earlier—we are given a chance to offer people the prospect of a more prosperous retirement.
I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I want to mention one or two other issues that concern me. The first is that of disability living allowance claims. I am sure that all hon. Members can cite cases of constituents' being done down, but I believe that in many cases people are making justifiable claims. Not only are those claims being turned down; when they go to appeal, the process is stretched out. In the case of my constituent Mr. Orrey, papers were lost and the case goes on and on. My constituent has not been given the correct treatment, or the money that is due to him. I urge the Government to look closely at what is happening, especially at the appeal stage.
We heard a little about how certain benefits would be paid to people of the same age, whether they were male or female. Will the Minister tell us his intentions in regard to widows' benefit?
As I said, I have spoken for rather longer than I intended. Let me echo what others have said, and also wish Members on both sides of the House a happy festive season.
1.59 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate. I start by immediately acknowledging the important and valuable role played by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on the Select Committee on Social Security. He works assiduously in Committee and his experience is highly valuable to us. We look forward to his contribution continuing for a long time to come.
I should like to make just a couple of comments which are additional to those that have already been made. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and other hon. Members that this debate—academic seminar or not—has been very good. I concur with much of what has been said and do not have to repeat points that have already been made.
The tone of the debate, however, has not fully reflected a fact pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—that, for a variety of reasons, many families and domestic households in the United Kingdom are forced to live below income support levels. However good today's uprating statement may be—I have seen many such statements, and this one is better by a margin than most—we must not forget that some households struggle, sometimes for a long time, on incomes that are below the income support levels set by the Government.

627
The House will have to return to that issue. The Social Security Committee is examining the social fund partly to begin to address precisely that issue, and I hope that we will be able to make some constructive suggestions.
I am concerned also about the debt levels that I hear about in my constituency casework. None of the official statistics—as good as they may be; although, historically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said, they have been out of date—record debt levels. I am increasingly concerned about the role of loan sharks and the extent to which they are able to charge ludicrously high, usurious rates of interest to provide cash to enable some households below income support level to get by from week to week. We should bear that issue in mind.
We should remember the context in which the uprating statement—which, as I said, is generous—is being made. I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon that the increases—particularly the 5 per cent. increase in the retirement pension and widows' bereavement benefit—are extremely welcome. However, table 4 of the Government Actuary's report on the uprating orders—Command Paper 4933, at page 8—which deals with the balance in the national insurance fund at the end of successive financial years, shows that, at 31 March 2000, the percentage of benefit payments in the previous financial year was 31.1 per cent. It predicts that, for 2001, the percentage balance in the national insurance fund would be 39.1 per cent; and that, for 2002, it would be 41.1 per cent.
As we all know, the Government Actuary's recommended fallback, minimum residual working balance is 16 per cent. Therefore, the national insurance fund has working balances that considerably exceed the Government Actuary's recommendation. He forecasts considerable surpluses in those years. He predicts that, for 2000–01. it will be £3,981 million. Therefore, although the Government's November announcement on disability benefits—which the Secretary of State mentioned at the beginning of the debate, and increased expenditure by £200 million—was generous and is very welcome, it should be put in the context of the available sums.
The academics, by whom I am surrounded, will no doubt say, "The Government have already announced plans to spend some of that surplus." I agree that we have to have stability in the national insurance fund, and I am not saying that we should be profligate. Indeed, in our report on the contributory principle, the Social Security Committee made some suggestions about how we could constructively spend some of that money and stay within the general stability targets. Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that the position of the national insurance fund is currently quite healthy. We should bear that fact very much in mind.
I should like to underscore the importance of dealing with a situation that is emerging as a result of the Government's attempts, quite rightly, to increase take-up of the minimum income guarantee. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon was absolutely right that we cannot allow the matter to rest if the number of those who refuse to respond to the Government's blandishments to get in touch remains so high. However, I do not think that the Minister was saying that we should let the matter rest, and I agree that there is disagreement on how the figures should be interpreted.
628
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon also that we should be considering ways of discovering and testing—even if, initially, it is only through a pilot project, and working locally with citizens advice bureaux, local authorities and others—why there is such a poor take-up rate for the minimum income guarantee. The Government's policy is focusing very much on developing means-tested benefits. If they are serious about using such benefits, they should realise that, as useful as it has been, simply mounting a one-off take-up campaign is not enough. It would be complacent of Ministers to think that everything is all right and that they need to do nothing else. I hope that Ministers can be persuaded to re-examine the issue and introduce further measures. I would be happy to try to encourage local activity, and I am sure that all hon. Members would like to increase uptake of the minimum income guarantee.
I confirm the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that the Social Security Committee will be watching very carefully how uptake and the matter of the pension credit unfold. If we do not get better uptake levels, and if the pension credit does not deliver as Ministers and the rest of us hope that it will, I for one would be very willing to return to the idea of relating the uprating to earnings. It is a live issue to which we propose to return.
If we have means testing, there should be an attempt to adopt a light touch—which is a phrase that appealed to me and was used by Professor Jane Millar when she gave evidence to the social Security Committee on the integrated child credit inquiry. The Government should attempt to develop the concept of means testing with a light touch. Some of the changes in capital limits are a move in the right direction but need to go further.
I am grateful that the non-dependent deductions for housing benefit have not been uprated from April 2001. However, although that is very welcome, the Government could have been expected to go further. Indeed, some of us anticipated that they would go further. The Committee recommended that the higher deduction rates should be abolished completely and that the number of rates should be reduced, as that would not only create simplification but increase the available sums. The Government must consider that to be unfinished business. If they do not, people will be rightly disappointed. Additionally, housing benefit is now the biggest block to work incentives embedded in the social security system. The Government's document was a bit disappointing by not pursuing further reform of housing benefit tapers and disregards. I hope that Ministers will return to the issue.
I have a technical question to which the Minister could reply in writing. I am puzzled about the future of contributory additions for children. As hon. Members know, the additions are paid to children of widows, retirement pensioners and those who are on the long-term rate and the higher short-term rate of incapacity benefit, and recipients of invalid care allowance. The additions have not been uprated for years.
There seems to be no justification for reducing the real value of those children's allowances, which are part of the contributory benefits system. They have not been mentioned in any of the Government's plans to integrate the "streams of income" for children that the tax and benefit systems provide. I should like to know the future of the additions. If I cannot have an answer today, a letter would be very welcome.

629
There is still a question about the future of child benefit, and some assurances from Ministers that child benefit will continue to be fully uprated in future would not go amiss. There are some misgivings among pressure groups and the academic community about that matter.
My penultimate point—bringing me back to where I started—is that it would be very valuable and useful if Ministers could aspire to provide modest, but adequate minimum income levels. Other European countries have developed systems that help people to measure the progress of Governments in a way that some other performance indicators do not. I hope that that concept will be studied by Ministers.
Finally, the one element missing from the debate so far has been the vexed question of frozen pensions for overseas pensioners. I know that the matter has been raised before, but this is the appropriate debate in which to raise it again. I still receive regular and heart-rending letters about the unfairness of the system.
I admit that it is not so much a poverty issue. The people who write to me and bombard me with terabytes of e-mail information are not necessarily poor. What irks them, especially given the positive balances in the national insurance fund, is that nothing is being done.
The Minister may say that rectifying the problem all at once would cost a lot of money, and that would be especially true if payment were to be backdated. I am not calling for that, but something has to be said on behalf of that dwindling group of pensioners. There is a comfortable surplus in the national insurance fund, and some gesture to them is needed.
The Social Security Committee has recently undertaken study visits to Canada and to Australia, and both have been very instructive. We were given a very clear idea of the damage done to the relationship between Britain and those very valuable members of the Commonwealth. That damage should not be overstated, but it should not be underestimated either. It stems from the fact that Britain is walking away from the problem and refusing to pay any attention to the legitimate claims of people who have some entitlement to consideration in this uprating statement, especially given the positive balance in the national insurance fund.
2.11 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I was somewhat puzzled that the House should debate this important matter on the day that we rise for the Christmas recess. It was almost inevitable that the debate would not attract large participation by hon. Members, although it is interesting that it has benefited from the sheer quality of contributions. I want to thank all who have taken part in a debate that has ranged very widely over social security policy. The quality of all contributions has been exceedingly high. I suspect that I am about to reduce the debate to the mundane, but I shall try very hard not to.
The debate began with the Secretary of State making essentially the same speech that he made when he announced the uprating. It really took off and caught fire when my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) challenged the Secretary of State's strategy on social security policy. We could see the interest in the Chamber in what he was saying. I thought that the members of the Government Front Bench also enjoyed it, and I noted that they participated regularly in the discussion.
630
I am glad that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is still with us, and I hope that he manages to stay to the end of the debate. He also contributed in a very thoughtful manner, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). Many people have analysed the minimum income guarantee and the problems with take-up. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that there needs to be more research into how we can ensure that people entitled to benefits get them. I have not been in the House as long as the Secretary of State, but my memory is long enough that I recall the previous Conservative Government trying very hard to encourage people to take up the benefits to which they were entitled.
Although I do not want to reduce the debate to the mundane, one question is hard to avoid. The Government claim to be radical and reforming, so why do the texts of the statutory instruments containing the regulations have to be presented in a way that is completely incomprehensible to outsiders? I hope the measure contained in the Queen's Speech to simplify tax legislation successfully completes its progress through the House, but I hope that similar legislation can be introduced with regard to benefits—at least in respect of simplifying the uprating statement. I shall not read out any examples, as I am sure that all hon. Members know what I mean.
I was glad that the statement contained the Conservative policy that invalid care allowance should be paid to carers over retirement age, and that the Secretary of State should have seen the need for that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, we agree with a number of elements of the statement and do not plan to vote against it. However, questions remain to be asked, one of which was raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). That is the problem involving frozen pensions for pensioners living abroad.
In fact, I noticed that one of the questions in today's Order Paper dealt with what will happen to the pensions of people who have lived in Australia. I understand that the Minister of State has answered that question and indicated that the benefit entitlement of people who have worked in Australia will be recognised, provided that their work began before April 2001.
However, it would be helpful to know what will happen with regard to people who want to work in Australia after that date. Given the other problems involved with communicating with people and informing them of their entitlements, what plans are there to ensure that people working in Australia after April 2001 will know about their entitlements? In addition, any clue as to what will happen with regard to people in Australia who receive British pensions is conspicuously absent.
The Under-Secretary of State is to reply to the debate, and he and I have crossed swords about capital limits for disabled people. However, I hope that he will comment further on the matter. I understand the situation with regard to capital limits for pensioners, but we still have had no answer about capital limits for disabled people. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that matter, which has been raised a number of times. I warned that I might reduce the debate to the mundane, but some questions have to be asked, and answered.

631
No mention has been made of the second order, which deals with the guaranteed minimum pensions increase. It is therefore incumbent on me to raise the matter. The order is fairly standard, and raises by 3 per cent. the guaranteed minimum pension to be paid by occupational pension funds.
The problem this year is that inflation is above 3 per cent—the order quotes a rate of 3.3 per cent. That means that the state will have to pick up the bill for the difference, as required by the legislation governing contracting out. That emphasises that the Government face a problem with their economic policy, as inflation is higher than 3 per cent.
The previous Government introduced the 3 per cent. rule as part of our campaign against inflation. However, the Government's general policy on social security and spending, which means that growth will be higher than the rate of expected economic growth, will add fuel to the inflation flames. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some idea of how much he expects the social security budget to be affected by the change in the inflation rate.
The issue of increases in the payments to rest homes, known as preserved rights, has not yet been mentioned. This year the rest home payments will be increased to £225 a week and the figure for nursing homes will be £337 a week. It is generally reckoned that the genuine cost is about £250 and £400 a week respectively, so care home owners are losing out dramatically in the amount of money that they can spend on their residents.
The Government's NHS winter strategy depends on ensuring that people are taken out of hospitals and put into care homes to stop the trolley waits. However, rest homes and nursing homes are closing at an increasing rate—15,000 beds have gone this year—and because property prices are going up, more and more people are able to sell their homes and get out of the market, thereby reducing the number of beds available. This uprating does not, in any way, shape or form address the Government's political problem; indeed, it will exacerbate the crisis that will almost inevitably hit the NHS, come the new year.
Finally, I turn to the unwarranted increase in the national insurance upper earnings limit of £2,080 a year. This is yet another of the Government's stealth taxes. It has hardly ever been mentioned; it has been slid out quietly so that no one knows that they will be hit by an increased tax. Like the withdrawal from the pension funds and like the fuel duty taxes, it adds up to a huge impost on the basic pay of every individual. The way in which the Government have slid out this increase is reprehensible.
We have spoken at great length about the pension credit and we will be examining its effect very carefully. However, when people have forgotten that the benefits and the pensions interacted at 100 per cent. level, they will in due course see this as a tax rate of 40 per cent.
As we have said, we will not be voting against the order. It is a Christmas present for the Government, and I wish everyone a happy festive season.
2.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I, too, would like to enter the spirit of things. I wish you and your family a
632
happy Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also wish all Members in the Chamber and their families a happy Christmas, and relatively good fortune to some in the new year.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have entered the Christmas spirit by coming up with extremely generous spending proposals. It is important to reconcile spending proposals with the overall budgetary policies that the parties follow. The proposals from the official Opposition for increased expenditure do not square with their policy to reduce public expenditure by £16 billion. That would make Christmas a rather mean and threadbare affair, especially when we consider the social policies introduced by the Government.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was the first to create the atmosphere of a seminar which I think made for a good debate. Some real issues of social policy were discussed. He made the criticism that the Government do not have a coherent, overarching social policy. I believe that we do. Our policy focuses clearly on poverty reduction. We have stressed the importance of work. We have modernised and changed fiscal and social security policy to pursue those aims, with remarkably good results. This year we will be spending £4 billion less on unemployment benefits, which creates the space and opportunity to improve benefits for others whose age or circumstances mean that they cannot work.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on what it was like when his party was in government. During those 18 years, the number of workless households—families with people of working age who did not work—doubled, as did the number of children growing up in poverty. Was that as a result of the Conservative Government's clear and overarching social policy or was it a failure of their social policy?
Let me say to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that the regulations debated in Committee a few weeks ago which increased the capital limits in relation to a minimum income guarantee for pensioners from £3,000 and £8,000 to £6,000 and £12,000 have been widely welcomed by pensioners. The regulations were also welcomed by Liberal Democrat Members on the Committee and, indeed, by the hon. Lady herself. We are introducing these improvements to the capital limits—which were frozen for a decade under the Conservatives—as a staging post towards the introduction of a pension credit which will provide a real incentive to people to work hard and save hard during their working life.
We are not applying those changes in relation to people on working-age benefits because the considerations are different. If the hon. Lady had listened to the debate in Committee, she would know that; as it is, she can read the record. We have been successful in pursuing policies to ensure that work pays—to create incentives so that people of working age who can work do work. That is why there is a difference between the two age groups.
The hon. Lady spoke about the invalid care allowance. She flatters herself if she believes that the Conservative party's representations on the invalid care allowance led the Government to increase the age at which people can apply for the benefits. She flatters herself if she thinks that carers believe that the Conservative party is genuinely interested in providing more support for older carers. Let me remind her that the invalid care allowance was

633
introduced by the previous Labour Government in 1976. The Conservative party was in power between 1979 and 1997. If they had wanted to extend the allowance to people applying over the age of 65, they had 18 years in which to do so, and they did not. Within three years of our coming into power, we did it. We did it because we thought that it was right, and I presume that the Conservatives did not do it because they thought that it was wrong.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke about the winter fuel payment. It has been increased to £200 for this year because the Government wish, in the period leading up to the introduction of a pension credit to do more for pensioners on modest incomes. We are this year doubling the value of the winter fuel allowance to £200. Next year we are increasing the basic state pension by considerably more than inflation—by £5 and £8—to provide more for people who are just above the minimum income guarantee level.
Mr. Webb: I am aware that everyone wants to go home, so I promise not to intervene again, but for the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Gentleman give a simple yes or no answer to this question—next year, will the winter fuel payment be £150 or £200?
Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see; he was not told last year what this year's winter fuel payment would be—the amount was not included in last year's regulations. He will have to wait and see what it is for next year.
The orders confirm our determination to provide more support for those people who need in most—those with severe disabilities, carers and the elderly. Our pilots for the new deal for disabled people have shown that it is possible to create opportunities even for those who have been on incapacity benefit for many years—perhaps for 10 years—to get back into the labour market, provided they receive adequate help and support.
Through the new deal we have shown that it is possible to provide support for those who are able to work. The orders make it clear that we are also providing security for those who cannot work. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) asked whether the Government would do more to allow the use of information collected for council tax benefit and housing benefit purposes in calculating entitlement to the minimum income guarantee and to income support. The one service initiative is piloting joined-up working to achieve the outcome that he seeks. The consultation document on the pension credit includes proposals to develop a single application process for those means-tested benefits.
My hon. Friend also referred to the overall rate of benefits and drew attention to disability living allowance and attendance allowance. As he mentioned, from next April we shall improve DLA by extending the higher rate mobility component to three and four-year-old children. We shall also do more for people with the most severe disabilities, who are on the lowest incomes and receive the higher rate care component of DLA. Under the new disability income guarantee, which comes into operation next April, they will receive a further enhancement of their benefit. That enhancement would have provided a minimum income of £128 a week, but as a result of these measures, it will be £142—£14 more. A single, severely disabled person on income support will receive £142; a couple will receive £186.80.
634
We have made further changes to improve the benefits of disabled people and their carers. We realise that it is hard for people with disabled children to support their families, so we are increasing the disabled child premium in income support by £7.40 a week—raising the amount to £30 a week.
In response to a point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham, we recognise the pressures on carers. I have mentioned our intention—when legislative time permits—to extend new claims to ICA to people aged over 65. These regulations introduce improvements for carers from next April. The carers premium rises by £10 above the normal inflation uprating to £24.40 a week.
The measures for disabled children and for carers and the introduction of disability income guarantee will help about 350,000 of the poorest and most vulnerable families.
The decision to equate the MIG to the highest rate for all pensioners who receive it is another radical step in our battle to end pensioner poverty. Many pensioners will receive a real-terms increase of £12.45 a week as a result of that measure alone. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) drew attention to the surplus of about £3 billion in the national insurance fund. However, the disability measures in the uprating are alone worth more than £200 million a year—this year, next year and in future—than a simple inflation uprating.
As for the pensions uprating, the value of the pensions increase is about £4.5 billion a year more in real terms than the regime that we inherited from the Conservatives in 1997. By 2002–03, there will be about £5 billion a year more for pensioners. That puts into perspective the £3 billion national insurance fund surplus. One could blow the money all at once, but then it would not be there for the future, so the Government are following prudent policies; we are building an economy that generates resources and allows real-terms increases in benefits for disabled people and for pensioners. However, that must have a sustainable basis.
Mr. Kirkwood: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point; the figures have been published and they are clear. I repeat the practical question that I put during my speech. Is it possible for Ministers to ask the Benefits Agency to assist positively all of us who have the opportunity to promote local take-up campaigns in our constituencies? Obviously, we must be careful, because without proper support such campaigns may generate a volume of applications that the benefits agencies cannot cope with. Will the hon. Gentleman commit himself to helping Members who are working locally—with citizens advice bureaux and so on—on such campaigns?
Mr. Bayley: I welcome the spread of take-up campaigns to reinforce the Government's work on the biggest and most successful such campaign—on MIG. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we do not have the power to make discretionary grants to CABs or other groups who undertake similar work. However, we should be happy to see and support such work.
The fact that we have got so far with the MIG take-up campaign—about 60,000 additional cases, and it is not over yet—is something that we should celebrate. Indeed, the hon. Member for Northavon was celebrating that.
The orders give additional help where it is most needed: more help for severely disabled adults and children and for those who care for disabled people. They provide a

635
guarantee that, from April, no pensioner need live on an income of less than £92.15 a week. We have listened to pensioners and introduced reforms through the pension credit proposals to ensure that saving is rewarded instead of being penalised as it was in the past. We have acted to ensure that all pensioners benefit from the country's rising prosperity, by proposing—from next year—an increase in the basic state pension of £5 a week for a single person and £8 a week for a couple.
I commend the orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 13th December, be approved.

Pensions
Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 30th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Bayley.]

Adjournment (Christmas)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Betts.]
2.39 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I want to talk about two local issues in my Tooting constituency, both of which involve the prison department of the Home Office. Local residents deeply oppose both projects, as I do myself.
The first issue is the opening, in Bedford hill in the Bedford ward of my constituency, of a hostel to house former high-risk ex-prison inmates. The second is the possible housing development on land in Heathfield square in the Springfield ward, which is at the rear of Wandsworth prison. I have written to the Minister of State at the Home Office who is responsible for prisons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on both issues.
There is enormous local opposition to the proposed opening of the hostel in January next year. There has also been an appalling lack of discussion with local people. The first real information about the project and its purpose came from the local press. We are given to understand that the hostel will house men who have been convicted of rape and offences against children. Is it any wonder that there is local opposition to the project?
I am appalled by the lack of any meaningful consultation. I, the local Member of Parliament, have not been informed about this project by anyone. I deplore the way in which an issue that we all know is sensitive in all constituencies has been dealt with. I shall comment in greater detail about that in a moment.
The area in which it is proposed to open the hostel contains a number of schools and nurseries. One has to ask whether the people who run those establishments were informed about the proposals for the hostel. When one starts to make inquiries, one finds that little information is available about the day-to-day running of the hostel. We do not know who will decide who will be allowed to reside in it, how it will be supervised or how risk assessments will be made of people who have been in prison, served their sentence, and are to go to the hostel.
I accept that there comes a time for prisoners to be released, but these people have committed very serious offences against society. We do not even know the long-term aims of the project because, sadly, we simply have not been informed by anyone. Against that background, the clear opposition and concern arose.
Local people in that area of my constituency take a clear view that the authorities have deliberately sought to keep quiet the purpose to which the hostel will be put. The local residents whom I represent are reasonable and tolerant people, but many of them have young children, and they know what can and does happen. In my view, they have already suffered enormously from the lack of information that I have described.
I realise that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who will reply to the debate, is not responsible for home affairs. Having heard him speak in similar Adjournment debates, I can say that, to his great credit, he always responds to the points that I, and all other hon. Members, raise. I am sure that he will respond to my comments about who has been consulted.
It would be nice to know whether there has been any real consultation with. Wandsworth council. I do not know about that, but I do know, as the whole House knows,

637
that if a local authority is not kept fully informed about this sort of project in its area, it could lead to the sort of protests that took place in Portsmouth a few months ago when it became known that paedophiles were living in a certain area. My constituents have made it clear to me that they certainly do not want that sort of action taking place in Balham; neither do I.
I have some advice for the Home Office, and for the Inner London probation service, which I believe is the real culprit behind the lack of available information. Apparently it held a meeting, but there is a great deal of confusion about exactly who attended. Certainly, no local residents were invited to attend. I, as the local Member of Parliament, was certainly not invited or even told about the meeting. Apparently, in the course of that meeting, it emerged that potential hostel residents might have committed serious offences. They might have carried out robberies with extreme violence, or been convicted of sexual abuse of children. As I said, the concern in my constituency should not surprise anyone.
I have tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the need for hon. Members—any hon. Member, not just myself—to be fully informed when such hostels are to be opened in their constituencies. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South replied:
As part of this process, it is recognised as good practice that the hon. Member for the constituency where the accommodation is located will be informed of the development, and that the hon. Member's views on the development will be taken into consideration.—[Official Report, 20 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 217W.]
Neither of those two requirements suggested by my right hon. Friend have applied to me. No one has consulted me or asked me my views about the proposal.
We should now consider the matter most seriously. Until there has been proper discussion with the local community, the local council, schools, churches and other local organisations, the proposed hostel should not open. It is as clear as that. It should not open because we do not know about so many aspects of the hostel—what sort of supervision will be in place, for example. We have been given a clear indication of the type of person who will reside in it, but we do not know whether there will be 24-hour or seven-day supervision. I have the duty to voice in this House the real concerns expressed to me both by phone and in the large number of letters that I have received from my constituents, who are deeply troubled.
I hope that the Minister will convey to the Home Secretary the fact that the hostel must not be opened until local people have been given the right to full consultation, which has so far been denied them. They must be allowed to voice their views about the proposals for the hostel, but I say that it should not be opened at all. The hostel was formerly used for ex-offenders, and my constituents accepted that, because there are people who have been in prison and served their sentence, and are not a threat to society. However, I am not talking about that; the problem is that, because it was already a hostel, no planning application was needed for a change of use. That is what concerns us so deeply. I ask my hon. Friend to convey those feelings to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The other issue that I wish to talk about also involves the prison department. According to the Home Office, land at the rear of Wandsworth prison is now surplus to
638
its needs, and there is a proposal that that land should be used for housing development. As with the previous issue, there is great opposition to that development taking place. If it were allowed, it would spoil the whole local environment, because it is a large open space used by local people of all ages, especially young children.
In fairness to the Home Office, I should say that, unlike the other issue, there has been consultation on that issue. Wandsworth council has presented a public consultation document, a public meeting has taken place, and the issue will go before the council's planning committee. I accept those procedures, as we all do. Although those procedures are necessary, it is also crucial to listen principally to the views of the people who live in the area. It is no good the authorities—whether the Government or local authorities—telling the community, "This land belongs to us, and we will do whatever we think appropriate with it." They should listen to the people who live in that environment to discover to what use they want the land to be put.
I have received an enormous number of letters from local people, and many of them have come to see me at my advice service, but to date, only one person has written to me in support of the Home Office proposals for housing development on that site. Those who live in the area are truly a local community. Their youngsters play in the area with their friends. The area is used for a great many activities during the year. Parents feel very happy for their children to be in that environment, away from the mass of traffic that circulates in the area. They can easily see their children, and can be with them in few seconds if necessary. If the housing development is allowed to take place, that environment would be lost to local people.
When people write to me and when they see me, they tell me that children love the area; it is peaceful, quiet and away from traffic, and a wide range of sport—football, cricket and badminton, for example—is played there. We are repeatedly told in the House that those are the very things that that young people and adults should be involved in, which is why that open space is so important. A great deal of wildlife can been seen there. People see foxes, birds and hedgehogs. It is all part of a community that is growing up in an environment in which people are happy to live, and they want to continue to live there; they enjoy it.
The green, as it is known locally, has existed for more than 100 years. The prison governor of the time dedicated it for use as a recreation and leisure facility for prison staff and their families. That is still one of its uses, because it is adjacent to Wandsworth prison, and many of those who are most vehement in their criticism of the loss of that open space to housing development are prison officers. We all know that their job is very difficult and stressful. The working environment can be pretty grim at times, but immediately in the area where they live, they have an environment—an open space—where they can relax, and where they and their friends, families and neighbours can enjoy themselves. We are totally opposed to that delightful open space being turned into a housing development and lost to the local community.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. I have raised two local issues of great importance to my constituents. I beg the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who has responsibility for prisons, to listen carefully to my comments. The issues are totally different, but they

639
are very important to the people whom I represent. Like all hon. Members, I have a duty to raise such concerns when given the opportunity, and I have certainly done so today.
2.56 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I shall speak about an issue that, I hope, is of concern to colleagues and hon. Members—the House itself. The issue is typified, in a sense, by the fact that the shadow Leader of the House is on the Opposition Front Bench, but the Leader of the House is not on the Treasury Bench. For three years, I was parliamentary private secretary to Lord Wakeham when he was Leader of the House. It was inconceivable that the then Leader of the House would not be present to respond to such a debate. It is a great pity that this debate has been downgraded. Although I obviously respect the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), it is also a great pity that the Leader of the House will not respond to the debate.
I want to speak briefly about an important issue, but I do not expect that it will receive any coverage in my local newspapers or in tomorrow's national newspapers, because it is not worthy of a soundbite. My concern is the way in which the House is being dumbed down by the Government and the fact that Parliament, as an institution, seems to matter less and less. We see that not just in the way in which the other place has been stripped of its independent powers, but in the way in which the House is treated. We also see it in the way in which Government Back Benchers seem not to appreciate that calling the Government to account is part of their role.
When I was a Minister, I found a number of my Back Benchers a complete pain in the neck, but I loved them dearly. They served an important constitutional role, and one Nick Budgen was, on occasion, worth 10 placemen. If the House is simply full of placemen and placewomen, it ceases to have any effect; we need grit in the wheels for it to work. We have an unwritten constitution, which has developed and evolved over the years. It is like an English wood; it did not appear suddenly in the aftermath of war or revolution—like the American or French constitutions—but it works.
My concern is that the Prime Minister seems increasingly to want to enhance his powers so that they become almost presidential. He seems to have forgotten that this is a parliamentary democracy. I would be very disappointed if I were a new Labour Back Bencher. Judging by the Prime Minister's voting record, I suspect that the opportunities for Labour Back Benchers to talk to him are pretty limited. When I joined the House, the then Prime Minister was in the Division Lobby every night, but I have to say to my constituents that the present Prime Minister is not in the Division Lobby every night; he votes in only about 10 per cent. of all Divisions.
In the whole of this Parliament, I have never yet seen the Prime Minister in the Tea Room, whereas, when I joined the House, the then Prime Minister was often there, taking an interest in every one of us. When I was a junior Minister, the one thing that I was wary of was seeing the Prime Minister bearing down on me in the Division Lobby, wanting to understand what I had—or, more
640
important, had not—been doing that day on a particular policy issue. We seem to have moved away from all that, which is desperately sad.
We have witnessed the decimation of the House of Lords. By that, I do not mean the removal of the hereditary peers. Intellectually, one can see why it was difficult to defend hereditary peers, but in a strange and quirky way, the system worked. It was independent. When the Conservatives were in government, our concern at being defeated in the House of Lords frequently made Ministers adjust their policies. We frequently had to compromise with the House of Lords, and the system worked.
The House of Lords was the one institution of Parliament that had an element of independence, and that element has been removed. No one fully understands where the Government are going with their proposed reform of the House of Lords. In fact, one suspects that they have no idea where they wish to go with it. There was much debate about the new people's peers, but the proposal is a great cynical exercise. It is merely a commission to appoint Cross-Bench peers. I suspect that, at the end of that exercise, all that will happen is that 10 Cross-Bench peers—worthy individuals such as vice-chancellors of universities or past presidents of the Royal College of Physicians—will be appointed by that commission.
We have no idea what the Labour party proposes to do with the House of Lords to make it an independent institution again. The Prime Minister has appointed more life peers to the House of Lords in three years than Conservative Prime Ministers did in the previous 18 years. That is the extent of the patronage in the House of Lords. It is no longer an independent body, and no longer a body with any grit in the system.
There seems to be an implied understanding, as far as Labour Members are concerned, that if they have a majority in the House of Commons, they should also have a majority in the other place. If that happens, the system will become an "elective dictatorship"—the concept about which Lord Hailsham expressed concern some years ago. We hope to gain a clear understanding of how the House of Lords can, again, become a body that will ensure that the House of Commons and the Executive are kept in check.
We are also concerned about the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has a strange view of this place. He has attended only about 10 per cent. of Divisions during this Parliament, which is distressing because it seems to indicate a state of mind in which scrutiny is not important. Furthermore, dissent in this place has almost entirely disappeared. I appreciate that eliminating dissent is good news from the point of view of the Government Whips, and from the point of view of business managers such as the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who has a duty to get the Government's business through with the least possible difficulty. However, eliminating dissent is not good news for. Parliament.
Mr. John Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House who introduced the Jopling proposals? Does he think that those proposals enhanced this place or diminished it?
Mr. Baldry: I shall come to that issue in a moment. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point, but I do not wish to detain the House for long, because I appreciate that many other Members wish to speak.

641
The concept of modernisation has been about altering hours and changing voting arrangements and the times at which voting takes place. Nothing that has happened so far, supposedly in the name of modernisation, has enhanced the ability of elected Members to hold the Executive to account. The opposite is the case: nothing that has happened in the name of modernisation has enhanced by one jot the ability of Back Benchers on either side of the House to call the Government to account. Instead, we have witnessed some elegant moving of the furniture. However, the ability to vote 10 times in one minute on a Wednesday afternoon in the Division Lobby does not enable me to hold the Executive to account any more ably.
This Parliament has seen the fewest rebellions by Back Benchers of any Parliament since the second world war. By this stage in the previous Parliament, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was Prime Minister, there had been almost two thirds more Divisions in which Ministers had been confronted with dissent from their own Back Benchers. Of course, that was an irritant for us—it was often a complete pain in the neck—but it made the system work. One was accountable to one's own Back Benchers and to people at the other end of the Corridor. That made Ministers think. This Government have the most compliant group of Back Benchers since the 1940s. They might think that having everyone on message on their pagers is good news, but it is not good for Parliament as an institution. It is sad news, because such practices tend to be passed down from generation to generation.
Derek Draper, a former lobbyist and adviser to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), observed that only 17 people nowadays count. Practically none of those people is an elected Member of Parliament. I want us to try to work out ways in which elected Members of the House of Commons will have greater opportunities to call the Executive to account.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition set up the Norton report under the chairmanship of Lord Norton of Louth. It made 90 interesting suggestions, including the restoration of Prime Minister's Question Time to twice a week, which would give us a greater opportunity to call the Prime Minister to account. The report also called for more Question Times and shorter debates with more opportunities for Back Benchers to speak. Shoving us all off into Westminster Hall—a sort of empty cavern—does not assist us in calling Ministers to account. We need to strengthen Committees, and to improve the opportunities of Select Committees to make representations to the House.
We should improve the way in which European legislation is monitored in the House. I was the Minister responsible for fisheries in the previous Conservative Government, and I find it extraordinary that we did not have a debate on the Fisheries Council meeting this year. Every year, we used to have a full day's debate on the Council's proposals, which would enable colleagues from fishing constituencies to express their concerns and to vote on them. There has been no such debate this year. Indeed, at best, the relevant documents were referred to a Committee to be scrutinised. That is no way for the House to perform.
642
Part of our agenda for 2001 must be to strengthen the institutions of Parliament on a cross-party basis. As an increasingly tubby and gnarled Back Bencher, I do not believe that the work of the Modernisation Committee is strengthening accountability and democracy in this place, no matter how much I may or may not support breast-feeding in different parts of the Palace. What has happened in the name of modernisation is nothing other than a matter of convenience for the Leader of the House and business managers. Nothing has enhanced and increased the ability of Back Benchers on both sides of the House to call the Executive to account.
If we allow Parliament to continue in that way, we will become increasingly irrelevant. We are moving towards an elective, almost unaccountable and uncheckable dictatorship, which would be to no one's benefit. As we go further into this century, I hope that Parliament as an institution can start to apply its mind to ensuring that we modernise in a way that restores the checks and balances that have evolved for centuries, but which seem in danger of disappearing.
3.11 pm
Ms Jenny Jones: I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the importance of urban forestry in our towns and cities, and the threat that it faces. I originally raised the issue in a similar debate in March 1999. At the time, a national newspaper described Wolverhampton as one of the country's greenest and cleanest cities. It was not quite right, because at that time Wolverhampton was still a town—albeit a town that was enthusiastically bidding for city status. As the House knows, earlier this week we received the good news that it is to become one of the three millennium cities. When I left Wolverhampton on Monday morning to catch the train here, I left some very happy people behind. The celebrations are already under way.
I want to put it on the record that we are delighted that that special distinction has been conferred on the town. We take the matter seriously and it is a boost to the town's confidence. However, a slight shadow has been cast over the celebrations. Although the debates on it are not meant to be partisan, I was a little disappointed to read the front page of The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday morning which reported an Opposition Front Bencher as malting churlish remarks about the award of city status. We must bear it in mind that the Queen ultimately grants the distinction.
On reading other papers, I discovered that some members of the media had decided that the award was another excuse to air unfounded prejudices about Wolverhampton. The Times and The Daily Telegraph contained the most amazing amount of breath-taking drivel about Wolverhampton that I had ever read. It was based on pure ignorance of the town, or city as it now is, and its past achievements. I have one thing to say to those critics: visit Wolverhampton, stay for a while, accept the extremely warm welcome that will be given by Wulfrunians and take the time to find out what it has achieved in its 1,000 year history, because for more than 1,000 years it has contributed significantly to this country's economic, social and cultural life. If any town deserves city status, it is Wolverhampton.
If the critics of the new city take time to discover what Wolverhampton is really like, I guarantee that they will be pleasantly surprised because all strangers invariably leave

643
saying that it is much better and nicer than they thought it would be. Having got that off my chest, I shall return to the substance of my speech.
When I spoke in March 1999, I highlighted the importance of urban woodland, in particular, mature street trees, to our towns and cities. In addition to making places look more pleasant, trees also benefit areas by improving air quality, reducing the risk of flooding, which is very relevant these days, and increasing biodiversity. I am not the only Member of the House who believes that. In June this year, I tabled an early-day motion that was signed by 173 Back Benchers from all main parties.
The early-day motion called on the Government to ensure the protection and promotion of urban trees and woodlands by developing a national strategy. We expected the Government to set out their polices in the urban White Paper, which was published last month. It refers to the importance of looking after the urban environment, to improving air quality, to coping with climate change and to improving the quality of life in our towns and cities by promoting wildlife and environmental initiatives. To sum up, it promotes environmentally sustainable towns and cities. However, to do that, the relevant Department—the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—will have to produce a coherent and co-ordinated urban forestry strategy, and it does not have one.
The headquarters of the National Urban Forestry Unit is in Wolverhampton. Its staff are experts in developing urban forestry strategy. The unit has been operating for six years and receives considerable funding from the Department to carry out its work. That funding ceases in March next year and negotiations have been under way to secure future funding so that it can continue its good work and, hopefully, help the Department to formulate the strategy that it needs.
The Department has admitted many times that the work of the unit is valuable and it is acknowledged as extremely effective. Despite that, a press release nearly two weeks ago said that the Department would probably not provide the unit with any more funding from the end of March next year. I understand that negotiations might be under way or will resume in the new year, and I hope that the Department can be persuaded to rethink its decision. It will be a pity if it does not.
Several environmental organisations "plant trees", as an official of the Department put it, including Groundwork, the Tree Council and the Forestry Commission, but they are unique and do different jobs. It is a mistake to think that the work of the National Urban Forestry Unit can automatically be taken on by another organisation.
Powerful lobbying has taken place behind the scenes. The unit has conducted schemes in at least 50 other constituencies. I hope that negotiations will continue. If they do not, and the unit's future is threatened, I am not convinced that the Department will be able to produce the coherent strategy that it needs to take urban forestry seriously.
I want to send the message to the Department that it should keep on talking to the National Urban Forestry Unit. An important issue is at stake. The urban White Paper recognises that we need to pay much more attention to urban forestry. Although I will retire from the House at the
644
general election, I must remind Ministers that I have several months left to table questions and early-day motions, and to keep a close eye on what Ministers are doing.
I think that I have used up my allotted time. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House a merry Christmas and a happy holiday. This year, we in Wolverhampton will enjoy very happy and very special new year celebrations.
3.19 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) referred to our late colleague, predecessor to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones). I admire Wolverhampton and I am glad for its people in their rejoicing at its becoming at city. I had not realised that the hon. Lady was to retire; I shall be doing the same myself and I hope that her retirement is as pleasurable as I hope mine will be. I also hope that, in yet another place from the one down the Corridor, the hon. Lady's predecessor is smiling at the subjects that she feels should delay our rising for Christmas.
It is in the nature of recess Adjournment debates that the subjects most likely to be on our minds are those that might be called real time stuff—current issues that have been running strongly in the weeks before we rise and in relation to which Parliament's temporary pause might work against our scrutiny of the Executive. Examples that I might have cited in arguments to delay our recess are the letting of the new lottery contract and the state of the Metropolitan police.
To his credit, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was present in the Chamber at 1.45 am on Tuesday 19 December, when we debated two national lottery orders. However, he has gone to ground since Lord Burns announced his commission's decision on the letting of the new lottery contract later that day. Even the Delphic oracle, that most ambiguous mistress, would have agreed that there were questions to be put to the Secretary of State about the process and its outcome, including, as I understand it, questions asked by Sir Richard Branson himself. However, at business questions today, in response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) speaking for the Liberal Democrats, the Leader of the House opined implicitly that her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be allowed to hibernate after his labours in the small hours of Tuesday, and that urgency in dealing with the matter would not be appropriate in the aftermath of a process that had already taken 12 months.
The issues relating to the Metropolitan police are more urgent, whatever the Government have chosen to say about the interest shown in them by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. In the recent Commons debate on policing in London, in which I suspect the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) also participated, I alluded to concern about police numbers in London being a constant refrain at every recent meeting I had attended in my constituency, whether of amenities societies, residents' associations, police-community consultative groups or sector working parties. The issue is not one that has suddenly surprised the Government, but, as is so often the case with the current Home Office Ministers, their answer has been simply to blame their predecessors.
The most dramatic consequence of the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was the markedly more conciliatory tone

645
adopted by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), on the "Today" programme this morning. In addition, the length of the Prime Minister's final answer to my right hon. Friend yesterday clearly indicated that he did not have a killer fact with which to end the exchange—it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman did not know how or where to stop. The issue will not go away during the Christmas recess, but perhaps that which we have so far received is all that the Government can generate at present.
A matter on which I shall dwell briefly is one to which I referred in business questions last week as
the ambiguities in the current European defence imbroglio. [Official Report, 14 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 810.]
I asked why the Secretary of State for Defence, after being absent from the Queen's Speech defence debate, was not to come to the House before it rose to clarify those ambiguities. The Leader of the House explained that confusion existed only in the minds of Conservative Members. Leaving aside the philosophical question of how anyone knows what goes on—or does not go on—in the mind of another, at business questions today I asked the Leader of the House whether her answer last week was a subjective remark of her own, or an objective remark on behalf of the Government. She replied that it was the former. Therefore, the possibility must exist that there are ambiguities in current European defence matters that extend beyond the minds of Conservatives. However, it is clear that the Government perceive no obligation to address those ambiguities. Given what they are committing us to, the matter seems sufficiently important to delay the House rising for Christmas.
I centre my remarks on a remark that the Prime Minister made in his statement after the Nice European Council. In the context of an EU-led operation to which he had just alluded, he said:
Any significant operation will require NATO assets and any such operation will be planned at NATO by the planning staff at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe—SHAPE.—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 349–50.]
Later, in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Prime Minister said:
There is no way in which the force will be a rival to NATO—
adding that—
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether it was better to develop our defence capability inside NATO … That point has been made by our American allies … Bill Cohen did not take the opposite point of view. He said exactly what we have been saying, which is that, provided that the force is not an independent military capability and a rival to NATO, its establishment is in America's interest.…[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 365.]
When, last month, the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement on European defence co-operation, he made no reference to planning, save to say:
It is a planning process to ensure a more effective defence effort by European forces.…[Official Report, 22 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 314.]
In advance of the Nice European Council, President Chirac had said…I quote in English:
European defence must of course be co-ordinated with the alliance, but it must, as regards its preparation and implementation, be independent of SHAPE: co-ordinated, but independent, and that is the best way to reinforce the whole Atlantic alliance.
That message was reiterated in a statement from the Quai d'Orsay of 15 December, reprinted by Associated Press, which stated that leaving all planning to SHAPE would
646
leave it under US control. After Nice, on 13 December, Agence France Presse reported that EU leaders had called for "guaranteed permanent access" to NATO planning and had maintained that
the Europeans would have their own smaller planning capability, based mainly on British and French expertise.
On the same day, Associated Press reported Mr. Cohen, the United States Defence Secretary, as saying:
The European Union will erode NATO and US security ties if it insists on separate operational planning for its new rapid reaction force.
The Government may take the view that they are not responsible for what President Chirac says, but there is little doubt elsewhere that the French Government have been the main motor in the European defence initiative. The Government cannot dismiss the draft presidency report on the European security and defence policy, especially annexe 7 to the presidency conclusions, which treats on consultation and co-operation between the European force and the NATO alliance. In particular, I cite a quotation from page 9 of the draft presidency report. It reads:
The European Union will call on NATO for operational planning of any operation using NATO assets and capabilities. When the Union examines options with a view to an operation, the establishing of its strategic military options could involve—
I emphasise could—
a contribution by Nato's planning capabilities.
Leaving aside the discretionary nature of the second statement that I have quoted, it has necessarily to carry the implication that the European defence force will have a military planning capacity of its own.
I have gone back to the ipsissima verba that underlie the issue. The various statements that I have quoted cannot be squared as being mutually consistent with one another, except in an ambiguous and confusing manner which is the precise antithesis of successful military operations.
One of my retired constituents appears as an expert witness before Select Committees on transport issues. In retirement, he devotes much of his time to military history, including visits to a series of scenes of military engagements abroad. I asked him once how he chose his campaigns. "Cock-ups", he said. I can hope only that the European rapid reaction force will not elicit his attention in future.
A week ago, the Leader of the House resisted my request that the Secretary of State for Defence should come to the House this week to clarify these issues. The right hon. Lady was confident, as the deputy Leader of the House knows, that no confusion or ambiguity existed in the mind of the Government. I am only sorry that she is not present now to resolve my anxieties. By definition, from her own lips, she believes there to be no confusion.
Of course, her confidence has been such, extending to the entire Government, that I know in advance that the deputy Leader of the House will be able to set my anxieties at rest and enable me to enjoy the Christmas recess without these issues to worry about. However, he will not be able to do that with soft and soothing words, which would sharpen my anxieties. I am looking forward to resolution of the contradictions that the statements that I have quoted engender by a robust and rigorous textual analysis and a detailed explanation of how the European force's military planning will be carried out.
3.30 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). We all remember that he found the right form of words to start the peace process in Northern Ireland. He chairs the Select Committee on Northern Ireland, of which I am a member, and does that in an excellent way that is a credit to the House and an assistance towards continuing the process. I wish him well when he leaves the House, as I do my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).
I shall raise two constituency items. I had intended to raise only one, which is a matter that I have talked about previously and have raised at every opportunity. That is the closure of the former Biwater (Clay Cross) Ltd. works, with the loss of 700 jobs, and the devastation surrounding that. That is the main item on which I shall concentrate.
I was contacted a couple of hours ago by one of my constituents, Kevin Stevenson, from Wingerworth, whose wife went into the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital, and was sectioned five weeks ago. She got out of the hospital, and is now being looked for through co-ordinated police action with helicopters and divers at Stubbin pond at Wingerworth, her spectacles having been discovered nearby. We are fearing the worst but we are hoping for the best.
I stress that it is the Government's responsibility to examine the means by which Nichola Stevenson was able to leave the ward and the hospital, and put herself in an extremely dangerous position. There are some shortcomings at the hospital. It is being said that she had been released from the ward to go to Menzies, the stationers, in the hospital. If that occurred, that is disgraceful. She was sectioned and needed to be supervised. The matter must not be missed. A formal complaint has been put forward by Mr. Stevenson, and it must be ensured that there is a thorough investigation.
Unfortunately, a previous thorough investigation did not come up with the result that some of us had hoped for. It is the hospital which Anita Froggart attended. She, too, is one of my constituents. She had a breast removed in error, the wrong diagnosis having been made. The hospital has recently had a report produced by the Commission for Health Improvement, which points to shortcomings in that area. The Commission's role was to seek to improve standards. In other areas, the hospital has an excellent record and one to be emulated by others. The excellence of its accident unit is stressed in the report. However, there are shortcomings that need to be addressed.
When the Department of Health studies the clinical governance review, I hope that it will also consider the other serious matter that I have raised. As I speak, divers are searching the pond.
The main item about which I shall speak is the one that I have raised at every opportunity since we came back from the summer recess. Apart from contributions in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and two other questions in the House during that time, I have spoken in the House exclusively about this matter.
I was closely involved in the campaign to save the jobs, because we believed that the decision was wrong. The plant was viable; 80 per cent. of its production was for the export market. Serious job losses have occurred.
648
The matter should have been referred to the Competition Commission, in an attempt to prevent the closure. It is a matter about which I have been in dispute with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and with the Director General of Fair Trading.
Now that the closure has occurred—there is a further stage tomorrow, after which very little will remain—we must move on and consider how to bring about the regeneration of such a devastated area. The problems are massive.
A valuable survey has been produced by Derbyshire county council, which shows that the figure for male unemployment in the area must take into account not only the redundancies, but the other jobs lost in service trades—many have already been lost in scrap yards, for example—and in the community, in shops and so on.
In Clay Cross, South, the ward in which Biwater is situated, as a result just of redundancies, male unemployment has risen from 8.2 per cent. to 14.5 per cent. In Clay Cross, North there has been a similar increase, from 8.5 per cent. to 14.7 per cent. In the surrounding area—Clay Cross plus Grassmoor, Holmewood and Heath, North Wingfield, Pilsley, Tupton and Wingerworth—the male unemployment figures increased by almost 60 per cent. because 75 per cent. of those who have been made redundant live within a five-mile radius of the plant.
The closure has been devastating. The area has not overcome past economic problems. It supplied many miners to the pits in north Derbyshire, and some former miners later worked at Biwater. An indication that the area was facing economic problems even before the closure is provided by the proportion of vacant shop units. In 1987, the figure was 5 per cent, and this year it is 18 per cent. The figures refer to virtually the same number of units.
Those figures give some indication of the plight that the Clay Cross area faces. Everything must be done to ensure that the area is regenerated. Some three weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I met the Prime Minister to discuss the situation. At that stage we were still hoping to save the plant.
Although the Prime Minister did not accept that our objective could be achieved, he stated:
We have to work up a Task Force approach as the alternative and I will co-operate in any way I can.
The Prime Minister supplied me with access to officials at No. 10 Downing street to try to work up a co-ordinated approach. The problem is that there are little bits and pieces and different types of legislation under which moves can be taken to improve an area. We need a clear overall strategy to be worked out and co-ordination to achieve it. There are Government agencies for doing that, such as the Government office of the east midlands, which I met this week to discuss these matters. However, at this level, the Prime Minister's office is very much at the centre in seeing that action is taken across all the different areas.
I want to mention one or two possibilities that can be acted upon. At the moment, a rapid response fund is operating and there are attempts at tailored training plans for the workers, although there is some dissatisfaction about how they are run and the agencies that are employed to operate them. Indeed, the agencies sometimes seem to benefit from their operations, rather than the workers

649
themselves. There are also employment services and tax breaks. Coalfields taskforce money is available and bids can be made to the Coalfield Regeneration Trust in an attempt to change things. There is an argument about whether an enterprise zone should be established in that area. However, there have been job losses in surrounding areas in the east midlands, such as those at Coats Viyella, so everyone may be trying to go down that road. However, there is strong case for attracting firms in using tax breaks and other methods.
The district council has set up a Clay Cross regeneration project and is looking at several matters, such as re-opening the station at Clay Cross. What will happen to the former Biwater site, where a peculiar deal was in operation? Biwater kept hold of the land and the buildings, and Saint-Gobain, the international firm that came in to knock out a competitor and take over its order book, had only the plant, those orders and the work force. We do not yet know what Biwater has in mind. We need clarification of its ideas, and action is being taken to achieve that. We do not want a waste disposal operation of an objectionable environmental nature to be established. However, things could be done with the site that could help employment in the area.
Several schemes are already in place, as Clay Cross needed schemes to provide welfare advice services and tackle health issues, security measures, drug control and so on. The council has been involved in a development at Coney Green, and several measures that are being developed in surrounding areas, such as the reclamation of Avenue coke works. However, there is a need to centre on matters such as the single regeneration budget and enterprise and regional selective assistance grants, which will attract firms to make applications for them. There is the question of whether to establish an urban development corporation, which would have Government funding and operations behind it, but which might take over some of the district council's functions. We must also overcome existing problems, including poor funding for North East Derbyshire district council and Derbyshire county council. I have argued about that in the House for more than decade, so I will not go through all those arguments again. Under the Green Paper, it seems that we will now have to wait three years before those matters are put right. However, that indicates that something needs to be done.
The loss of objective 2 funding is another problem involving the Department of Trade and Industry. Objective 2 funding has gone from Clay Cross in those circumstances and the area also receives a lower share of lottery funding. What is required is the drawing down of best practice elsewhere, and the Prime Minister's office and others can help us to achieve that.
The local strategy on which people are working must be picked up and worked on nationally. When the Prime Minister says that he will do whatever he can, we want it to become reality. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he would do whatever he could to save the plant, but that did not work and we must now ensure that we get the proper responses. It is important for that to be put on the record before the recess.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I point out that a number
650
of hon. Members on both sides of the House want to participate in the debate. It will, therefore, be helpful if hon. Members can keep their remarks as brief as possible.
3.45 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Indeed, it is reassuring for Opposition Members to know that some Labour Members listen with scepticism to the words uttered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his hard work to achieve a positive result for his constituents. When I was a Minister with responsibility for housing, I paid a pleasurable visit to Clay Cross. Indeed, I still have a picture on the wall to remind me of the occasion.
I want to harangue the Government again about the increasing administrative inefficiency that is experienced by the constituents of all hon. Members. Such inefficiency adds to the burden of bureaucracy, as well as to the burden placed on Members of Parliament and their secretaries. It also creates additional cost.
I should like to give five examples from my constituency of the effects of administrative inefficiency. Recently, the pension of an elderly lady was abruptly withdrawn because it was suddenly decided in officialdom that she was no longer alive. It has been a nightmare for her to try to get her pension restored. She now has to walk around with her birth certificate—indeed, she almost needs a doctor's certificate saying that she is alive—to try to obtain the benefits to which she is entitled.
Another example of such problems arose in the past month. A doctor who had paid his national insurance contributions for some 40 years reached his retirement, but did not receive notification of his pension, so he applied for it. About three months after doing so, he received a claim form. He sent back the form straight away, but the Totton benefits office disputes that he ever did so. The system and its bureaucracy, for which the Government are ultimately responsible, are treating the retired doctor and his wife, who posted the letter, as if they are liars. They are also behaving as if every aspect of their organisation is thoroughly efficient. That is intolerable. The doctor has to write to me and I have to write in turn to the Department, the Minister and so on. All that wasteful bureaucracy results from inefficiency.
Another of my constituents is a war pensioner who travelled all the way from Christchurch to Exeter last August for a tribunal hearing. When he arrived in Exeter, he found that the War Pensions Agency had not given the full papers to the tribunal, which ordered that a rehearing should occur straight away. However, he is still waiting to be notified of its date. I telephoned the War Pensions Agency last week and was told that the matter was in the hands of the tribunal. I then spoke to the tribunal, but was told that it might be February before the case was reheard. I remind hon. Members that the previous hearing has already been adjourned.
Another recent case is that of a constituent who was the victim of a car accident. He eventually succeeded in badgering the Crown Prosecution Service into bringing a prosecution. On doing so, however, the CPS failed to warn the witnesses and the case was consequently dismissed by the magistrates. In terms of his insurance, my constituent is left up the creek without a paddle.

651
Finally, the media studies A-level paper of the best performing pupil at Ferndown upper school was marked with a C, rather than an A, solely because his marks were not added up correctly. The school complained, but, unfortunately, it took until the end of September to add up the marks correctly, by which time the pupil had missed the opportunity of pursuing the university course that he wanted to take. I took up the issue with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and this week received from it a letter that is far too complacent. The letter says that
the number of changes to awarded grades needed in the light of checking remains very small … 0.3 per cent. for A level and about 0.1 per cent. for GCSE.
That means that the results of three in every 1,000 A-level papers are wrong, which is intolerable and appalling. The QCA suggests that my constituent take legal advice with a view to seeking redress. What a waste of time. He does not want to engage in such a long process; he wants the system to be put right, and he would not have minded an apology rather than a letter of justification from the examination board.
The issue of delays in ministerial correspondence is one to which we return frequently in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made the point that the Government often appear to treat Members of Parliament with contempt. On 18 October, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Security on behalf of a man concerned about war widows' pensions. I have not yet received a reply, but my constituent has written back to me to say:
I am afraid your effort on my behalf in respect of the Secretary of State (DSS) on October 18 has so far brought no response, so I will be most grateful if he could be given a reminder.
During my service in the headquarters of a government department, the receipt of all mail was acknowledged by return of post and the contents dealt with in a prompt and respectful manner, whoever the writer and whatever the subject. We were never allowed to forget that the Taxpayer picked up the bill for our salaries!
There is a pensioner with some old-fashioned values. Is it not about time that the Government inculcated some of the same thinking in their administration and the way in which they deal with correspondence?
Due to the limited time available, I shall not regale the House with descriptions of all the other letters to which I await replies, but they cover the whole range of Departments. The Government talk about better government, but people know that they are experiencing worse government. That is not the only example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. Education funding is a hot topic in Dorset, and in the past month I have received more than 100 letters about the injustice of the funding formula. That matter dates back to the area cost adjustment.
The Minister will remember that, before the general election, the Prime Minister went to Cambridge, which had been adversely affected by the area cost adjustment. He led people there to believe that he was sympathetic to their cause and would do something about the injustice of the area cost adjustment as soon as he got into power because it was arbitrary and unfair. I do not have to remind the House that absolutely nothing has happened.
652
Therefore, the F40 campaign has been started, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is behind it.
I am a member of the campaign because my constituency contains one of the worst-funded local education authorities in the country. Indeed, in the recent settlement, Dorset received the lowest funding increase per primary school pupil and the second lowest funding increase for secondary schools. In a letter, the hon. Member for Stafford writes:
The formula for distributing the Revenue Support Grant to local authorities remains unchanged. However, data changes have been incorporated in the usual way. The important data change this year relates to the 1999 earnings data. Outrageously, the data benefits those authorities already gaining from the Area Cost Adjustment— so that gap between "them" and "us" widens.
There it is, from a Labour Member of Parliament. He has said that, despite the Prime Minister's promise about doing away with the area cost adjustment, the injustice of it has been made worse by his Government.
The concessionary fares scheme is another example of the Government's saying one thing and doing another. They announced that there would be centralised funding for concessionary fares and said that they would put into local government more money than the cost represented by the additional burdens of such fares for all pensioners. It just so happens that two authorities, one of which is East Dorset district council, have not received a penny of extra funding because they are outside the grant mechanism.
The Government will not listen to those authorities, despite the fact that more than 25 per cent. of the residents of East Dorset are over retirement age. In order to meet the new minimum statutory requirement, it is likely that East Dorset district council will have to increase its council tax sharply, which falls disproportionately on pensioners on fixed incomes who are expected to benefit from the new concessionary fares. That is a ludicrous situation.
Finally, I shall highlight the consequences of another example of the Government's systematic deception of the people. In the pre-Budget statement on 8 November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced new arrangements for vehicle excise duty. He said:
All those who have a car from 1200 cc to 1500 cc—that is, an extra 5 million cars—will be entitled to £55 off their annual licence fee from today. In total, 8½ million existing cars—one in three—will now pay £55 below the standard fee.—[Official Report, 8 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 324.]
A constituent who phoned me on Monday said that he had received his renewal notice and was expected to pay £155 rather than £100. He had been on to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which said that it had received more than 1,000 telephone calls that very day on this subject. My constituent was not the only person who had been grossly misled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The new system does not come in until July next year, when it will be backdated. However, if my constituent changes his car between now and July, he will not benefit from any of that backdated duty. As a result of trying to be too clever by half with their spinning, the Government have misled the people. That has created an extra burden for the DVLA and additional correspondence for Members of Parliament. The Government have the gall to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the

653
Opposition that we would not substantially streamline administration, improve efficiency and save billions of pounds when we got back into government.
I hope that my constituents have a merry Christmas, but it will be in spite of the Government's policies rather than because of them.
3.57 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am aware of the time constraints, so I shall try to restrict my remarks to 10 minutes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Thank you. In case I forget at the end, I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all the hon. Members who have managed to endure the debate to the very end, a happy Christmas.
I shall raise two points briefly and two others in slightly more detail. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), as I have a redundancy problem with a well-known manufacturer in my constituency—Lister-Petter, the last independent diesel engine manufacturer in the country. It is a depressing scenario, but I have worked with others to achieve something of a recovery. Rather than lose all the jobs, we have managed to salvage 400 or so, but there are still 270 redundancies. That has brought it home to me how hard the redundancy process is and what should be done to ensure that all workers who go through that awful process are treated in the best way possible.
We have managed to put together a taskforce, and it is pleasing that the south-west regional development agency has become fully involved, and has given money to help the company and to buy the site. There ought to be manufacturing on that site, and if the Department of Trade and Industry comes up trumps in the next few days, we hope to pull together what has been a desperate situation. I hope that there will be a silver lining in the end.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire will share my concern that we spend a lot of time talking about help for agriculture—I spend much time defending farmers—but only a disproportionately small amount of time working on an industrial policy, with manufacturing at the forefront. We all know about the problems with the pound and the long-term under-investment in that sector, but that is no excuse for not trying to come up with a coherent strategy. We as a Government must bear some responsibility, although I hope that we shall try to do much more.
That idea is linked to my second point, which is about the need for a coherent energy policy. Again, the Government have been somewhat slow in that regard, but I pay due respect to them for beginning to produce the makings of what may be not only the right approach, but an approach that takes into account the producer, the consumer and the environment. It is in that context that we set so much store by renewables.
I must declare an interest, in that my biggest local employer is Berkeley, acting for British Nuclear Fuels. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary "come out" last Friday on "Any Questions" in support of nuclear power. I do not think it will be long before we must bite the bullet, and realise that a policy for effective energy production in future must involve a raft of different means. One will be nuclear energy; another will be renewables. There may also be a declining role for fossil fuels.
654
This week the Government responded to public examination of the south-west regional planning proposals made at a policy conference held last year, and also earlier this year. Such documents are always fairly opaque: it is necessary to read between the lines. At this point I must declare another interest, as a member of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I think we are disappointed that the housing provision figures were not entirely satisfactory, but the document also draws attention to some good signs. For instance, up to 50 per cent. of the increase in the amount of building is expected to extend to brownfield sites.
Such development is much more difficult in the south-west, because we have not the same number of such sites as areas elsewhere in the country, but a promising start has been made. Moreover, it has at long last been recognised that in my county of Gloucestershire, the core of any future development must involve the Gloucester-Cheltenham area. I do not want to be seen as dumping on my colleagues in the area, but I must say that, for all sorts of reasons—which have lain below the surface while both county and districts have reached their different planning policies—there has been a studious failure to realise the obvious, which is that where there is already a built-up area, it is necessary to start there and work outwards.
I personally favour a further dispersal of houses around the area concerned, rather than a concentration. However, I feel strongly that there should be a link with jobs and transport, and that planning should be more effective than it has been. Everyone seems to feel that it is now less about people than about developers, and less about doing what people want, than about imposing things on them, to a degree.

The Government should do something about that. They have made many good moves in initiating the monitoring of planning and design and ensuring the right levels of provision, but we must keep moving away from "predict and provide". Numbers tend to determine outcomes, which should be borne in mind by those who try to decide the most satisfactory way in which to operate the planning process. Surely that process is about building homes that people want, rather than homes that they apparently do not want, sucking in those who live elsewhere and encouraging them to commute many miles. We must grasp the nettle, and make changes for the better.
I want to spend slightly longer on my last point, although I shall no doubt be told if I go on too long. It relates directly to what appears to have been "the" debate of the end of the year: the debate on policing and law and order.
I shall make no particular comments about areas other than my own—I cannot speak from experience about what is happening in London, for instance—but I take a great interest in policing, and law and order, in my area. I have watched what has happened to police numbers, and it is very pleasing to see that in Gloucestershire, we are recruiting and beginning to put the people back on the establishment. Nevertheless, in the short term, numbers have decreased.
In the past few days—perhaps in response to the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition—some rather interesting posters have appeared, saying,
hohoho … more police officers.
Although I am not sure what the posters mean to the general public, I know that it would have been helpful if those who put them up had checked the planning

655
regulations. Enforcement action is being taken against the local Conservative party, which seems to have broken those regulations. In view of the police time that it takes to deal with such matters, perhaps those party members could themselves try harder to maintain law and order.
Policing is a real issue. When one goes out on patrol with police, as I do regularly, one sees policing in the raw, and what needs to be done not only to provide the right number of police, but to build their morale and ensure that they have all the right equipment.
The last point with which I shall leave my hon. Friend the Minister perhaps explains why I become so disdainful of attacks on the Government about policing. Of course there is a problem with budgets and a need for more resources. My own police authority has needed a sizeable increase in its precept. Consequently, last year, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and I visited the Home Office to explain why a rural sparsity factor was necessary. Ministers not only listened, but they introduced a rural sparsity factor in the settlement, which enabled us to recruit more police officers.
The underlying problem, however, has remained the same for many years. We have to deal with a serious problem created by the previous Government, who failed to deal with the consequences of police retirement policies. Police budgets have been heavily skewed by retirement costs. In Gloucestershire, about 19 per cent. of the police budget is immediately top-sliced to pay for retirement. Indeed, I should broaden that point to address an issue about which I get quite wound up—early retirement.
I believe that early retirement is as big a scandal as the way in which the state earnings-related pension scheme was handled, and the pensions mis-selling scandal. The early retirement scandal will haunt us for generations. Although it was a nice idea that people could be bought out of their jobs and go early—indeed, people fairly close to me did go early, from teaching, social work and the police—it was a bit foolhardy to expect that 10 years after they retired, they would disappear off the face of the earth. Although it is good that we now have a greater life expectancy, the increase in life expectancy has had a ratcheting effect on pensions, continually increasing pension costs.
Therefore, I take some of the attacks on the Government over policing with a pinch of salt. The matters that I have outlined are the real story, and the real reason why our police budgets are insufficient. Nevertheless, it is up to the Government to deal with that legacy. We have to try to deal with it. My comments are not an attack on police personnel, who make big contributions into an unfunded scheme. The message has to be spread abroad that that legacy is why police budgets are often depleted.
4.8 pm
Mr. David Amess: I wish to raise various issues and ask various questions before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, and it would be a wonderful Christmas present for residents in Southend, West if the Minister would gee up Departments to give us straight answers to them.
I am delighted for Wolverhampton, Inverness, and Brighton and Hove, but I am very disappointed that Southend has not been declared a city. It deserves to
656
become a city, and I hope that that will happen. I know that Her Majesty the Queen enjoyed Southend when she visited us the year before last.
We have a real problem with staffing at Southend hospital. The problem is not unique to Southend, but is similar across the country. It is no good the Government saying that the problem is all down to the Conservative Government. A press release from the Royal College of Nursing states that
extra pay rises for senior nurses will help, but staff nurses will be disappointed by basic uplift.
In the past few days, I had cause to visit Southend hospital. I witnessed magnificent staff struggling under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. That is especially true of staff in the intensive care unit, who, if they were working about eight miles nearer to London, would get more money for the same, very specialised work. All the beds are occupied, and there is a crisis in Southend. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who will wind up the debate, will have a word with the Secretary of State for Health to see if he can do anything to help. The present initiatives are a disaster.
Postal services are also a problem. Mail delivery in the area has been terrible. It is no good writing letters, as they take three weeks to arrive. The whole thing is a shambles. I have a letter here from the Essex chamber of commerce which states:
Excuses for unacceptable levels of performance have been offered following the introduction of new technology and "improved" automation at various centres throughout the County. The experience of business in the performance of the Royal Mail has been universally unacceptable. Local businesses want the Royal Mail to enter into dialogue.
Recently, union and then management representatives came to the House to see me. Sorting operations were moved from Southend to Chelmsford and then to Romford. The bottom line is that people are not getting their letters as they used to. Many people, especially elderly people, depend on the service.
The unions put the problem down to the European Union working time directive, and management put it down to new practices. The Minister for Competitiveness used to work for the postal union, and has an inside track. The Royal Mail does not offer the service that it used to. It would be another wonderful present for my constituents if he could sort out the problem.
Lady Diana Brittan, the chairman of the National Lottery Charities Board, recently visited Southend and said that the town's
arts and music programme is very impressive and I can see that huge efforts are being made to make Southend a bit of a cultural capital.
I hope that Southend will hold an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall entitled, "I do like to be beside the Seaside". However, Lady Diana had to tell local residents that there was a problem with legislation when it came to applying for grants from the board. For example, she said that she would have to disappoint people about projects such as installing a lift in the local naval and military club. It is not that the board does not want to help local charities, but that the legislation needs to be examined. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have a word with his relevant colleague.
The Consumers Association has told me that the lack of a consumers Bill in the Queen's Speech was a gaping absence. One had been promised, to reform the Fair

657
Trading Act 1973, but it did not materialise, and neither did legislation to ban mortgage insurance tie-ins. None the less, I want to put in some special pleading.
The Select Committee on Health visited Cuba a few weeks ago. We flew with British Airways, which was privatised under Lord King and which I always considered to be first class. I was sceptical about complaints about its service. However, a number of Select Committee members ate the food on offer, and became ill. I was one of them.
There is no time to go through all the correspondence between the British Airways chairman, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, and myself, but the company's response was totally unsatisfactory. It is not good enough for a Member of the other place to write to a Member of Parliament saying that we must have had the germs before the trip, that the food had been cooked at 72 degrees, and all the other codswallop that he expects us to believe. I am sure that such problems would be addressed if the Government were to introduce a consumers Bill.
Earlier in the year, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), visited Southend to inspect the circumstances surrounding asylum seekers. It was a wonderful visit, and all sorts of assurances were given. We were very pleased. However, all that has fallen apart.
I am advised by the deputy mayor of Southend that apparently the dispersal programme has not been disbanded, but it has been abandoned, because the Government are ceasing to fund it. The regional assembly has agreed to keep it going without funding until April— a fat lot of good—in the hope that the Government will change their mind. In April, there were 470 known asylum seekers in Southend, and an indeterminate number of unknown ones. The known figure is now 619. The London boroughs are sending many people to Southend without the necessary resources, and now the Government, having said that they would help us, have washed their hands of the problem.
I believe that the Government's decision to award contracts directly to private landlords is a negation of their duty to the residents of the receiving towns. It is outrageous that they should bypass the local authorities who have the responsibility of care. I hope that the Minister will sort that out.
The decriminalisation of parking has been welcomed by some local residents and not others. A number of people in Southend are concerned that the maximum penalty charge notice is too low. In London the maximum is £60, but outside London it is £40. Moving to a decriminalised system will be costly, and a higher penalty charge may make the transition easier financially. Other concerns come from traffic wardens who are worried that they will lose flexibility if they become council parking attendants.
We all know that traffic wardens are not that popular with the public. I visited some of them recently and was deeply moved by all the activities, other than the issuing of tickets, in which they are involved. They deal with tax disc offences and abandoned and stolen vehicles. They carry out crowd and traffic control, and represent the police force. There is no doubt that we have fewer police than ever before in Essex, and in Southend in particular, and these changes will mean that we lose the good will of the traffic wardens. That simply is not good enough.
658
I was less than happy with the way in which the serious and important subject of cloning was dealt with by the House on Tuesday. I wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members are aware that a group of cross-party peers, together with a cardinal archbishop, an archbishop, an imam and a rabbi, wrote to the Prime Minister requesting a meeting. Four times they wrote to the Prime Minister, and he never agreed to a meeting. The Prime Minister said not so long ago that he was contrite, and willing to listen. Why, then, was he not prepared to listen on an issue that the whole House agrees is of huge importance?
A pearl is formed when a piece of grit gets into the oyster. The Prime Minister might not agree with what the religious leaders were going to say to him, but he should at least have been prepared to listen. If we do not let the grit in, we will never get the pearl out.
My final point is about animals. I hope that people will think carefully about purchasing pets this Christmas. Every year, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other bodies have to cope with abandoned pets. If any Members are thinking of acquiring a dog, they could do no better than contact Miss Pamela Townsend of the Willow Tree sanctuary in Great Yeldham, or Mrs. Mary Scully of the Enfield dog rescue centre. They have any number of rescued dogs and would be delighted if right hon. and hon. Members gave those dogs a good home. The Amess household has a black labrador, and we are seriously considering having a rescued dog over the Christmas period and beyond.
I hope that all animals, all human beings and all those who work in the House will have a very happy Christmas.
4.19 pm
Mr. John Cryer: Returning to planet earth, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want briefly to raise some transport issues that relate to my constituency. The first is the local railway—the London, Tilbury and Southend railway—which has been in the area for a long time and was one of the first lines to be privatised.
Since privatisation, we have been promised new trains and, for the past three years, class 357 trains. We have been told that their arrival was imminent. A few months ago, the trains began to be put into service and promptly broke down. Unfortunately, the parent company of London Tilbury and Southend Rail, c2c—known as carriages too crowded—had scrapped much of its old slam-door stock, which was about 40 years old, so when the new class 357s were taken out of service old stock had to be reintroduced. As there are not enough trains, there is further diminution of a service that has become steadily worse over many years.
As an illustration of how the railways are seen by people in outer London and Essex, it will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear that, a few years ago, when one of the Essex radio stations organised a poll to find the most unpopular person in the county, the then managing director of LTS finished second—just behind Saddam Hussein. It would be interesting to take another poll to see whether the present managing director could shove Saddam Hussein into second place.
The railway crosses my constituency at Rainham and I was a founder member of the Rainham rail users group—superb campaigners who put pressure on c2c and LTS, unfortunately without much effect. Rail users have shown immense patience and forbearance. One member of the

659
group informed me recently that she had taken to travelling in the guard's van because the carriages are so crowded. On one occasion, she counted 36 people who were crammed into the guard's van of a four-car train when there should have been at least eight cars.
Trains are becoming dangerously overcrowded, yet the directors of the parent company, Prism Rail, recently made tens of millions of pounds by selling the company to National Express—money that should have been invested in the railway. Meanwhile, my constituents—like those of other hon. Members—continue to suffer overcrowding, delays and late and cancelled trains. That is the result of the privatisation process planned by the previous Conservative Government.
We all know that the whole London tube system has suffered a long history of under-investment and has been deteriorating for a long time, but recently the District line has become much worse. The line runs through three stations in my constituency—Elm Park, Hornchurch and Upminster Bridge. Recently, delays and cancellations have increased. There has also been a tendency to indicate that trains are going to Upminster—the end of the line—when in fact they are being stopped at Barking. That is becoming quite dangerous. Many people, especially women travelling home alone late at night, are abandoned on the platform at Barking for lengthy periods waiting for an Upminster train. Some of the women who work in the Palace have had that experience.
We all know the problem—underfunding during a long period—as the managing director of the underground network, Derek Smith, and the Mayor, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), have made clear. My objection to the current situation is that we should be getting on with investing in the underground. Everyone knows that the fault lies with the previous Conservative Administration, but we have been in government for three years and we are still talking about how to make that investment—we should be doing it now.
The 324 bus—on a former Green Line route that runs from east London into Essex—serves Wennington, a hamlet in my constituency and Rainham itself. The bus service was run by Town and Country Buses, which was taken over by Arriva. The problem is that Arriva does not have enough buses or drivers to service the route, so it drafts in buses from other parts of the country. There is a Heinz 57 varieties bus livery—with no correct signs on the front of the buses.
That is dangerous. There are many elderly people in Wennington and Rainham. When an unnumbered bus with the Aylesbury and The Vale livery arrives at a stop in Essex, it is slightly confusing—especially for people with poor eyesight.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: If the bus is wrongly numbered, it would be better if people could not read the number.
Mr. Cryer: There are also fewer buses on the route—if one can see them.
London Transport has been pretty appalling. During the summer, I made it clear that I wanted a new timetable published and that I wanted to get my hands on it so that I could distribute it around Wennington and the south of
660
Rainham. I asked by letter, by telephone and again by letter, but so far I have had nothing from London Transport. It simply is not good enough for it to fail my constituents in Wennington and Rainham, many of whom are elderly and many of whom are in a very difficult position because of the decline of the service.
I ask the Minister to relay to Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions the points that I have made about the transport service in my constituency.
4.25 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: As time is short, I shall keep my remarks as brief as I can.
I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, with whom I have debated on many occasions. He has always treated my remarks with great courtesy and I am grateful to him for it. However, the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) struck a chord with me.
This debate is important. It is, after all, an occasion when many of us could be doing other things, and we come to the Chamber for one specific reason this late in the day—because we believe that something matters sufficiently to our constituents to cause us to go through the fiction, and it is a fiction, of postponing the moment when the House of Commons adjourns for the recess.
I cannot imagine that any Member of the House, other than in a dire emergency, would allow his constituency surgery to be conducted by anyone other than himself. A researcher could do that work, but it would not look or feel right. The constituent would not understand it. In previous years, and certainly under the previous Administration, I could always say that I knew that when I raised a matter on the Christmas Adjournment a member of the Cabinet—the Leader of the House, the President of the Council—would be there, listening carefully to all the deliberations. That may be a fiction, but it is a necessary fiction and a courteous fiction. I believe that the Leader of the House should have been present today. Although I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister will do an excellent job in her place, appearances do matter.
Today, I want to bring before the House the subject of the Kingskerswell bypass. It is not the first time that I have raised the subject in the House of Commons; I should like to think that it might be the last time, but I fear that it will not.
The Kingskerswell bypass, as anyone who knows my part of the world knows, is the four to four-and-a-half mile stretch of road that runs between Newton Abbott and Torquay. It is the last remaining link—the missing link, if you will—in the M5. Indeed, if one was giving a person in the west of Scotland directions to Newton Abbott, one would say, "drive south until you come to a roundabout, and if it is the summer, wait there for half an hour and turn right." That is the problem with that part of the world. There is a missing link.
My research has shown me that there has been a Kingskerswell bypass in prospect in Devon since at least 1951 and it was probably mooted some 15 years before that. Once upon a time, it would have been a bypass to bypass the old village of Kingskerswell. Now, because of the increase in housing, that stretch of road virtually cuts the village in two. It produces huge traffic flows. In 1998

661
I gave the House the figures; I shall not quote them in detail today. I was able to say on that occasion that some 35,000 vehicles a day used that road.
Usually, when one mentions the need for a bypass, the figures for traffic flows increase in the summer and drop off for the rest of the year. Interestingly, in this case there is at most a differential of only 10 per cent. This is such a logjam that it is there all the year round. It condemns the people who live in the area to having their community subjected to extreme traffic pollution. It produces extreme inconvenience for people travelling to and from work, shopping or school.
The logjam causes more than inconvenience in every sense of the word. It also affects the potential for economic regeneration. Whereas most bypasses merely squeeze the paste down the toothpaste tube, as it were, and push the bottleneck on, if this bypass was built the whole of south Devon would be opened to economic regeneration, because it really is the last link.
No less an authority than Edward Chorlton, who is the county environment director for Devon and a national figure, said:
The Newton Abbot to Torquay corridor already experiences severe congestion throughout much of the day and … is directly affecting the locational decisions of local businesses, with a number of companies having relocated away from Torbay as a consequence of difficulties experienced in maintaining a reliable and predictable means of highway access …
From the above it can be appreciated that the Newton Abbott to Torquay corridor is not only of great importance in terms of accommodating movement within the area but also of strategic importance in terms of providing the principal connection between Torbay and the wider area of Devon and the rest of the Country.
He concludes:
It is also crucial to ensuring that the development potential of the area is unlocked.
In no sense can that be said to be disputed, let alone to be a matter of party political dispute. When I raised the issue at far greater length in April 1998, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), said:
Traffic flows through Kingskerswell have increased considerably in recent years, from 20,000 vehicles a day in the mid-1980s to nearly 35,000 in 1995. Growth on such a scale is unsustainable, and shows graphically why we must tackle such problems with new policies and attitudes.—[Official Report, 1 April 1998; Vol. 309, c. 1230.]
What could have been done, and what can be done?
For many years—in what was, frankly, a fiction—the Kingskerswell bypass was reasonably high up the programme, but was never going to be achieved. In 1995, I think, the Government said that that was nonsense and that only bypasses that stood a chance of success in competing with other projects should be included and, therefore, the Kingskerswell bypass was taken out of the programme. However, the outcry and the strength of the case was such that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the then Minister with responsibility for the west country, specifically had the rules on the private finance initiative altered so that a local authority could use them. He did so with all-party support, and Devon county council was entirely in favour of it. The council was legitimately concerned about how the funding for the necessary work could be secured, but there was a consensus.
662
In 1996, when my right hon. Friend visited Kingskerswell, there was every prospect that work on the bypass would begin by the beginning of 2001. As I speak, even if matters were expedited far more efficiently than some people think they might be, it would be five, six or even seven years before work could start. After the Government's moratorium on any form of road building, they now say that any schemes under the private finance initiative can proceed only when every other avenue has been explored. In short, the PFI route, if it is used, will take a long time.
The infuriating fact is that almost everyone locally agrees that the bypass is needed. Usually, on such occasions, the lesser crested aphid springs out of the undergrowth, saying "It may be tarmac to you, my son, but it means extinction for me and my species." Nothing like that has happened in Kingskerswell, where there is a complete unanimity of view. Time and again, local people ask what they can do.
On one occasion, it seemed as though the PFI represented the only way forward. It is grinding its way slowly forward, but we find that the Government—as a sinner who repents at least in part—now realise that sometimes bypasses are not an environmental blot, but an environmental necessity; they improve the quality of life. We hear that, after all, the money is available to build bypasses. So it may be, but there is not much money available to build them in Devon, except in north Devon, where a small bypass will be built near Barnstaple according to the recent local transport capital expenditure announcement.
Once upon a time, the Kingskerswell bypass was the premier scheme in Devon, but the other one is now at the top of the queue. Of course, even a long time in politics has not yet made me a cynic, and I say that with all the insincerity at my command. I accept, therefore, that it is entirely a coincidence that that bypass is in the seat of a Liberal Member of Parliament and that the leader of Devon county council, which is controlled by the Liberals, also lives in that part of the world. Perhaps other hon. Members will have something to say about that. I do not accuse the Minister of being part of that chicanery, but I want the Government to tell me what they think my constituents should do. How long will it be before there is some prospect of the project being expedited?
As I understand it, there is some hope to be found, buried deep in a letter written to the chief executive of Torbay borough council, announcing the 2001–02 local transport capital expenditure settlement. It states:
The level of resources the Government has provided through the 10 Year Plan means that we are able to fund many more schemes than was usual in the past.
An addendum to the letter goes on to state:
We note your intention to continue assessing congestion problems on the A380 corridor. We welcome the Partnership working that has been demonstrated, in particular, the development of a long-term strategy for the Northern corridor through the use of consultants and cross boundary working with Devon County Council. We are keen to understand the full range of difficulties experienced along the corridor and to explore an Integrated Transport package to reduce congestion, increase accessibility and assist regeneration in Torbay. We look forward to working with you and Devon County Council on this in the future.
I do not quite know what that means. It might be a realistic formula expressed in Whitehall jargon, saying that relief is on the way, or it might be the most shameless

663
pack of waffle. If hon. Members want to know what is going on, they can read the debates that have taken place in the House over the years, or take a day off some time and go down there, sit in a traffic jam and see for themselves.
I shall tell the Minister what I want him to do today. It would be churlish in the extreme for me to ask him to tell me now what is happening. It is not his job to know that. However, the reason that I am here now when I could be elsewhere is to ask him for an assurance that he will write to the relevant Minister—I assume that that is the noble Lord Whitty—to ask him to write to me and tell me what the Government think should happen. At the moment, many people think that nothing is happening. The case for this bypass is overwhelming on every ground possible, not only for my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, but for the economic regeneration of south Devon. What do the Government think about that? I ask for only one assurance from the Minister—but I do ask for it.
4.37 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) and the citizens of Wolverhampton on their city status. I say that as the Member representing St. Albans, which has had city status for several hundred years, so I know the feeling that that status gives.
Two weeks ago, I met all the St. Albans secondary school head teachers. They are very concerned about the problem of recruitment and retention of teachers. Each head teacher detailed unfilled vacancies that had little chance of being filled. Advertising and re-advertising elicited, at most, one application and often none at all. That process is expensive and time-consuming, and leaves school managers with an almost intractable problem.
In the past, there have been shortages in certain subjects, typically the sciences. Now, there are shortages across the board. In one school, a parent is providing the tuition so that the school does not have to send a class home. The use of supply teachers is in the same sorry state, with a complete shortage in all specialities. Three reasons are given for that. The first, and most important, is the exceptionally high cost of housing. The second is the low morale and low self-esteem of the profession; the third, the sheer volume of paperwork that now forms part of teaching.
The provision of key worker housing must be pursued with some vigour by the Government and by local authorities. Chris Holmes of Shelter said recently that if we did not address that problem, we should affect the very economic success and stability of our country, particularly in the south-east. Each local authority district plan must enshrine a target and plan for implementing the provision of a substantial amount of key worker housing. In addition, funding must be set aside by local authorities and the Housing Corporation for the provision of such housing. Only through positive action shall we begin to address the problem.
I mentioned the morale and self-esteem of teachers earlier. I salute all of them. They work exceedingly hard, are dedicated professionals and are responsible for
664
inspiring and educating our most precious possession: our children. My friend and colleague, Christine Hood, the regional secretary of the National Union of Teachers, tells me repeatedly of teachers who just want to teach. They feel undervalued and blamed for all the problems that are connected with children.
I want to pay tribute to Bob Hawkes, the head teacher of Verulam school in St. Albans, who retires today after 35 years as a teacher, the last 12 of which he spent in his present post. He has a well-deserved high reputation and students who were taught by him were fortunate indeed. His retirement marks a sad loss to education in Hertfordshire.
On transport, 17,000 of my constituents travel by Thameslink into the city each day. Travel has been exceptionally difficult since the Hatfield disaster. Overcrowding on our trains, which is usually quite bad at peak times, has been made worse by travellers from Hatfield and Stevenage using the service. I use it regularly and travelled in today by train, and I am pleased to report that the service was almost back to normal. I regularly meet train operators to ensure that the levels of reliability, service and safety are as high as possible.
Travel by bus within St. Albans is hampered by the narrow streets of our old city and by selfish parking. We are also disadvantaged in Hertfordshire by not quite qualifying for a substantial rural bus subsidy, and we have no large towns to support a large city bus service. In addition, we do not qualify for the new market town subsidy because the population of our towns is too large to qualify. Our economic success means that people need to be able to travel across Hertfordshire, as well as north to south. Many Hertfordshire residents would use public transport were it better provided. One local operator, Sovereign buses, has made a huge investment in a new fleet of kneeling buses, which are more easily accessed, comfortable and fuel efficient. We need more such investment.
St. Albans took the lead in the virtual bus, which originated in my constituency and was launched in St. Albans by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) when she was Transport Minister. That model of good practice is now being used in many other places.
St. Albans has the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom. We welcome the extra spending on pensions, health and education, in particular the money that has gone straight to schools. St. Albans prospers well under the new Labour Government.
4.42 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), who is warm-hearted and sincere in speaking on behalf of his constituents.
One local issue is of fundamental importance in my constituency—the proposal by Associated British Ports to build a huge container port at Dibden bay, on Southampton water, which is on the edge of the New Forest. The distribution of population in my constituency is unusual. The area is largely taken up by the heavily protected forest region. More than 80 per cent. of my constituents are compressed into the long line of villages from Calshot and Fawley in the south, along the Waterside, to the town of Totton in the north. Planning

665
restrictions in the forest mean that housebuilding is overwhelmingly confined to Totton and the Waterside corridor. As so many of my constituents live in that narrowly restricted area, the impact on their lives of the closure of strategic gaps between the villages, and of extra burdens placed on road and rail links, is disproportionately heavy.
When I became acquainted with the Dibden bay proposals in 1995, it seemed obvious that the adverse effects that they would have on people who live in Totton and along the Waterside would decisively outweigh any possible advantage. Therefore, it was also obvious that those people who proposed to build the huge container port would have to produce an overriding national economic case if the development was to have a chance of proceeding.
ABP briefed me at least three times in 1996 and 1997. The nub of its argument was that each of the small number of major container companies will use only one port of entry into the United Kingdom and that, unless Dibden bay were built to expand Southampton's container capacity on the other side of Southampton water, not only would Southampton fail to obtain the extra business, but it would lose its existing business to competing ports. On the face of it, that seemed to be a strong argument in ABP's favour.
However, more than a year ago, the picture was dramatically transformed. The prospect arose that the redundant oil refinery site—a brownfield site—at Shell Haven in Essex might become a new container port on a scale substantially larger than Dibden bay. That prospect was welcomed, with appropriate provisos about local concerns, by the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who, by a fortunate coincidence, happens to be in her place at this very moment.
Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in alerting me to the fact that he would be mentioning my constituency and me. I put it to him that, although many in my constituency warmly welcome the proposed development at Shell Haven, which would create up to 10,000 jobs, there are significant and genuine environmental, traffic and social concerns. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that those should be taken into account.
Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. It has been a pleasure working with her in past months to try to resolve these matters to the mutual benefit of both our sets of constituents. However, the balance tips overwhelmingly in favour of the development taking place in her constituency, provided appropriate ameliorating measures can be taken to safeguard people living nearby. I am sure that she accepts that, in my constituency, there would be huge effects that could not possibly be ameliorated in any circumstances.
When the Shell Haven proposals were first mooted, I was astonished by the way in which ABP in Southampton derided the practicability of building a container port at Shell Haven and then tried to claim that, even if it were built, it would make no difference to the overriding national economic case in favour of Dibden bay. It became clear to me that ABP was wholly bent on pushing through the scheme, irrespective of the existence of more suitable alternatives. Later, I shall mention one
666
possible motivation for the company's rigidly blinkered approach. When Shell Haven was first mooted, ABP objected on the grounds that the traffic outflow would be too heavy for the M25 to cope with, and that excessive dredging would also be involved. Such claims sounded strange coming from a company that tried to tell my constituents that the mere A326 could cope with massive container traffic and that Dibden bay would be capable of receiving the new generations of large container ships that it would face during its years of operation.
Shell Haven will be larger than Dibden bay, and it is possible that it will come into service sooner than Dibden bay. In addition, I have been assured authoritatively that Shell Haven by itself will be able to absorb all the projected additional container traffic for the south-east for the next 15 to 20 years. So confident of that is the Port of London authority that it anticipates Shell Haven opening on a staggered basis, a few berths at a time, as and when the extra capacity becomes needed over the next two decades. That fact alone must be sufficient to destroy the argument that Dibden bay must be inflicted on the residents of Totton and the Waterside in the national economic interest because of the lack of any viable alternative.
The story does not end there. We now know that there are to be substantial expansions in container capacity at no fewer than three additional sites: Harwich, Felixstowe and Tilbury. In addition, further development at Thamesport remains a possibility. None of those options involves the destruction of a natural habitat, the overwhelming of inadequate A-roads, or the bisecting of towns and villages such as Totton and Marchwood by endless convoys of lorries and railway wagons, all of which would be inevitable were Dibden bay to come on stream. Yet, according to ABP, all that extra capacity makes no difference to its case that the Dibden bay development is essential. One wonders how gigantic the extra capacity being created by ports around the south-east and east of England would have to be before ABP allowed such expansion to have any effect on its fixation with developing Dibden bay—now that the company's rubbishing of Shell Haven as a container port has itself been discredited.
ABP claims that it is not planning to transfer its existing smaller container operation on the other side of Southampton water to Dibden bay in order to sell off the existing container port location for vastly profitable property development, as has happened to other parts of Southampton port in the past. It claims that that could easily be prevented by the Secretary of State. However, how could the Secretary of State—or anyone else— possibly know what the directors of ABP will do in 10 years' time if Dibden bay is up and running? Nothing would prevent the existing Southampton container port from being closed down and the land being used to make fortunes for those running ABP.
That explanation alone supplies logic to ABP's position. If the real objective is to free up expensive land in Southampton to make a financial killing, that would explain why the opening of Shell Haven and all the other new container facilities would, in the words of ABP, "make no difference" to the need for Dibden bay. Indeed, the existence of new container ports elsewhere would make it easier to argue in 10 years' time that the old Southampton container port had to be closed and developed precisely because there was not enough trade to keep it busy, as well as the new Dibden bay terminal.

667
It is preposterous to say that there is an overriding national economic requirement to build on the unsuitable site at Dibden bay regardless of the fact that other sites are to be constructed or expanded. I believe that ABP would continue to argue for the development of Dibden bay even if 50 new ports were being built or expanded. Its determination to develop Dibden bay has little, if anything, to do with a genuine need to meet future increases in necessary container capacity.
There are no proposals from ABP currently to turn the pitifully inadequate A326 even into a dual carriageway, although it used to say that it would do that. Perhaps that is being held back as a great concession to be made to the community in due course. I have always taken the view that nothing less than a prefabricated tunnel under Southampton water would do, connecting any container port to Southampton's major road and rail links. Even then, the light pollution, never-ending noise, unsightly container stacks and cranes at the edge of the New Forest and environmental destruction would add up to a vision of hell for the thousands of people unfortunate enough to live nearby.
A few years ago, before Shell Haven and the other facilities came on to the scene, and before it was apparent that there were alternatives, it might have been arguable to inflict all this suffering on our communities in the constituency of New Forest, East. There is now no case for it. I urge the deputy Leader of the House to convey that message in the strongest possible terms to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, because he will have the final say.
4.53 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: It is always a pleasure to be called in the final end-of-term Adjournment debate, if I may call it that. I am always glad when my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), addresses the House, as he usually does on these occasions. I am sorry that he is not in his place now. I hope that the House agrees that he excelled himself today. By my count, he mentioned 10 different subjects, to say nothing of his gastric problems on the way to Cuba. If I was unfortunate enough to miss any of the subjects that he raised, I know that I will be able to read about each of them in the local newspaper when it appears next week.
These debates are great opportunities for raising a number of issues, and I do not wish to be over-frivolous. I usually stick closely to the confines of Braintree or Essex. Today, however, I shall speak about international matters. I refer neither to Suffolk nor Hertfordshire when I say that, but to events that have occurred on the other side of the Atlantic.
I am not certain to what extent the events in the United States during November and December have been discussed in the House. However, I think a few minutes to enable us to pause for thought about the implications for us, and perhaps our own constitution, would not be unhelpful.
I refer, of course, to the American election. If one were teaching civics to those unfamiliar with the workings of democracy, it would be difficult to explain how the candidate who had the most votes was defeated and the
668
candidate who had fewer votes won, but we should keep clearly in our minds over the coming three or four years the proposition that the loser won and the winner lost.
I understand that the United States constitution is different from ours and that, for reasons that may have been pertinent some 200 or more years ago, it was right to preserve the autonomy of states in the selection of the federal president. There may well have been a case for that then. It would be impertinent of me to tell the Americans whether there is a case for it now, or whether they should reconsider the matter. I should have thought that they would certainly contemplate it.
Even more worrying is the electoral and then the judicial process. There is no one in the House who has not been into an election count. Before we race ahead with internet voting and goodness knows what other horror that is occasionally proposed, we might pause for reflection on some of the benefits of our own system.
I do not say this in a patronising or colonial way to our cousins across the Atlantic, but is there anything to beat a piece of paper on which appear one, two, three, four or however many names, and on which all the voter is required to do is put a cross against the name of his preferred candidate? That seems a straightforward notion. It does not require information technology—in fact, it was devised for those who were illiterate, which is why the cross is the symbol. The voter has to do nothing other than mark a cross on a ballot paper to indicate his choice.
Many of us have attended counts of votes when there may have been some uncertainty about the result, or about the vote itself. We know what happens: if the voter puts a tick instead of a cross, it is counted; if he puts only half a cross, it is counted; if he draws a smiling face, it is counted; if he puts the cross in the right box but in the wrong place, it is counted; if the mark is very feeble and frail, it is counted. We count a vote if the intention is clear for all to see.
We count quickly. Were there not six or seven recounts in 1966 in Peterborough, all of which took place within 24 hours? We could count all the votes cast in a general election in this country again and again, I expect, before the clock had gone round one more time.
The entire matter in the United States was confused. In part, I blame the media for confusing the issues. The media were blamed for calling the state of Florida before it had been counted. They based their projection on the fact that the exit polls predicted a win for the Democratic candidate, but the polls assumed that people had voted for the candidate for whom they thought they had voted, but when the votes were counted, the result was not quite the same.
The catalogue of abuses is horrifying by our standards. We have not had a corruption case since Oxford in 1924, when there was a certain amount of treating of electors by way of liquor and otherwise, and the Member was unseated. We have a fairly good record, but in the state of Florida the first move was to disqualify from voting anyone who had a conviction, even if it went back decades. The view may have been taken that people in poorer circumstances may be more likely to have convictions, but at least one of the candidates narrowly avoided one of those and presumably would have been unable to vote in the state of Florida had matters gone further than they did.

669
The Americans have terribly artistic ballot papers. One needs an advanced degree in technology to work out exactly where the hole should be punched. What amazes me most of all and confuses everybody is the ludicrous word "chad". I will not repeat that most people thought that that was a state in Africa. The moment that people started talking about hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads, the brain turned off. I was confused until the other day, when I was primitively using a hole punch. I hole-punched a piece of paper, but the punched part did not quite fall off and hung there. I guess that that is what is meant by a hanging chad. It is pretty clear that I intended to punch that paper and make a hole, but the punched piece did not quite fall off. The President appointed—I use that term rather than President-elect because English usage is important, and "President-elect" does not properly describe the incoming incumbent—and his supporters wished to exclude pieces of paper with chads that had not dropped off. Indeed, the dimpled chad is one in which the punch has made an impression, but not gone all the way through.
I am not making a party political point by saying that, in this country, there would be no argument from any candidates or their agents about who those votes were for, as the intention would be clear. I am not going to say whether a degree of dishonesty was involved, as that will all come out. No doubt, the votes it, the state of Florida will be counted fairly soon, and we shall know very well what happened there. However, the matter says heavy things about the United States. Some hon. Members will know that I have always been pro-American in my views on international affairs, but I am horrified by what took place. In this country, we have a spirit of respect for our constitution and, ultimately, do no allow our partisan preference to override that. If one is in an election count and a vote is clearly for one's opponent, one says that is for him or her. One does not seek to argue for the indefensible.
However, the matter gets worse and goes beyond miscalculating votes, excluding obvious votes, excluding electors from the register and having low-level riots to prevent counts. The highest court in the United States was involved in what can only be a blatantly partisan decision to grant an injunction to stop the votes being counted. When that level is reached, what is the teacher—or, as the Americans say, the professor—in a mid-western college to tell his civics class? Does he say that the USA has a system of law and separation of powers but that, if one side loses an election, it stops the votes being counted? Is that how we elect the leader of the free world?
We have to learn to be cautious about issues that we sometimes rush into without thinking. Here, whatever one may say about individual results, the judiciary is an entirely non-political body. In the course of my professional life practising law I have come across and known personally a number of judges. I know that many, if not most, of them have strong political opinions. Some stood for Parliament before they sat on the bench. I have known judges who were active communists, as well as judges who were active Conservatives. However, when they sit on the bench, those views are left behind. I would have no fear about an election dispute in this country, such as that in the Winchester constituency at the last election. It would be unlikely to go before a court because it would be judged according to the law and the ethics behind the law.
670
Earlier in our debate, hon. Members described what they perceive as the shortcomings of our present system. There is always a case for debate and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is now in his place, referred to the increasing power of the Executive. It is worth having that debate. I remember taking my history A-level in 1963, when the question on the paper was: "The power of the Executive has increased and is increasing. Should it be diminished?" That referred to the 18th century. The issue about the power of the Executive has always been with us.
We sometimes need to stand back and take pride in our constitution and, above all, in the political climate in which we operate, where we do not endlessly play the man—I use that phrase in its broadest sense—to the extent that that becomes more important than the overriding constitutional principles. I fear that events in the United States are a travesty of all the things that we hold dear and which that country has purported to hold dear, and that they create such a stain on its position that it will not be able to reverse matters easily.
5.5 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: We are drawing towards the end of a debate that has, predictably, covered a huge range of issues. I agree that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) managed to give us a dose of grapeshot that came in quickfire succession. If he spoke about 10 issues, they were completely seamless and flowed without any breaking for breath. As has been pointed out, however, they will all be in the papers next week.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made an interesting point, which I am sure will be discussed long and hard for many weeks and months to come. With regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) about the reform process in the House, I remind hon. Members that if we have a problem in this country, it is a lack of separation between the legislature and the Executive, as well as a lack of accountability.
If the United States has a problem, it is more serious. I refer to the politicisation of the judiciary, which permeates not only the electoral system. As a basic matter of human rights, it shocked me that, in a country that has increasingly resorted to the reintroduction and use of the death penalty, the decision on whether an execution should proceed lies with a politician who is actively campaigning for election. That cannot be fair either to the condemned person or to the politician, who will not be in a position to make a balanced judgment. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why Americans are unable to take up observer status in the Council of Europe, which is trying to achieve a continent that is free of the death penalty. That interesting development will also be discussed in the coming weeks and months.
The hon. Member for Banbury said that he did not think that enough rebellions were occurring in the House. That was a little unfair, as a couple of fairly serious rebellions have occurred, one of which related to the reduction of benefits for single mothers. The other recent example was the privatisation of air traffic control. If the Conservatives had stood their ground in the Lords on that issue, we might have been successful in stopping the Government until their decision was properly put to the electorate at the next election. As the Conservatives found in 1983,

671
it is much harder for Back Benchers to rebel when the Government have a huge majority, as they will suffer the opprobrium of falling out with the Government without winning the vote. At least when there is a smaller majority, those who rebel may gain the satisfaction of changing the policy, which makes their decision more worth while. Nevertheless, I accept that some of the reforms are more cosmetic than real.
I think that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has left. I can only thank him for the tribute that he paid to the community politics of north Devon Liberal Democrats, which are clearly successful as they have achieved more than him in securing the roads that they need.
I should like to share some glory with the citizens of Wolverhampton. The borders of my constituency are not all that far from Inverness, which is also extremely delighted to have secured city status. Inverness is probably one of the fastest growing communities in the United Kingdom. It has doubled in size in the past 20 years, which may surprise people who do not often venture so far north.
I want to address a couple of important issues in my constituency. One of them affects all constituencies and both of them affect rural constituencies. The first is the increased cost of public and private transport in rural areas, especially in respect of people on low incomes, benefits or income support. I raised the matter in correspondence with the Chancellor, social security Ministers and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Indeed, four weeks ago I raised it in Scottish questions, but I did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister of State, Scotland Office, who deliberately misunderstood my question and proceeded to make a great deal of fun of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and what I believe she described as her step grandmother's association with a filling station in Inverurie, in my constituency. I did not know that there was such a being as a step grandmother, but, apparently, the hon. Lady has one. The Government have now openly acknowledged that they pursued a policy of increasing the price of fuel, not exclusively as an environmental tax, but as a revenue-raising measure, in part so that they did not have to increase the standard or higher rate of income tax—a pledge made at the general election. They admitted that they could not contemplate cutting tax on petrol because they needed the money to fund schools and hospitals, not for environmental purposes.
My point is serious and needs to be addressed—social security Ministers should consider it. Taking such a policy decision has significant cost of living implications for people on very low incomes in a way that income tax does not. Indeed, some of those people do not pay income tax, but they have to pay transport costs, especially if they live in rural areas. They must either pay increased public transport costs, because the fuel price has had to be absorbed by bus and train operators, or use a car, because there is no public transport option.
As one of my constituents starkly pointed out, although the price of unleaded petrol has eased back a bit, over the past five years in some rural areas, it has increased by nearly 30p a litre. Let us consider the example of someone who uses a fairly modest amount of petrol—in many cases, petrol is involved because the option to use public
672
transport is not available—to drive a relatively small and economical car 20 to 30 miles a day to his place of work, where he is on such a low income that he receives income support. It is obvious that the cost involved could be an extra £5 or even £10 a week compared with that in 1995. However, the increase in basic income support for all cost of living increases over that period is less than £5.
As the Parliamentary Secretary will understand, as a consequence, the real value of income support has been seriously cut for people living in rural areas. I hope that he will draw that to the attention of social security Ministers and suggest that they review whether the calculation of those payments should take account of that. That point applies not only to people living in rural areas, but to everyone who receives income support. However, it has a serious impact on people living in rural areas.
If the Parliamentary Secretary has conversations with the Minister of State, Scotland Office, it is important that he says that my point related not to different prices of petrol in different parts of the country, but to the differential in the price of petrol now compared with that of five years ago. I shall be seeing the Minister of State later to comment on a by-election result, so I may have an opportunity to point that out myself. I openly acknowledge that that differential is due not entirely to tax, but to a combination of tax and world market prices.
Before the winding-up speeches begin, I should mention the state of British beef exports or, rather, the lack of them. I want hon. Members to take on board the fact that, although they may believe that the ban on British beef exports has been lifted—in law, that is correct—that ban is, for all practical purposes, still in place. In the present circumstances, it is simply impossible to export significant quantities of British beef because the regime and the conditions under which we choose to operate in this country make it impossible to deliver anything approaching a competitive price for prime Scottish beef of the quality that people were used to before the ban was imposed. Hon. Members may not appreciate why that is the case, so I shall explain one or two points.
I believe that the time is right for the Government to seek a Europe-wide approach to an agreement on regulations for the raising, slaughtering and butchering of beef that will apply equally to every member state of the European Union, rather than unequally as at present. The time is appropriate because it is now apparent that the problem of BSE is much more acute on the continent than had previously been acknowledged.
I take no satisfaction from the rise of BSE cases now confirmed in France. I accept that the French Government acknowledge the problem and are dealing with it. I am not suggesting that we ban French beef, but we need a regime that is safe for all consumers and fair to all producers. In all probability, on the admission of the French Government, the number of BSE cases in France this year will be higher than the number that have occurred in the United Kingdom, yet France is not required to go through the procedures that British beef producers have to go through to produce beef for export.
There are four major prime meat producers in my constituency: Kepak Inverurie Scotch Meat, Scotch Premier Meat and Donald Russell, which was the biggest single exporter of quality beef before the ban was imposed. I have a letter to me dated 6 December from

673
Mr. Hans Baumann, the managing director of Donald Russell, who as a matter of interest is Swiss. He says:
For a long time I have made my feelings known to you about how damaging I consider the compromise being made between the eligibility of our Beef for export and my quality criteria for the long term future of the Scottish Industry.
I have said many times that we are systematically destroying the "Brand Scotland". Our quality image, our reputation, and the opportunity to achieve a premium price may well be lost forever. My views are now being re-iterated by many of our customers.
He quotes a Belgian importer, Marie-Jeanne Cleemput of Van Engelandt, who says:
Price is the most important element, but there is also the question of quality. Scottish beef is not as marbled or mature as it was before: it is not up to the same standard and that is what our restaurants came to tell us when the import ban was lifted.
That is because we agreed to allow, beef for export to be slaughtered only in dedicated slaughterhouses, of which there are only two operational in the United Kingdom. One is in Cornwall—hon. Members will appreciate that that is a long way from Aberdeenshire—and the other is in Strathavon in Ayrshire, which is over 150 miles from Inverurie.
Control is no longer with the meat producer. Traditionally, producers would finish the meat in co-operation with the farmers in the fields before slaughtering the beef at a local slaughterhouse. They prescribed the conditions, with the hanging and the butchering being under their control, and produced the quality product that people came to expect.
An Italian importer, Francesa Piccolini who is in north Italy, said that before the ban Scotch beef was the finest product she could find in the world. She scoured the world during the beef ban and was unable to find a quality product comparable to Scotch beef.
It is ironic that we can get that quality at home—it is available to consumers in the United Kingdom. We can get it in excellent, pre-packed form by mail order from Donald Russell in my constituency. I highly recommend it. However, our exporters cannot get it because the correct procedures are not followed. I urge the Minister to raise this serious matter with the Minister of Agriculture. It needs to be reviewed in the interests not only of British beef producers, but customers abroad who value quality Scotch beef. It is a matter of fairness and balance between safety and the needs of producers across the EU. The time is right to do that.
The French and the Germans must now acknowledge that they share our problem, and that they need the same result. I hope that the Minister will tell me that he has spoken to the Minister of Agriculture, with whom I have been asking for a meeting for three months without success.
5.19 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Before I touch on some of the other important and wide-ranging issues raised today, let me say something about transport and, in particular, the road and rail network in my constituency.
My constituency contains a length of road stretching from Honiton to Exeter, a dual carriageway opened by the Deputy Prime Minister in August last year. It has a big problem, which causes my constituents great distress: it has a concrete finish. During its construction, both the
674
Government and the Highways Agency promised me that something called "whisper concrete" would be used. Nothing could be further from the truth: the noise from the road means that people living in quite a wide catchment area cannot sit in their gardens in the summer, and must keep their windows closed when they are indoors. Following noise-level tests, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Exeter Express and Echo—which conducted the tests—and Exeter university have accepted that the noise on the road is above the permissible level.
On 8 July this year, the Prime Minister arrived in Exeter and was immediately greeted by requests from the local populace and the local newspaper to pledge to do something about the noisy road; and he did. He was attending Labour's national policy forum at Exeter university, and the Home Secretary sped to join him, with great alacrity. At that meeting, under great local pressure to say something about the matter, he promised that the road would be resurfaced with a tarmac finish.
Since then I have raised the issue on several occasions. My constituents have written many letters, both to Ministers and to the Highways Agency. However, we still await a date for the resurfacing of the road. We did not expect the work to be done immediately, but given the promises I have received from Ministers in both letters and written parliamentary answers—I was told that an announcement would be made in the autumn of this year, but, following the announcement of a 10-year plan for road building, there has still been no news—I must tell the Minister that the matter is becoming urgent in my constituency. A promise was delivered personally by the Prime Minister, and we expect it to be honoured. We now want to know the date of the resurfacing. If the Prime Minister had been encouraged to give an early response, it would be a very good Christmas present for my constituents.
I also want to talk about bypasses. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) mentioned the Kingskerswell bypass, but there is another bypass on the Devon list—the Crediton bypass, which I realise is below the Kingskerswell bypass.
In 1997, Devon county council said that a start would be made on the Crediton bypass in 2003–04. Because of the council's view that the Barnstaple bypass should be built first—for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend—Crediton has slipped down the list. This year's capital expenditure made no provision for more than one bypass.
We welcome the Government's new-found realisation that bypasses are not wicked horrible things, that those who live in rural areas need to travel in cars, and that when they travel in cars a bypass around a town such as Crediton is very helpful. Nevertheless, this is another matter that urgently needs attention. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge in saying that we should like it to be included in future planning, so that people and businesses in Crediton can have some hope that action will be taken in their lifetime rather than continually being shunted down the list.
During the coming general election campaign, the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers—and, I hope, the Minister who is present tonight—will visit the south-west of England. If they choose not to travel on our noisy roads or visit our rather congested towns, they may come by rail. We have a serious problem in that regard.

675
There are two railway bridges in my constituency, Stafford bridge and Cowley bridge—a piece of track on the main Great Western line to the east of Exeter and towards Tiverton Parkway station. That bridge keeps being swept away by the flooding of the River Exe.
We all know about the problems of flooding, which, in this instance, have become more apparent in the last two months. The line between Exeter and Tiverton Parkway has been closed for 22 days in the past two months because of bridges being swept away by the force of the torrent caused by the flooding of the Exe. It is a long-term problem. We are very concerned that there will now have to be a bidding process to fund a major study to determine how to overcome it.
It is the main rail route between Cornwall and London, and we really cannot have such long delays with people being bussed between stations because of an increasingly greater problem with flooding on railway bridges. I hope that the Minister will pass on to the relevant Ministers the concern of people in the west country about the situation on that particular piece of track.
We started today's debate with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who described his constituents' serious concern about planning permission for housing for people who have served sentences for serious offences. He described the anxiety that that is creating for his local people.
We heard next from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones), who rightly flagged up the importance of the city of Wolverhampton. Interestingly, she also raised the issue of urban forests—which one does not always automatically associate with Wolverhampton—based on her local knowledge of her constituency. May I also say that Opposition Members wish her well in whatever career she has chosen to follow after the next general election?
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) described the very disturbing case of Nichola Stevenson, who is missing from a hospital where she had been subject to a section order under the Mental Health Acts. We all hope and pray that there will be a happy outcome to the case. We also hope that wider lessons will be learned about people who are subject to section orders and in the care of hospitals.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) filled his stocking with several goodies. He packed manufacturing, energy, planning, policing and other local issues into his speech.
In his speech, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) also raised many issues, particularly transport issues concerning trains and buses that greatly concern his constituents. He demonstrated his great detailed knowledge of those problems in his constituency.
The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) raised the issues of staffing pressures in education and transport in his county.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made an interesting speech about the American election. His speech—reading between the lines—gave me great encouragement that some Labour Members are prepared to speak up for the current United Kingdom voting system and to flag up the danger of a politicised judiciary.
676
A politicised judiciary is a concern not only for the United States, but for the House and the United Kingdom. He made a very helpful speech in which he made some comparisons from which we can all draw lessons.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) again raised the issue of transport, this time in relation to the costs for those who live in rural areas and on very low incomes. He also raised the very important issue of beef exports and the extremely-good quality beef that Scotland can produce. In seeking to further the export of Scottish beef, he sought the Minister's reassurance that every effort will be made to ensure equity in BSE controls across the European Union. We are all concerned about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) deplored the dumbing down of Parliament, the House and particularly this Chamber, and the failure of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to be held to account in this Chamber. We have talked about that subject before. I am a relatively new member of the Modernisation Committee. Although I think that it is an appalling Committee, I assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to sit on it, grit my teeth and make the case that that Committee should not undermine the democratic right of hon. Members in this Chamber.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) yet again raised the issue, as he has on several occasions in recent weeks, of Ministers' failure to allow further debate and answer questions on the now very clear anomalies in planning and strategic control of the European army and its NATO interface. I know that he will persist. I hope that the Minister will grant his wish, as I am sure that he will not let the subject slip after Christmas, given its strategic importance to this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) gave some appalling examples of bungling bureaucracy. It seems appalling that young people taking their A-levels should be the victims of bureaucracy and the jobsworth mentality. I hope that the Minister has taken that on board.
The prize for the fullest stocking today must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). He had lots of goodies packed in, including asylum seekers, traffic wardens and cloning. At one point, I thought that he was going to suggest cloning traffic wardens, until I realised that that would be totally against his principles.
My hon. Friend ended with a rather serious, cautionary point about pets as presents at Christmas. I agree with the warning that he gave the House. I am very fond of animals, but anyone who has ever house trained a puppy will know that Christmas week is not the week for it. One has to go to bed late, get up early, and arm oneself with lots of newspaper. It is not something to be done at the same time as stuffing the Christmas turkey. My hon. Friend was wise to warn the House of the problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge spoke about the Kingskerswell bypass. My constituency is also in Devon, and I am well aware of his assiduity in making that case, to which I have already referred in the general context of bypasses in the county.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) mentioned Dibden bay. I have visited his constituency on several occasions. Regardless of the main subject about which one speaks to my hon. Friend's

677
constituents, all the questions afterwards are about Dibden bay. I am glad that he is so well up to speed on that subject that I can always defer to him when I am in his constituency and allow him to answer the probing questions that arise on what is happening in Dibden bay. As he demonstrated this afternoon, he will not let the matter drop. He is representing his constituents in a matter that I know concerns them greatly.
5.31 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): We have had in the debate, 14 speakers, who have raised many matters that are very important to them and to their constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) put it, hon. Members have a duty to raise such matters in the House.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) asked for more revolting MPs, who put grit in the machine, as he put it. My eye immediately strayed to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) who is a well known member of the awkward squad.
I also heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) said. I think that she is getting discharge happy. She made it clear that she would make her mark in the remainder of this Parliament if things did not go her way.
A number of hon. Members asked me to pass messages in different ways. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) asked me to have a word with at least 10 Ministers. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) asked me to get the relevant Minister to write to him about the local bypass. I can promise the letter straight away, but not the bypass. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) asked me to convey the message about Dibden bay in the strongest terms to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and I shall do so.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made an important speech about complaints and how we deal with them. I take a great interest in complaints. When people get things wrong they should acknowledge as much, apologise, and look at policy issues resulting from them. People should not be afraid to use a complaint to look at wider issues as a way of resolving matters. I do not think that we handle complaints well. We can do better, and we must improve public services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting spoke about constituency issues. He is already in touch with the relevant Minister of State about two points that he raised. Clearly, local residents want reassurance and information about the hostel that my hon. Friend spoke about, and they need to be involved in the process. He also mentioned a planning issue that centres on the green in his constituency. I shall take up those issues, and make sure that he gets a reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke about the greening of the cities, and urban forestry. That is an important matter. We must improve townscapes and landscapes, and planting trees is one way to do that. I was interested in what she said about the urban forestry unit, and I shall pursue the matter on her behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire spoke about the problems at Chesterfield hospital. I share his concerns about Nichola Stevenson. Like him, I hope for the best and try not to fear the worst.
678
My hon. Friend also talked about environmental issues. It is important that we turn coalfields into green fields. I know that his area has suffered many job losses in mining and textiles, and there is now the Biwater closure. I congratulate him on his strong campaign on this. He has won many friends in Derbyshire as a result, and the task must now be to bring new investment, new jobs and a new future to the area. I hope that we can put together the package that he seeks to ensure that that happens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) also talked about greenfield and planning issues. I am pleased that the south-west regional plan is now out and that we are aspiring to a brownfield target of 50 per cent. I believe that we should focus on market towns for integrated transport and jobs. It is important to create the right kind of houses—small ones, not big, executive, ranch-style ones.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also talked about the police, as did the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). In Gloucestershire, there is a rural police grant. In the Metropolitan police area, there are plans to recruit 2,000 extra police officers, and, of course, bringing back the housing allowance will be a big bonus in the London area.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) raised many points, one of which was about hospitals and nurses. I am pleased that we have been able to pay the wage claim in full, that it is above the rate of inflation and that the number of nurses coming back into the NHS is increasing. We need to do the same kind of thing with teachers, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) said. It is important that there are good salary structures and that we also raise morale and praise the best. We should not always criticise teachers but should thank them for the work that they do on our behalf. One way in which to help them is to cut down on their paperwork. I think that he knows that the Department for Education and Employment is monitoring the problem and reducing paperwork.
Transport has been a big issue—bypasses are back in vogue. I was pleased to be in Leicestershire just last week to announce that a bypass would open. We will have to look at the situation in Devon. I am pleased to say that the 10-year transport plan, with £180 billion attached to it over a period of time, gives us the opportunity not just to build roads but to look at public transport and invest in the long term.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was right to say that there were particular problems in rural areas. I had not really focused on his point about how that affects people on income support, but I will pick that issue up as it is important. We have done something like that with the new deal, giving extra support for transport costs for people on the new deal.
On planning, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) mentioned Dibden bay. I hear his opposition; planning issues need to be considered on their merit. I had better not say too much about it, but there are clear environmental problems and concerns not only at Dibden bay but at Shell Haven.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mentioned the United States. The lesson for me from that election is that every vote counts. I shall be putting out a leaflet with Mr. Gore's picture on it saying "Every vote counts".

679
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster asked for reassurance about the European defence initiative. I have not had the benefit of the textual analysis, but I reinforce the Prime Minister's point that we see the European army as complementary to NATO, and not a rival.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Question, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put, pursuant to Order [19 December].

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Hon. Members: Object

HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Motion made,
That—
the Lords Message [12th July] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and
the following Standing Order be made:

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

(2) The Committee shall consider—

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

680

(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

(3) The Committee shall report to the House—

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.

(4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order: or

(c) that the order should not be approved,

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.

(5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.

(6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

(7) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and

(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

As an Amendment to Margaret Beckett's Motion (Human Rights (Joint Committee)):
Mr. Paul Tyler
Line 47, at end add—
'(8) It shall be an Instruction to the Committee that it shall elect its chairman from among those members of the Committee who are members of opposition parties.'.—[Mr. McNulty]
Hon. Members: Object.

HUMAN RIGHTS
Motion made,
That Jean Corston, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), Sir Patrick Cormack and Mr. Robert Maclennan be Members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

  Shopworkers
  5.39 pm
  Angela Smith: As this is almost the last business before Christmas, it seems appropriate that the petition of my constituents in Basildon and East Thurrock has a seasonal flavour.
  The Petition states:
  The Humble Petition of shopworkers of the United Kingdom and others of like disposition.
  Sheweth
  That Christmas Day is a special day all for especially families, and is under attack from the ever-increasing desire of retailers to open their shops for trading. That at present there are no means available to stop shopworkers being forced to work on Christmas Day, unless it happens to fall on a Sunday. That the Christmas and New Year period is the busiest of the year and that shopworkers deserve at least one day of rest during that time.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to introduce a statutory protection of Christmas Day, which will stop shops of over 280 square metres from opening and ensure that not one shopworker is forced to work on Christmas Day. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

Flooding (Robertsbridge)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
5.40 pm
Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle): I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I begin by wishing you and our colleagues a very happy Christmas. I extend that wish to House of Commons staff—including the Doorkeepers, who have advised me not to take too long over this debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the plight of Robertsbridge in my constituency, where more than 70 homes have been flooded several times over the past year. Some of those houses have been under water on no fewer than six occasions since last Christmas.
The House has already held a number of debates on the problems of flooding, which affected so many parts of England and has devastated whole communities in Sussex. Today, I want to focus specifically on the difficulties and challenges facing the village of Robertsbridge.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food replied helpfully to the earlier debates, and listened sympathetically in the Lobby when my Sussex colleagues and I canvassed his support. I know that he and his officials, as well as the Environment Agency and other participating authorities, are determined to help. Today, I hope to concentrate the hon. Gentleman's mind on the speed with which action needs to be taken, and on the extent of financial assistance that is required, if practical solutions are to be implemented without delay.
I am mindful that the timing of the debate is a mixed blessing for the Minister and his team of officials in the Box, as it is late on the last day before the Christmas recess. However, I know that he will appreciate that the more than 200 Robertsbridge residents who joined me at a public meeting on Monday last week will welcome this early chance for me to express the feelings that they put across, fairly forcefully, at that meeting.
There is an added bonus for the Minister in that his reply will be the last speech in the Commons this year—just as mine is the last speech from the Back Benches. Furthermore, by my calculation, this is the last parliamentary debate of the millennium; as we count from one to 10, not zero to nine, I reckon that December 2000 brings the second millennium to a close.
The public meeting in Robertsbridge on Monday 11 December, which I have already mentioned, turned into what can euphemistically be described as a full and frank exchange of views between aggrieved Robertsbridge residents and officials of the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency, East Sussex county council and Rother district council.
Quite understandably, the villagers wanted immediate action to minimise the risk of repeating the nightmare of flooded homes. Local residents know the streams, ditches, drains, gulleys and culverts, and the whole flood plain, better than even expert outsiders can possibly do. Most speakers at the meeting had lived in Robertsbridge for years. They saw the bypass built over the flood plain; they saw the old Kent and East Sussex steam railway

683
embankment demolished; they have seen new houses built on the flood plain, in defiance of local advice, adding to the problems of water run off. They know their territory.
The local Robertsbridge people were frankly impatient with officials for their no doubt painstaking explanations of where the flood water flowed from. To the flood victims, water in their kitchen or living room, rising step by step upstairs, is nasty, dirty water that ruins their carpets, floors, walls, cooker and so on—not to mention their sense of personal security and privacy.
Everything that belongs to the victims is ruined—as the people of Robertsbridge have repeatedly found out. The prospect of a contested insurance claim—for those who have been able to afford insurance—or, worse still, the fear of growing debt, and the disruption of the family life that people called their own, behind their front door, is devastating.
The residents hotly contested the Environment Agency's version—that the nearby Darwell reservoir was full and thus added to the floods—because Southern Water has told the local Salehurst parish council that the local reservoir was in fact only 52 per cent. full on the night of the great October flood.
There was little comfort for the villagers in Dr. Buckley's thoroughly well meant assurance that she had told the Minister—in my opinion, she was right to do so—that Robertsbridge was the worst hit community on her watch, which covers not only Kent but a large stretch of the Sussex weald that includes the Robertsbridge catchment area. They lost patience with the scrupulous, but in the event perhaps tactless, attempt by officials to explain the priority rankings that had eliminated Robertsbridge's planned capital improvements for the stream behind Northbridge street and Rutley close in 1997. They did not want to know about the engineering consultants' review of what is, for Robertsbridge, a stark and obvious fact: that the culverts under the bypass are too small to allow floodwater to flow away as freely as it should. That was demonstrated by the fact that water levels on the village side of the bypass were 4 ft higher than on the other side, downstream of the bypass.
Many local people dispute the official view that the Rother is no longer tidal as far upstream as Robertsbridge.
Local villagers want officials to dispense with studies and reviews. Instead, they want money spent now, as a matter of absolute priority, to speed up maintenance projects and capital works and to enlarge the culverts under the bypass.
Residents of Rutley close and other home owners are demanding compensation from the Highways Agency, with which I have a meeting after Christmas on that subject, or from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, because they are convinced that the bypass has exacerbated the floods and rendered their homes unsaleable.
The Environment Agency was under some pressure for not having its final report and analysis to present to the public meeting 10 days ago, but in all fairness the agency arranged the meeting before Christmas, with only its preliminary findings available, because I had very strongly urged its representatives to meet local residents at the earliest opportunity, and they were trying to be helpful.
684
Since the meeting, Dr. Buckley and her colleagues have submitted a helpful draft memorandum defining the up-to-date position. I commend the agency's willingness to help, but it can no longer be in any doubt about the anxieties and growing impatience felt in Robertsbridge.
Today I want to go a stage further and list for the Minister the practical demands that I hope he will be able to meet, to help Robertsbridge. First and foremost, we need, as a priority a reassessment of the effect of the bypass across the I Rother flood plain, where it acts as a dam wall, holding back water. We want larger culverts under that stretch of the bypass, and we need them as soon as is practicable.
Secondly, we want the Government to consider whether some houses in Robertsbridge have been made unsaleable because the bypass caused worse flooding than would have occurred had it not been constructed there, and to address demands for compensation.
Thirdly, we want the storm drain that runs down Silver hill—which, unbelievably, fed the flooded village with yet more water from the surrounding higher ground—to be diverted on to the other side of the flood plain.
Fourthly, we want implementation of the plans to clear the stream bed under Northbridge street, to construct a flood defence wall there, and partially to divert the channel. Those works were mooted in 1994 and 1995 and put to the present Government in 1997, but they were rejected—for lack of funding, I understand—and not given sufficient priority.
Fifthly, it is essential that the flood plain outside the village is cleared of any surplus soil, spread after the demolition of the old steam railway embankment some years ago.
Sixthly, it is not only the culverts that need de-silting. The ditches and stream channels also require attention, to remove brambles, secondary growth and other obstacles that impede the normal water flow. This work is under way, but it needs to be completed without interruption. I am pleased to say that, perhaps prompted by the public meeting and the announcement of this Adjournment debate, it is under way fairly busily. I hope that it will continue without interruption.
Seventhly, I should like to repeat the request that I made in the House to the Deputy Prime Minister when he made a statement on the flooding—with the Minister who is present today sitting beside him. My request then was to expedite the maximum assistance under the Bellwin guidelines. As the Minister knows, East Sussex county council has applied initially for £6.35 million. However, the council needs £3.3 million for road repairs as a result of flood damage in the county, and that is a preliminary estimate. The figure might rise to £5 million or even more.
Eighthly, I hope that the Minister will keep in mind Rother district council's call for co-ordination among all the relevant agencies and authorities to ensure that repairs and improvements are delivered against a tight timetable. In that context, I hope that Salehurst parish council will have a useful and important liaison role in Robertsbridge.
Ninthly, I support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) in his recent Adjournment debate on flooding that council tax rebates would help householders whose homes have been affected by flooding. The Minister addressed that problem when it was raised the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for Lewes.

685
Tenthly, as a practical precaution for the rest of this winter and to provide reassurance to householders, further supplies of sandbags need to be stocked locally given the possibility of yet more floods.
No one disputes that the weather is beyond our control, nor that the emergency services and local volunteers have done wonders in Robertsbridge and elsewhere during the floods. The Environment Agency, the Highways Agency and local authorities are committed to do what they can to help. Inexplicably, the flood defence committee has rejected the Environment Agency's request for higher-level funding in area. Again that was flagged up during the recent Adjournment debate on floods in Lewes. Ownership of the problem and the remedies lie with the Minister and the floods taskforce that he leads. Like him, I have in the past chaired a Cabinet Sub-Committee tasked with specific objectives. May I suggest that it is up to him to impress upon the Treasury that £50 million of extra funding will not be nearly enough to mend and improve the national flood defence infrastructure.
In East Sussex alone at least £55 million is needed, compared with the £3.2 million that East Sussex county council contributes annually to flood defence projects. Its mammoth task lies ahead, and it needs co-ordination, funding and the sense of purpose that I am sure the Minister is determined to provide. It is up to him to cut through the reviews, the red tape and the bureaucratic procedures to get the work done. I hope that he will succeed, and I wish him well in that important role.
I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to meet me early in the new year for further discussions. I hope that he will let me bring representatives from Robertsbridge to the meeting. It would be even better if he were to find time in his busy schedule to visit the village himself in the new year. I can assure him that the efforts being made in East Sussex cut across party political lines in a united effort. With the Minister's help, we can put Robertsbridge back on its feet—on dry land.
5.52 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on raising this issue. I should like to put on record my sympathy for his constituents, especially those who have experienced repeat flooding. I have read a detailed report about the situation, and understand residents' concerns, especially those of people who have been flooded more than once.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, mine is the last contribution of the year, and I add my season's best wishes to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the staff who are here for the bitter end of the debate. Residents' concerns are a priority, and I have no objection to being here this evening to discuss flooding and to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I shall try to respond to the points made, and see what I can do to assist.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the weather in October was wholly exceptional. The records of flooding in Robertsbridge show that the highest-ever flood levels were reached. Residents have a point about flood plain development. Again, looking back on the area's history, it is fair to say that there has been some questionable development. I understand that some of the houses affected were flooded during their construction. That calls
686
into question the original planning permission and whether building them in that place was appropriate. Of course, that is no consolation to the people who live there, but we have to consider the problem as we find it.
I understand that a disused railway embankment was removed at about the same time as the bypass was built. The Environment Agency, or its predecessor organisation, the National Rivers Authority, was not consulted about that at the time. Generally speaking, I understand that the culverts under the bypass are large enough to cope with normal flood flows. However, the culverts could not cope with the flows that occurred in October. The agency will have to re-examine the issue and it will have to discuss it with the Highways Agency.
The hon. Gentleman outlined a comprehensive range of perfectly reasonable points. I understand that a Rother strategy study has been established to consider all the issues that he raised. They have to be considered overall in terms of the most appropriate scheme.
The original scheme considered was not progressed, not because of lack of funding but because it did not meet the priority score. Technical and environmental assessments have to be made and a cost-benefit analysis carried out. If a scheme costs a great deal more than what it is defending against, it will come down the priority score.
It might reassure the hon. Gentleman, however, to learn that, as a result of the October flooding, the Government have raised the scoring for urban river defence schemes. They receive a higher score, and the fact that we have made more money available also means that the threshold score has been lowered from 23 to 20 points. I do not know whether that will help the scheme in the hon. Gentleman's area, but it will not be unhelpful. I shall be very interested to learn the details of the scheme when it is introduced by the Environment Agency.
The original scheme that was proposed was designed to a one-in-50 years standard. Even if it had been built, it would have been overwhelmed by the October floods. The water levels were so high that even that scheme would not have worked. That is another reason why there has to be a re-evaluation in Robertsbridge; we must find the right way forward.
The hon. Gentleman also made several points about local authorities. I am aware of them, and I have written to every chief executive of local councils in flood-hit areas. I also attended a constructive meeting of the local-central partnership in which central Government meet the Local Government Association. Many of the points about local authorities, the workings of the Bellwin scheme, flood defence programmes, investment strategies and fundraising were all mentioned and discussions are on-going. We take those points seriously and we shall respond to them.
Local authorities are responsible for the supply of sandbags, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman's council about the matter. If the Environment Agency has spare capacity, it is always willing to help out locally, but I must emphasise that it is responsible for the defences, not individual householders, who are the responsibility of the local authority.
One can dispute the figure of £51 million; nevertheless, it is £51 million on top of an increasing budget of £30 million over the next three years. The £51 million is capital grant aid, so it levers out about £70 million, which is a considerable sum. I have heard it said that £55 million

687
is needed for flood defences in the hon. Gentleman's area, but I have never seen a breakdown of that figure, so I cannot say whether it is accurate. However, I can say that the Government do not dispute the need for more investment in flood and coastal defences. We are investing more, and we will continue to review the situation, in consultation with local people.
I am very willing to meet the hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to bring some of his constituents to represent the residents, I should be only too pleased to meet them too. I certainly have no objection to visiting the area. The only difficulty is that recent events mean that I have spent an
688
awful lot of time in different places around the country, and there are many demands on my diary. However, I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind. I can assure him that if he would like to bring a delegation, I should be only too pleased to receive it, and we can talk about the issues in greater detail.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Perhaps it is appropriate that the occupant of the Chair should have the very last word, so I, in turn, wish all hon. Members a happy Christmas and extend that wish to all the members of the House of Commons who serve us so well throughout the year.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

British Trade International
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1999–2000, on the Annual Reports of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British Trade International 2000, HC 507 (including Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry Committees, meeting concurrently on 6th June), and the Government response thereto, Cm 4894.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
12.33 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): This is an opportune time to give the House an appraisal of British Trade International, an important organisation in terms of exports and wealth creation for our nation. As co-chairman of the board of BTI with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), I am extremely proud to have had a close association with that body. BTI, through its operating arms, Trade Partners UK and Invest UK, has been a success in helping British business in international markets and attracting inward investment to this country. It now represents a model of how the Government wish to see public services develop.
I should like to say a few words about the global context in which BTI operates. I am constantly surprised by how much we take our business success for granted. Britain is the world's fourth-largest exporter. British firms trade in every market in the world, and we sell more abroad, relative to our gross domestic product, than most of our competitors. We are talking about a staggering £230 billion a year—more than the combined GDP of Denmark, Ireland, Portugal and Luxembourg in 1999. Per head of population, we export more than the Americans or the Japanese. In 1999—the most recent year for which we have figures—our companies earned more from investments overseas than any other country outside the USA and Japan. The value of exports continues to grow rapidly. In the USA, for example, exports of goods have been growing at more than 15 per cent. this year. In recent years, the United Kingdom has been the fastest growing major exporter to far eastern markets.
Those are staggering achievements. We had hoped that they would receive more publicity than they have, but unfortunately the press seems to want only bad stories, not good ones. Those achievements are testimony to the quality of goods and services produced in the UK and to the success of our business in promoting them. We should not forget that British business leaders are world leaders in several fields: pharmaceuticals; aerospace; the creative and entertainment world and its industries, which are becoming major exporters; and finance and business services.
138WH
Our creative ability is still widely and rightly admired. I understand that a Japanese Ministry for Trade and Industry study once estimated that the UK had been responsible for more than half all significant inventions since 1945. Many of us still appreciate—I do, as an engineer—seeing the Rolls-Royce sign on the engine of an aircraft when we walk up its steps. We feel a certain confidence and pride. As an engineer, I used to work on Rolls-Royce equipment, so I can assure people that it is safe. The reputation of our engineers, scientists and technologists serves us well in all markets and is a source of pride. I see that as I travel throughout the world.
As the world increasingly focuses on new knowledge as the basis for competitive advantage, the talents and accessibility of the UK science base becomes an even more powerful asset. Our historic trading role, with links to all the world's regions, and the use of English as the global business language, have also been invaluable national assets. However, we cannot rely on them and the quality of our products alone. Firms will continue to need access to high-quality information and advice if they are fully to exploit changing overseas markets. The revamped BTI can continue to make a real difference in that area.
The export benefits to this country do not come only from the direct value of our export sales. International trade helps to make our nation's business stronger. Firms that export bring international know-how into our economy and tend to be among our most innovative businesses, with higher growth rates and a greater ability to withstand short-term market fluctuations. BTI is taking on board the important cultural change that takes place in a company that starts to export. It becomes much more innovative, looking for new ideas and developments, and that is true throughout business.
In short, firms that export grow faster and survive better. We should remember that, for each large business that wins business overseas, a supply chain—often comprising small and medium-sized enterprises in the geographical locality of the major supplier—will be affected. There is real benefit to UK plc—in jobs and economic prosperity—in helping firms that already export and those that want to do so. Again, that is a challenge for BTI.
However, exports are only one side of the coin. The Government are determined to create a successful and dynamic Britain, and winning inward investment is a key part of that mission, both economically and socially. After the USA, we lead the world in attracting foreign direct investment stock. Britain is already Europe's top location for overseas inward investment. We attract nearly a quarter of all investment into the European Union, including more than 41 per cent. of United States investment and 45 per cent. of Japanese investment. That investment accounts for 17 per cent. of British manufacturing employment and more than a third of manufacturing investment.
Last year's figures for inward investment were the highest ever recorded by Invest UK—757 projects are expected to create more than 50,000 new jobs. A major feature in many of those investment decisions is our reputation for having a strong science and technology base, high-quality telecommunications and a skilled and adaptable work force. Knowledge is a tradeable commodity throughout the world, and many United Kingdom universities and scientific institutions are now

139WH
engaged in joint ventures that are designed to apply their academic findings to commercial projects. For example, the United Kingdom has more centres carrying out clinical research than any other European country, with more than 170 contract research organisations.
To complete such a virtuous circle, I draw attention to the fact that among the 18,000 foreign investors in the United Kingdom are some of our biggest exporters. Overseas companies now account for about 40 per cent. of Britain's top 100 exporting companies. We have long passed the time when we thought of investment as just investment and exports as just exports. We must move away from such old-fashioned and rigid distinctions. In the global economy, overseas companies are potential buyers, potential investors and potential partners in collaborative projects.
I make no apology for emphasising British success in such areas. As a nation, we are prone to be self-critical even when we should be celebrating our achievements—something that is unfortunately carried forward by the press. What has happened to Vauxhall in the past few weeks is disappointing, but the UK inward investment figures for last year alone show that we are more than compensating for changes that are taking place in our industrial base.
BTI was created a little over 18 months ago as the Government's lead organisation for exports and overseas investment. It brought together into a single structure a patchwork of services that used to be highly fragmented, such as export promotions from the Department of Trade and Industry, the commercial work of diplomatic posts overseas and support in the regions through the Business Link network. The decision earlier this year to bring Invest UK—formerly the Invest in Britain Bureau—under the BTI umbrella will enable the changing shape of trade and investment activity to be exploited more effectively. It will create new opportunities to project a single focus for promoting the United Kingdom's commercial interests worldwide and will establish a truly one-stop shop for investors and business alike.
BTI is a good example of the way forward for public services in this country. It is very much about joined-up government, operating in a seamless way to benefit the consumer. BTI now provides a unique network of support for British firms and inward investors—local, national and international—with the support of staff in more than 200 countries. Staff from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the private sector work alongside each other in a single management structure with the goal of developing business competitiveness in the United Kingdom.
The creation of BTI illustrates the Government's willingness to listen to business, to develop a real partnership and to take a genuine approach to the difficulties that we face. It was created in direct response to the views of business. Sir Richard Wilson's review of international trade promotion is probably the largest review of trade and investment work to be carried out in living memory. Hundreds of business people were able to make their views known to the Government. However, business involvement extends beyond that. BTI is all about partnerships with business and those
140WH
partnerships are embedded throughout the organisation and are central to its existence. Its board has a majority of private sector members. Business people work on secondment within the organisation. More than 200 business men and women advise and support BTI's business advisory groups, and some of the United Kingdom's most senior business people serve as ambassadors for British business, speaking for UK plc abroad.
I value immensely the contribution that has been made by Sir David Wright, as chief executive, and the staff that work for BTI and its subsidiary organisations. Sir David Wright respects the views of business representatives, and works with them to make BTI one of the most effective organisations in the world, in terms of both trade development and trade promotion. We believe that the firm will be a unique animal in exports and inward investment.
Moreover, the partnerships extend beyond the private sector. The BTI board includes representatives not only from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but from the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the devolved Administrations, which are extremely important in this area, regional development agencies and business links. So there is real and tangible partnership. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will agree that there is a sense of direction and dynamics when we chair board meetings.
I spoke to the business men after the meeting this week when we laid out the programme for the next 12 months, and learned that they felt that there was added value to their work. Their comments were pleasing. I was particularly pleased to see a closer, positive partnership between BTI and our Export Credits Guarantee Department. Businesses need access to competitive export credit support to do business in some sectors and more difficult markets, and that is a facility that the ECGD offers to British firms by insuring £3 to £4 billion a year of capital goods and services, and investments in more difficult overseas markets.
Export credit, lines of project finance and overseas investment insurance offered by the ECGD are all essential tools in our armoury, and I look to the ECGD to provide, with BTI, a seamless service to exporters. The ECGD is taking steps to widen its customer base. I was pleased to announce on 1 November a package of measures aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises to help them obtain more easily, the insurance finance that they may need particularly in emerging markets. Widening the customer base does not just stop at small and medium-sized enterprises. For multinationals, the ECGD has already identified target companies including large UK-based companies, project sponsors and foreign-based borrowers as potential customers.
The ECGD is establishing closer ties with a range of organisations, including the Department of Trade and Industry's small business service, chambers of commerce and trade associations in direct contact with smaller exporters. That underlines the importance of close links with Trade Partners UK, and I am encouraging both organisations to seek further ways to support each other. As for the regional launch with the ECGD, we were pleasantly surprised by the number of contacts made, and I hope that, with the supply chains

141WH
that are now in place—the chains in the global marketplace as a result of the e-revolution—we can now make the ECGD a much more potent tool.
Another pillar of our strategy for modern public services is to ensure that we exploit the opportunities offered by developments in information and communication technology. In the modern knowledge economy, information shoots around the world at the press of a button. I am pleased to say that more than four-fifths of UK business is now on-line, and with customers all around the world, it is essential that BTI is poised to keep pace with such developments. That is why we have provided major new funding—£20 million over the next three years—to build on the existing electronic services offered by Trade Partners UK and Invest UK. Our aim must be to ensure that British Trade International is a world-class exemplar of online government and help for business.
Business is responding. The Trade Partners UK internet-based sales lead service already delivers details of 2,000 sales leads and market intelligence every month to nearly 16,000 customers. More than 100,000 searches are made for British suppliers on its exporters' database every month. New and potential exporters use the internet as their first point of contact with Trade Partners UK. That will increase month on month as people get to know not just the service, but its quality. The electronic gateway also provides a direct link to local international trade teams. One aim of Trade Partners UK is to provide a strong regional operation, close to the service's customers, making it easier to access.
International trade directors, most with a private sector background, have now been appointed in each of the nine English regions. Located, in most cases, in the regional development agencies, they are tasked with delivering customer-driven services and ensuring that regional activities are properly integrated. They also have an important role in developing closer links with RDA work on inward investment.
I am delighted that Trade Partners UK is committed to continuing to strengthen its regional operation. In particular, a major new national programme of support will help newcomers make a success of their first contact overseas. We see that as an important element of the development part of Trade Partners UK. Together with chambers of commerce, export clubs and others, it will set national accreditation standards for the support available to new exporters. Delivered regionally and locally, it will use innovative training methods such as e-tutorials.
One of the international trade directors' key aims is to be proactive in seeking out firms that are ready to reach new overseas markets and are ready for new challenges. Those are to be found particularly in the small and medium enterprise sector. The Trade Partners UK regional network also provides access to a range of services. This year, for example, Trade Partners UK expects to help 4,500 businesses to go on a trade mission to an overseas market; 9,000 businesses to exhibit at overseas trade fairs; more than 20,000 businesses to get a sales lead from abroad; more than 50,000 businesses to find answers to market inquiries; and 56,000 businesses to promote themselves on our UK exporters database.
142WH
That is good by any standards, but we can do a lot better. We hope that the targets that we have set for BTI can be met and in some cases surpassed.
I should like just to touch on a few areas where BTI has added real value. When I came into this job 18 months ago, one of my first tasks was to go to Kosovo. We had been heavily criticised after the Gulf war for not being proactive and taking part in the reconstruction of the countries. A team was put together through BTI under the chairmanship of Nigel Thompson, the deputy chairman of Ove Arup. We were able to move into Kosovo very quickly and we secured a £20 million civil engineering contract for a British-led consortium.
When the situation changed in Serbia and Yugoslavia, we moved in with an advance team. It is good that AMEC has been asked to give an overall assessment of the energy needs in Yugoslavia. It was important that we moved in there quickly. We have done so for two reasons: first, to help in the restructuring of Serbia and Yugoslavia, and, secondly, to show that we support the regime. There are some important elections on 23 December. We were able to make a material difference to the new presidency in areas such as health and water and energy supplies.
There has been no praise in the press for that. On television and radio, I have mentioned the media criticisms after the Gulf war and pointed out that we are now in Kosovo, Serbia and possibly in wider Yugoslavia, yet I hear no praise at all. However, the BTI team have expertly shown, with public and private sectors working together, that the United Kingdom can lead the field in many of the disciplines and industries that are needed there.
It is 18 months since BTI began operating. We have been able to involve the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That was not easy, but work is going on under the leadership of Sir David Wright with a business-led board. Invest UK and Trade Partners UK are working closely together internationally, nationally and locally, and there is now a far better working relationship with the financial instrument that is represented by the Export Credits Guarantee Department—the £3 billion to £4 billion insurance and reinsurance facility that we give to British business wanting to export to the difficult markets in question.
After the further consolidation that is going on has been completed, and once the organisation is established, together with the information and communication technology systems, the United Kingdom will be able to be proud of our achievement. We shall probably have the world's best provision with respect to export promotion and development and inward investment. We shall be able to move information and knowledge around at the press of a button. Our business men will be able to obtain relevant information at any place and time. That is a great achievement by the public and private sectors working together. I think that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) will agree that that is good, joined-up government.
12.56 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton): I welcome this debate, but I do not agree with the Minister, despite his optimistic tone, that the

143WH
Department of Trade and Industry has a good record of promoting exports and free trade. Trade is crucial to this country's economic success. We have always been a great trading nation and the Opposition hope that that will long continue.
As the Minister said, with just 60 million people, Britain is the fourth-largest economy in the world. For many years, we have received more investment from overseas companies and we have invested more abroad than any country except the United States. Britain is the world's fifth-largest exporter of goods and second-largest exporter of services. About 5 per cent. of all goods exported in the world originate in Britain. Given the Government's onslaught against manufacturing, exemplified by the climate change levy and £5 billion a year in higher regulatory burdens, whether that record can be sustained is a moot question, but if it proves to be sustainable, it will not be thanks to Ministers at the DTI.
The launch of BTI was accompanied by glossy documents full of fine words, but like so much emanating from the Government it was all spin and little achievement. It was announced at the time that BTI
brings together teams in more than 200 British embassies and posts overseas, more than 45 Business Links in the UK and at least nine government departments, as well as representatives in Chambers of Commerce across the country&For more information visit the website.
I am sure that that is all marvellous. The Minister said that BTI would
strengthen and better co-ordinate the relationships between investment and trade activities in central Government.
So it goes on. There is more of such bureaucrat-speak in the DTI expenditure plans, in which it is stated that BTI will
encourage more businesses&to take an active and professional approach to business opportunities overseas. A target was set for 50 per cent. of firms to adjust their approach to exporting as a result of assistance provided.
Then, lo and behold, the document announces that in the period January to June 1999 a target of 50.1 per cent. was achieved: BTI just made it. It seems rather convenient, as well as being couched in bureaucrat-speak. This view is not only mine but that of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which commented on BTI's annual report:
This document has more of the nature of a promotional brochure than an annual report in the normal Whitehall model.
The Committee recommended
that a more factually-based Annual Report be produced by BTI in 2001 and subsequent years.
Amen to that. The same recommendation should, I believe, apply to many Government reports in which facts and figures are being manipulated to suit propagandist purposes—particularly in the Budget Red Book.
The bureaucratic nature of the beast is apparently revealed by the Select Committee's comment on the
rebranding of BTI as Trade Partners UK—an exercise which cost £250,000—one which we are surprised was necessary so soon after the initial launch.
Annual reports and Select Committee reports are all well and good, but the success of BTI and the DTI's export initiatives should really be measured by export
144WH
figures. In 1997, Britain had a net trade surplus in exports and imports of goods and services of £504 million. In 1998, that had become a trade deficit of £7.9 billion, and in 1999, a trade deficit of £15.2 billion.
Perhaps that is simply a reflection of the Government's record rather than that of BTI. As the Minister said, it was only in May 1999 that the Overseas Trade Services was transmogrified into British Trade International. There was a net trade deficit in goods and services of £4.3 billion in the first quarter of 2000, one of £4.6 billion in the second, and a staggering £5 billion trade deficit in the third. Those are not good figures. The Library brief in which the statistics are collated states:
The last 6 quarterly figures include some of the largest quarterly deficits in trade in goods ever recorded. Surpluses in the trade in services have also been wakening over recent years.
All that said, no doubt the DTI has a role in helping companies and small businesses in export promotion. Many people in BTI undoubtedly work hard and effectively in doing so, and a Conservative Government would be equally committed to such work. What is frustrating about the Government, especially the DTI, is the chasm between their rhetoric and their actions. Another example is on page 77 of the comprehensive spending review of July 1998, which states:
By the end of this Parliament&a comprehensive programme of liberalisation of world trade and investment will be agreed internationally.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us how that is getting on.
What initiatives have been undertaken to reduce the 15,000 different tariffs on goods entering the European Union? Why is there a 16 per cent. duty on importing clementines, a 9.5 per cent. duty on chocolate and a 10.4 per cent. duty on white chocolate? Why is there a 5.4 per cent. duty on imported fruit salads, but a 10.4 per cent. duty on imported fruit salads that contain prunes? Why is there a 10 per cent. duty on coffee, but a 12 per cent. duty on decaffeinated coffee? For fresh figs the duty is 6.1 per cent., but for dried figs it is 8.7 per cent. Why is there a duty of 5.3 per cent. on imported communion wafers and a 19.9 per cent. duty on imported grapefruit segments? Those who believe in free trade—Britain has always benefited from it—believe that it is time to bring down the trade barriers. The Conservative party is committed to working with the European Union to eliminate all the barriers by 2020.
When I listen to the Minister's speeches on free trade and remember the shambles at Seattle last year, I am not convinced that the Government, or at least the DTI, are really committed to free trade. The Secretary of State for International Development, a remarkable and commendable politician, consistently challenges the left's opposition to global free trade, despite her left-wing pedigree. The Minister does not. The Secretary of State for International Development does so through conviction and through her realisation that the only effective way to eliminate poverty in the developing world is by free trade. In a debate on the World Trade Organisation, she said:
The fastest reduction of poverty for the largest number of people in the whole of human history has resulted from rapid economic growth in east Asia over the past 30 years. That happened because inward investment was attracted from multinational capital, which brings with it knowledge and technology. That is how we must harness those things: by attracting investment to create opportunities to export and trade

145WH
that will grow economies rapidly. That lifts up poor people as well as providing for investment in the education of the people.—[Official Report, 9 December 1999; Vol. 340,c 1089.]
Many on the left strongly believe that nations should be allowed to ban the import of goods that are manufactured using people who are paid rates of pay that are well below those that would be acceptable in countries such as Britain and the United States. That view is often espoused by British and American trade unions. Earlier this year, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson made a speech in which he said that he found that argument obnoxious. He said:
The suggestion that poverty represents a competitive advantage to less developed nations and that the developed world should exclude products from its markets or impose huge tariffs because they are produced more cheaply is particularly unattractive.
He is right. In many developing nations, the choice is not between a child working or attending school, but between working and starving. As the Secretary of State for International Development has said, banning such products would punish countries for their poverty and trap their children in endless poverty.
There are also those who argue that we should allow the import of products from developing countries free of tariffs and restrictions in order to boost their emerging industries—I agree with that—but that we should not encourage developing countries to lower their own trade barriers, lest that brings in competition and damages their emerging industries. That is the EU approach, which the Minister supports when he goes to Europe. However, during the same debate in the House on 9 December, the Secretary of State for International Development demolished that argument. She said:
Many African countries try to develop behind protectionist barriers. They had very inefficient, expensive and highly subsidised local industries and they paid lousy prices for local crops to the very poor people in their rural areas. Their economies did not grow, but their population grew and poverty grew invincibly.—[Official Report, 9 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 1089.]
Those who point to that sort of failure and say that it is the result of free trade misread economics and history. Again, the right hon. Lady is correct.
Mr. Caborn: This is wonderful stuff.
Mr. Gibb: I am glad that the Minister agrees.
The Secretary of State said in an article in The Independent about her White Paper on globalisation:
The protesters want to stop globalisation because they argue it means multinational capital trampling all over us. The poorest countries in the world are desperate to interest multinational companies in investing and thus bringing access to the clean water, sanitation, electrification, telecommunications, information technology and transport systems that we take for granted.
I fully support everything that she says on these issues. She is doing a marvellous job helping the third world by being true to her convictions that this is the right way to go.
However, the Secretary of State's words and activities contrast sharply with the activity—or, rather, lack of activity—at the DTI. It is widely acknowledged that the DTI's current incumbents have little clout with other Departments. I am sorry to say that, having been supportive of one of the Minister's colleagues. The DTI seems to be the departmental whipping boy of the new
146WH
Labour Government. The Treasury piles on business taxes such as IR35 and the climate change levy with barely a squeak from the Secretary of State, despite the huge damage that they are causing to the IT and manufacturing sectors. There are turf battles with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions over utility regulation, which the DETR generally wins. Now a battle is emerging with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which the FCO is winning.
The Machine Tool Technologies Association is highly concerned about the delays—often of several months—that its members face in obtaining export licences, which are leading to business being lost to this country. I could quote many examples, but I shall refer to just a couple. In 1999, an equipment manufacturer in Coventry made an application to export to India and received a licence eight months later. In January 2000, the company made a new application with virtually the same details other than a slightly different part number. In May this year, after continued delays, it still had not been contacted and its letter of credit expired. By October, when it got in touch with the MTTA, it had still received no response. It is now being forced to pack up trading with India altogether. The chief executive of the company said:
The biggest frustration is that we cannot speak to anyone in authority at the DTI—we feel we are just being fobbed off by a junior bureaucrat.
Another manufacturer in Merseyside applied for a licence in October 1999 and had to wait until September 2000 to be told that no licence was required. The manufacturer stated:
Our records show that since February 2000 we made contact in excess of 20 times by telephone, e-mail and fax to the DTI and the Foreign Office.
Many promises were broken and, on at least one occasion, we were given conflicting information from the 2 departments.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. If he writes to me, I will look into the matter because I would not be prepared to allow the Department to behave in the way that he describes. However, although it is the DTI's responsibility to issue licences, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must deal, for example, with defence contracts. The hon. Gentleman will know that a cross-reference must be made, moreover, to the Department for International Development. Nevertheless, I shall look into the matter personally and write to him. Given that the manufacturer tried to contact the DTI 20 times, the problem needs to be taken seriously and I shall look into it, if the hon. Gentleman will give me the necessary information.
Mr. Gibb: I shall see what I can do. Unfortunately, this is a systemic problem. The examples that I have given are just two among many. They are not isolated instances.
The Minister mentioned the need to refer to other Departments and in his opening remarks he spoke of the need for, and effectiveness of, joined-up government. However, those examples illustrate a lack of joined-up government. I acknowledge that many delays are caused by the involvement of other Departments, such as the

147WH
Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, but damage is being done to our business and we must sort out the problem.
The reality is that the difficulties faced by exporters originate not from dealing with foreign cultures or coping with long distances, but from our own Government. Of course we need to ensure that huge care is taken when granting export licences, so that products cannot be used for unacceptable purposes, such as making nuclear bombs. However, the study of such applications should not be allowed to take eight or 11 months. In that time, continuous study of those applications would amount to about 1,200 hours. In reality, applications spend most of that time sitting in in-trays, waiting to be examined.
If the Government are serious about exports, they will devote more time to speeding up the licence application process. I thank the Minister for his intervention and I shall ask the MTTA to write to him giving the relevant details.
The rhetoric and fine words in the DTI documents need to be followed up by a little more concrete action in the offices and corridors of Victoria street. We also need more active campaigning for reduced tariffs in the European Union. A more pro-active commitment to international free trade by the DTI, combined with a less regulating and taxing Treasury, might improve Britain's trade figures. Clearly, the figures that I read out in today's debate are an enormous cause for concern.
1.12 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): I agree with many of the Minister's comments, and I should particularly like to add my compliments to those paid to Sir David Wright, whom I have encountered at various stages of his professional career, and who is undoubtedly an excellent public servant.
I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), particularly on the importance of free trade and the defence of globalisation. They are important principles for which he put the case trenchantly and well, but I have some queries about his presentation. He rightly said that an enormous number of trade barriers remain: there are about 50,000 tariff line items in the trade categories. However, he failed to mention that many are accounted for by specialised areas. If my memory serves me right, standard international trade classification items 65 and 8—textiles and clothing—account for a disproportionate number. Although I would argue in favour of total liberalisation of textiles and clothing, the Conservatives have in the past been rather coy about the subject, and it is unclear where they stand.
Similarly, a swathe of items is accounted for by the generalised system of preferences. The system is designed to help developing countries, but it has become so bureaucratic that it is probably no longer worth persisting with it. I doubt its value, and I should be interested to know whether the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton shares that judgment.
The other categories, which account for all the examples to which the hon. Gentleman referred, relate to agriculture. It is true that protectionism in agriculture
148WH
is grotesque, costly and damaging for all concerned. However, in the debate on sugar in this Chamber a few weeks ago, hordes of Members, many of whom were Conservatives, clamoured for protection of the sugar beet industry. The principle of free trade is important, but often it is not consistently applied.
I agree with much of what was said about free trade by the Minister and the Conservatives. However, the more I read the report—particularly the transcript of the interrogation by the two Select Committees—the more I felt that we should move away from platitudes about the wonders of Great Britain Ltd. and ask instead critical questions about what British Trade International is actually doing. The transcript of the interrogation reads like a script from "Yes, Minister". Reference is made to endless turf disputes between the Foreign Office and the DTI that go back over decades. It reads more like an account of the war between the Serbs and the Croats than a story of an integrated Government team practising joined-up government. Some of the best Rolls-Royce minds in the civil service are employed dreaming up new names for their departments, which is bizarre.
Two points hardened my concern. First, BTI accounts for a substantial budget of almost £200 million. That is not a vast sum compared with total British public expenditure, but it is substantial compared with British services overseas. That money has an opportunity cost: it could have been spent on vaccines in Africa, British external broadcasting services or deployed in some other way. Sir David Wright's contribution showed that he regards £200 million—the precise figure is £188 million—as hopelessly inadequate. Is such an application of Government funding useful?
The second matter that aroused my suspicions about BTI was the enormous effort to re-brand it, including hiring consultants to find it a new name. Why was that necessary? That is similar to the Metropolitan police trying to improve its image by re-launching itself with a new name, such as Londonsecurity.com, and putting adverts in newspapers saying, "If you have problems with burglars, robbers and muggers, don't phone a friend, phone your friendly copper on 999." Why should a civil service department that is supposedly helping British business have to promote itself to its own customers? The whole concept is preposterous, which leads me to question whether its substantial intellectual and managerial resources are underemployed. Is BTI really necessary? What does it do that is indispensable? Those questions had to be asked, and I shall try to answer them.
First, the promotion of British exports is good for British jobs. The Minister made that point explicitly and by implication. We all have firms in our constituencies that export and create local employment, and we treat that as a benefit. However, we must consider exports more critically. Probably half of Britain is in a state of economic expansion, and that area is desperately short of labour. Whenever a British export mission successfully promotes the sale of a construction contract in Saudi Arabia, the implication for the British economy is not the creation of employment, but an increased scarcity of quantity surveyors, architects and civil engineers, which pushes up the price of contracts for schools and hospitals in the UK. Of course, exports may create employment in Newcastle, south Wales or

149WH
Clydeside, and I recognise the importance of how we help with export promotion and regeneration in depressed regions, but I am unsure whether BTI's operation is focused on that specific problem.
The Minister dealt with my second point at some length, and he presented his case in a sophisticated way. He argued that exports are more desirable than other forms of output and production. However, I am rather sceptical about that for the same reasons as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.
We now live in a globalised world. Exports are good; so are imports. Inward investment is desirable, but so is outward investment; it is one of the strengths of British-based companies. Why should we persist with that rather old-fashioned view—the French view of the world known as mercantilism—that exports are good and imports are bad, and that inward investment is good and outward investment is bad? It is an inappropriate way of looking at the world. I suspect that such thinking is deeply embedded in the BTI; it is not modern. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State for International Development seems to have a much better grasp of the realities of the modern world and what globalisation means than some of the other Departments that deal with international trade.
My third point is about one of the arguments in favour of BTI's work. The report, which I have read carefully, states that doing business in some parts of the world—for instance, in rural China or Siberia—can be dangerous and difficult, that one might be dealing with corrupt and weird systems and with obscure languages, and that it would obviously be a great help to have British officials on hand to offer expert advice. I accept that up to a point, but when one reads the script, it is clear that that is not what BTI is about.
In his testimony, Sir David Wright tried to justify the fact that we were building up our commercial promotional activities in Paris. I know that French is a difficult language, but it is not clear why the British taxpayer should be involved. Why s could the taxpayer provide a translation service free of charge to British companies? Is it necessary? After all, businesses can use telephones, fax machines and the internet. I appreciate that the consulate in Ekaterinberg is probably performing a useful commercial function, but questions should be raised even about that.
I draw on my experience in the mid-1970s, when many arguments were bandied back and forth in much the same terms as they are today. A brutal turf war was taking place between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office about which Department should accompany a high-level trade mission to Venezuela and Ecuador. The Foreign Office won the argument, and I accompanied that mission on behalf of the Foreign Office. It was a great time; the taxpayer paid for three exciting weeks in South America, and we did lots of interesting things. In subsequent years, however, I wondered whether that was a terribly good way for the British Government to function.
Is the idea of Great Britain Ltd. useful? On the trip, we did a great deal: we persuaded the Venezuelans to buy some missiles to guard their new hydro dam, and we persuaded the Ecuadorians to buy some motor torpedo boats that they clearly did not need. A few years later,
150WH
when those two countries ran out of oil money, they defaulted on their export credit debt and, as far as I am aware, the British taxpayer had to pay part of the bill. It was all good stuff, but it eventually came to a sticky end.
I remember also sitting in a rather sweaty room in a hotel in Guayaquil, the main commercial centre in Ecuador, with two recalcitrant British exporters of sugar manufacturing equipment who refused to stop competing against each other. They were undercutting each other and making it difficult to get the deal for the British. I organised an export cartel and they agreed to collaborate and to fix their prices. We got one British contract as a result, but on reflection I wonder whether that should be a job for the British Government.
The concept of Great Britain Ltd.—the idea that the British Government are there to back exporters and to promote exports—raises all sorts of questions. I appreciate that some of what I am saying may be unpalatable, but our job is sometimes rather like that of the little boy at the emperor's coronation who asked whether he was wearing any clothes. Does the BTI have any clothes? What does it do? I leave that question with the Minister.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton may think that the budget should be slashed, although he did not say so today. I am not arguing for that, for the simple reason that British exports are under a lot of pressure because of the exchange rate. An additional imposition on the export sector would be untimely. In the long term, however, why are the British Government so heavily involved in export promotion? Is it really a good use of public resources? Will the Minister make a careful, reasoned case for it, rather than just assuming that it is a good idea? There is too much of an assumption that it is a desirable activity, and that the civil servants are productively employed, and I would question that. Some of them might be productively employed, for some of the time, but the rationale for BTI needs to be much more carefully reasoned.
1.25 pm
Mr. Caborn: The debate has ranged slightly wide of BTI and I shall try to put it in context. I am sure that the Secretary of State for International Development would be proud of the debate and I shall send her the relevant copy of Hansard, which will no doubt make very good reading and be recycled.
In terms of trade policy, we play a proactive role working with the DFID, trying to enhance what the World Trade Organisation is all about—managing the continued liberalisation of trade. We tried to do that collectively in Seattle, which the Minister for the Environment and I attended. For the first time, we tried to engage Civil Society in decision-making to make our decisions more meaningful and better informed. That is why, for the first time ever on any British Government delegation, we took three NGOs—one from the Confederation of British Industry, one from the Trades Union Congress and one from Civil Society. At 7 o'clock every night, we had a meeting with all of the NGOs and, by the end of the week, it was probably the best show in town. I think that there were 150 NGOs, and they all presented us with T-shirts at the end because, they said, we had done such a good job and had

151WH
been as transparent as any delegation. We had also played a significant role in trying to get an agenda agreed, on which we could then make progress—because Seattle was only about setting the agenda—for the next stage of the WTO process.
We were disappointed by Seattle, which we said was an opportunity lost. When we came back, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry submitted a paper to the WTO, with the support of the rest of the Government, which argued that the WTO must be modernised to address some of the serious weaknesses that were evident in Seattle. We suggested setting up an eminent persons group to consider internal and external transparency, the rules-based organisation and how it was carried through. Probably most importantly, we wanted to engage the least developed countries in capacity building and make them feel that they were part of WTO decision making. The vast majority of the 140 countries in the WTO are developing countries, which constitutes a change in the nature of the WTO since 1993 in Uruguay. We have played a significant role and continue to do so. Two weeks ago, I was in Chile, where I discussed with its acting Foreign Secretary the possibility of staging the next ministerial meeting there in the autumn of next year.
I have written to every Trade Minister in the European Union to say that Europe should take a political lead in making sure that moves are made towards a ministerial meeting in 2001. That has been done in concert with every other Government Department. We have played a significant role in, first, trying to rescue whatever possible from Seattle and, secondly, making sure that that is acted on as quickly as it can be. In terms of the development of the WTO and the wider picture—the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have painted quite a muddled picture, and I am not clear what they are asking from the Government—world trade has continued to expand. Since the meeting in Uruguay in 1993, it has expanded by 26 per cent. We are therefore moving into that chain. As we try to follow the agenda outlined by the Secretary of State for International Development, the DTI supports what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. We are considering how to reschedule third-world debt, and $100 billion of IMF funding is available under certain conditions. Those countries must have the capacity to develop their economies and training, and we must ensure that they have access to the developed world's markets.
It is interesting to hear what the official Opposition have been saying. Only yesterday, I gave evidence to a Select Committee about imports of sugar, bananas and rice from the least developed countries. Many colleagues of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) would not agree with what he has said here. There is great scepticism about importing sugar, albeit only 250,000 tonnes from the least developed countries, such as Mozambique, which exports about 60,000 tonnes, against consumption of about 12 million tonnes in the European Union and the export of a further 6 million tonnes. That shows the magnitude of the figures under discussion. I had to defend the British position, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made absolutely clear in his Mansion
152WH
House speech. We did not say that nearly all goods should be imported we said that all goods should be imported, including agricultural goods. The EU is now making a decision, which will affect our sugar industry and its problems. We believe that the three-year period to manage the change is sufficient and that safeguards, such as the surge mechanisms, should protect our industry.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned textiles. I was in Casablanca a few weeks ago and saw a plant established by the Dewhirst company, which has moved about 20,000 jobs out of the UK in the past five or six years. It employs about 5,000 people in a new air-conditioned plant. The working week has been reduced from five and a half to four and a half days. Almost all the workers are women, and it was decided to work longer days, but the same number of hours. The labour turnover is less than 1 per cent. The answer to the question "How much do you pay an hour, with all the add-on costs?" is £1, but it is one of the highest-paying companies in Casablanca. That is what globalisation is all about.
People ask how globalisation can be managed and about the DTI's role. We are developing policies that will take our industries up the value added chain. They will be able to sell goods through organisations such as BTI and wealth will be created. BTI and I as Minister for Trade argue in favour of our aerospace exports. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is sometimes not an easy market as a result of lobbying by other Governments and, particularly, the Americans. However, we must continue to move up the value added chain, which is why our industrial strategy involves developing clusters and using intellectual property to create wealth. Lord Sainsbury, the Minister for Science, announced that strategy. With industry and the regional development agencies, we are considering how we can capitalise on some of the best brainpower and intellectual property in the world by converting it into goods and services that will sell in the world's markets.
One key factor is inward investment. The President of China visited the UK a year ago, and the only place outside London that he visited was Cambridge, where he saw the biotech structure that is in place. It is a question of knowledge. I understand that 150 Chinese companies are now in vesting in the UK. The DTI is managing the changes that have been forced on us by globalisation, because we know that we must move up the value added chain by exploiting one of our greatest assets: our universities and centres of academic excellence, which have never been exploited in any meaningful way.
The cluster policy attracts inward investment. Ministers in the DTI are working with BTI and Invest UK to ensure that the after-sales care for the inward investor will now be second to none. I want to hear from corporate headquarters where the next merger and acquisition will be and where the next investment will be in terms of new developments. It is BTI's job to pick up such intelligence. We can pick it up effectively through our 200 embassies and high commissions around the world.
We are talking not about a single organisation, but about one that is fully integrated into the actions of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and all other Departments. The

153WH
organisation will collate a mass of information, whether on export promotion, development or inward investment. It will pass that information back in as realistic a time as possible to the decision makers, whether to those who have to make decisions on inward investment, those exporting widgets or whatever.
It would do a disservice to British industry for anyone to think that an advanced industrial nation moving into the 21st century should not consider how it deals with export promotion and development, and inward investment. Do not argue about that with anyone in government, but go and talk to Peter Mason, the chief executive of AMEC, Sir David John, the chief executive of the British Oxygen Company and Richard Turner, the main board director of Rolls-Royce. Ask them what they believe that BTI brings to UK Ltd. I do not think that one would find the same response as that of the Select Committee report.
I am proud of what the Government have done to draw up the new organisation in concert with what business has asked for. We have made sure that the division between the public and private sectors has narrowed—indeed, they have merged—and that a real and effective service is given to exporters, the real wealth creators of the nation. I accept in part the idea of the division of responsibilities between importers and exporters, but they are merging as we go into a more globalised world. That is why we have to modernise how we do business.
I shall put a challenge to business. When I took this job, I asked with whom I was to communicate in the wide world of business. There are 168 trade organisations affiliated to the Confederation of British Industry, and more than 600 trade associations in this country. Compare that with Germany, which has one chamber of commerce. I do not say that compulsory
154WH
membership of a chamber of commerce is the right way, but I believe that the challenge to industry, business and commerce in this country is for it to get its act in order. I cannot believe that, in the 21st century, 600 trade organisations are needed to represent British industry in the world.
I shall answer some questions in terms of the current account, simply by giving the statistics. The total current account deficit in 1999 was 1.2 per cent. of gross domestic product. Comparing that with the 4 per cent. of the late 1980s, gives a historical perspective. I am not especially interested in bandying figures around.
I take on board the point about the annual report. We have already given certain commitments to look again at changing its format, I hope, into a more readable form. In response to the members of the Select Committee and hon. Members who have contributed today, I say that the operation has been running for 18 months, so we should see how things pan out. We should see how BTI fits into the bigger picture of government and how we can help business most effectively. We will do that in the practical way that I have outlined for BTI, and in our world trade policies, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned.
There is no difference between the activities of the DTI and those of the Department for International Development. We work closely together and we have taken a lead internationally to ensure that the continuing liberalisation of global trade is carried through. We believe that to be a win-win situation for everyone, including the least developed countries.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Two o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Allocation of Funds
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been allocated to(a) charities by the National Lottery and (b) sports clubs by Sport England, by constituency, since 1998. [141949]

  Kate Hoey
  I have placed copies of a table showing National Lottery awards to registered charities and by Sport England since 1 January 1998 to each UK parliamentary constituency in the Libraries of both Houses. These tables are taken from my Department's National Lottery Awards Database, which uses information supplied by the Lottery distributing bodies. It is not possible to separately identify awards to sports clubs from other awards made by Sport England. Awards by Sport England to charities appear in both columns.

  Communications White Paper
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to whom copies of the Communications White Paper were supplied before 15.30 on 12 December other than the Vote Office of the House of Commons. [143403]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding an rover 20 December 2000]: In accordance with paragraph 92 of the Ministerial Code copies of the Communications White Paper were made available outside Government before 15.30 on 12 December, but embargoed until that time, as follows.

  A number of journalists were invited to read the White Paper on 12 December in a Government conference room, which was locked until the Secretary of State made his Statement to the House.

  I understand that one copy was also made available to each of those who had been most closely involved in the development of the White Paper: the Office of Telecommunications; the Office of Fair Trading; the Independent Television Commission; the Radio Authority; the Broadcasting Standards Commission; the Governors of the BBC; the National Consumer Council; and the group of eight expert advisers.

  Copies were also made available to: the spokesmen of the main political parties in both Houses; the First Minister of Scotland; the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales; the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly; the Chairmen of the Culture, Media and Sport and Trade and Industry Select Committees; and through the usual channels.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, for each year since 1995, the numbers of flights including helicopter flights taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas visits; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143868]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements he is making to extend free television licences for people aged over 75 to Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. [144032]

  Janet Anderson
  The cost of providing free television licences in the United Kingdom will be met from public funds. Whether or not to fund such a concession in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is a matter for the island authorities. Free television licences for the over-75s have already been introduced in the Isle of Man and the Guernsey authorities have announced their intention in principle to introduce this concession.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the projects undertaken for his Department by(a) outside consultants, (b) academic researchers and (c) university departments since 1 May 1997, giving the total expenditure incurred in each category. [144071]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  We are tabulating the information requested, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulatory Compliance Costs
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans the Deregulation Unit has to consider the costs of regulatory compliance borne by not-for-profit organisations, with special reference to the Bolton and District Hospital Saturday. [143680]

  Mr. Stringer
  In 1998, the Prime Minister announced that no regulatory proposal with an impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector should be considered by Ministers without a thorough assessment of the costs, benefits and risks. This process of regulatory impact assessment was strengthened in August 2000 with the publication of rigorous new guidance which separates policy and compliance costs and helps ensure that regulations are fair, meaningful and simple to understand.

  In addition the Public Sector Team, within the Regulatory Impact Unit, has carried out extensive work in conjunction with other Departments to reduce the burden

  245W
  of red tape and bureaucracy on front-line public sector workers. This includes a current study on GPs' paperwork.

  Charities (Internet)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps have been taken by the office of the e-envoy to encourage the effective use of the internet by charities and not-for-profit organisations. [143689]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The UK online report, produced by the office of the e-envoy, contains 25 recommendations for action by Government to encourage people and organisations in all sectors of the UK economy to make effective use of the internet. The report, and updates on progress, can be found at www.e-envoy.gov.uk.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what research has been commissioned by the office of the e-envoy into the use of the internet by charities and not-for-profit organisations. [143690]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The "Virtual Society?" programme funded by the Economic and Social Research Council includes a research project on re-shaping the voluntary and community sectors in the information age. Further details are available on the "Virtual Society?" website at www.virtualsociety.sbs.ox.ac.uk.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list, for each year since 1995, the number of flights, including helicopter flights, taken by Ministers within her Department for UK and overseas visits; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143867]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  'Modernising Government' White Paper
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much for each financial year from 1998–99 until the latest date for which sums have been allocated, her Department has spent and expects to spend on the implementation of the 'Modernising Government' White Paper. [143695]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Amounts used by Departments for the implementation of the White Paper on Modernising Government are integral and not separately identifiable within the resources allocated in the Comprehensive Spending Review and the Spending Review 2000. These and departmental plans are set out in the respective White Papers, "Modern Public Services for Britain", Cm 4011, "Public Services for the Future",246W
  Cm 4181, and "Spending Review 2000", Cm 4807 and Cm 4808. Details of individual departmental outturns are available in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper for 1999–2000 Cm 4812.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Carpets
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to support and encourage the export of British carpets. [143167]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department, through Trade Partners UK, the joint Department of Trade and Industry/Foreign and Commonwealth Office organisation responsible for export promotion, provides a full range of export promotion services which are fully available to the carpet sector. In particular, TPUK is providing assistance through Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad (SESA) to 15 UK carpet companies exhibiting at DOMOTEX in Hanover on 13–16 January 2001.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many calls were made to the minimum wage hotline in each month since its inception. [143423]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The following table gives the number of calls made to the national minimum wage telephone helpline for each month since the national minimum wage was introduced on 1 April 1999.

  1999

  2000

  January

  —

  4,308

  February

  —

  5,154

  March

  —

  6,461

  April

  40,715

  6,480

  May

  11,919

  6,879

  June

  10,473

  8,779

  July

  8,409

  6,069

  August

  5,906

  5,145

  September

  6,405

  8,566

  October

  5,204

  9,159

  November

  5,138

  4,577

  December

  2,878

  —

  In addition, a private sector helpline took some 50,000 calls between January and March 1999.

  Transco
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals Ofgem has to change Transco's investment criterion of being able to cope with a one in 20 years summer as well as a one in 20 years winter. [143451]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Transco's investment criterion is a matter for Ofgem.

  Ofgem published a consultation paper on Transco's investment policy in May and has recently published their response to this consultation. Both publications can be found on Ofgem's website at www.ofgem.gov.uk.
  247W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes Ofgem proposes to Transco's licence conditions to encourage new capacity at gas terminals. [143450]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Proposals for licence amendments are a matter for Ofgem.

  New Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date he will take a decision on whether NETA can go-live on 27 March 2001. [143452]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A review of the preparation for the implementation on New Electricity Trading Arrangements will take place in January. Assuming a positive outcome to this review, 27 March will be confirmed as the intended go-live date. However, a final decision to go-live on a particular date cannot be taken until nearer the time.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many payments of employment tribunal awards in respect of insolvent employers have been made from the National Insurance Fund in each of the last five years; and what criteria were applied to these awards. [142851]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 19 December 2000]: I have arranged for some figures to be specially compiled and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as this has been done and place the information in the Library of the House.

  Acquired Rights Directive 1998
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the consultation document on the review of implementation of the Acquired Rights Directive 1998 will be published; if arrangements are in place for the Directive's incorporation into UK law by July 2001; and if he will make a statement. [143438]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: I am currently considering the changes to UK law needed to implement the revised Acquired Rights Directive.

  Aylesbury Automation
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he received export licence application No. 16047 from Aylesbury Automation; when he expects to reach a decision on the application; and if he will make a statement. [143707]

  Dr. Howells
  Licences to export arms and other goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through the DTI's Export Control Organisation (ECO). Licence Application 16047 was received by the ECO on 9 August 2000. Individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other Government Departments with an interest as determined by those Departments in line with their policy responsibilities.

  A decision has not yet been reached on this application, but will be taken as quickly as possible consistent with the need to give full consideration to the issues involved.
  248W

  UKAEA Officers
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has to regulate the employment of armed UKAEA officers on board ships. [142855]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has powers under section 3(2) of the Atomic Energy Act 1954 to issue directions to the UKAEA, under which matters relating to the employment of officers of the UKAEA Constabulary on board ships may be addressed.

  OFT Report (Legal Profession)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received the OFT report on the legal profession; when he intends to make the report public; and if he will make a statement. [143796]

  Dr. Howells
  I should receive the OFT report on restrictions in the professions by the end of January next. I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading will wish to publish this report in due course. I expect publication to follow consideration by Ministers of the report's findings.

DEFENCE

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions(a) he and (b) officials of his Department have had with executives of BAE Systems regarding a non-competitive procurement strategy for the Type 45 destroyer; [142764]

  (2) what plans his Department has to procure up to 12 Type 45 destroyers by means of an incremental capability strategy; how prices for any changes in specification over the life of the programme will be negotiated; what mechanisms there will be to control costs; and if he will make a statement. [142765]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: The contract for the Demonstration and First-of-Class Manufacture (DFM) was placed with BAE Systems Electronics, the nominated Prime Contractor for the Type 45 programme, on 20 December. As I announced on 11 July 2000, Official Report, column 701, the design will be capable of evolutionary improvement through an incremental acquisition plan. This will enable the required capability to be inserted during the class build and provide growth paths to enable future capability insertion over the life of the class.

  Prices for changes to specification will be negotiated in the usual way and be subject to affordability criteria. The contractual maximum price represents the limit of our cost exposure and the contract contains strong incentives for the contractor to deliver at a lower price. The hon. Member will be pleased to note that the SMART approach adopted by the MOD provides the best opportunity to deliver additional capability into the programme without increasing the price.
  249W
  The DFM contract covers the construction of the first three ships of the class only. Sub-contractors must now reach satisfactory agreements with the Prime Contractor to secure the opportunities offered to them under the contract; the MOD will—through its involvement in the Integrated Project Team—ensure that these negotiations are conducted fairly. MOD agreement to all significant sub-contracts will be required.

  The BAE Systems Type 45 Prime Contractor and MOD have received an unsolicited proposal from BAE Systems Marine concerning the procurement approach to the Type 45 programme. The proposal will be evaluated and the MOD will consult with other interested Departments before coming to a conclusion.

  Plans are to seek bids for the next batch of three ships around 2004. BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft have expressed an interest in bidding for this work. Bids for work on the follow-on ships should be made to the Prime Contractor at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how the Design for Manufacture contract with BAE Systems for the Type 45 programme specifies equitable competition between BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft for batches of later ships of the class; and if he will make a statement; [142754]

  (2) what the in-service date is for the Type 45 destroyer First of Class; and if he will make a statement; [142752]

  (3) if he will approve the Defence Procurement Agency's Design for Manufacture contract with BAE Systems for the Type 45 destroyer programme in advance of agreement between BAE Systems and Vosper Thornycroft on the construction of ship platforms. [142755]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: The contract for the Demonstration and First-of-Class Manufacture (DFM) was placed with the BAE Systems Prime Contract Office, on 20 December. The in-service date is 2007 for the first-of-class ship. The absence of 'back to back' sub-contracts with the shipyards will not delay this programme.

  The DFM contract covers the construction of the first three ships of the class only. Sub-contractors must now reach satisfactory agreements with the Prime Contractor to secure the opportunities offered to them under the contract; the MOD will—through its involvement with the Integrated Project Team—ensure that these negotiations are conducted fairly. MOD agreement to all significant sub-contracts will be required.

  Plans are to seek bids for the next batch of three ships around 2004. BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft have expressed an interest in bidding for this work. Bids for work on the follow-on ships should be made to the Prime Contractor at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cost to benefit analysis his Department has undertaken of moving from a competitive to a non-competitive procurement strategy for the Type 45 programme. [142750]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: There has been no move to a non-competitive procurement strategy for the Type 45 programme and thus no change to the strategy I announced on 11 July 2000,
  250W
  Official Report, columns 701–712. We would not move to a non-competitive procurement strategy unless there were compelling reasons to do so.

  The BAE Systems Type 45 Prime Contractor and MOD have received an unsolicited proposal from BAE Systems Marine concerning the procurement approach to the Type 45 programme. The proposal will be evaluated and the MOD will consult with other interested Departments before coming to a conclusion.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place the Design for Manufacture contract for the Type 45 Destroyer programme with BAE Systems; how many companies capable of bidding for the follow-on ships of the class have made representations to his Department on the subject; and what steps he has taken to ensure that this contract will contain adequate safeguards to ensure an equitable basis for competition for the follow-on ships. [143035]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The contract for the Demonstration and First-of-Class Manufacture (DFM) was placed with BAE Systems Electronics, the nominated Prime Contractor for the Type 45 programme, on 20 December. As I announced on 11 July 2000, Official Report, column 701, the design will be capable of evolutionary improvement through an incremental acquisition plan. This will enable the required capability to be inserted during the class build and provide growth paths to enable future capability insertion over the life of the class.

  Prices for changes to specification will be negotiated in the usual way and be subject to affordability criteria. The contractual Maximum price represents the limit of our cost exposure and the contract contains strong incentives for the contractor to deliver at a lower price. The hon. Member will be pleased to note that the SMART approach adopted by the MOD provides the best opportunity to deliver additional capability into the programme without increasing the price.

  The DFM contract covers the construction of the first three ships of the class only. Sub-contractors must now reach satisfactory agreements with the Prime Contractor to secure the opportunities offered to them under the contract; the MOD will—through its involvement in the Integrated Project Team—ensure that these negotiations are conducted fairly. MOD agreement to all significant sub-contracts will be required.

  The BAE Systems Type 45 Prime Contractor and MOD have received an unsolicited proposal from BAE Systems Marine concerning the procurement approach to the Type 45 programme. The proposal will be evaluated and the MOD will consult with other interested Departments before coming to a conclusion.

  Plans are to seek bids for the next batch of three ships around 2004. BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft have expressed an interest in bidding for this work. Bids for work on the follow-on ships should be made to the Prime Contractor at the appropriate time.
  251W

  Vessel Contracts
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what action he is taking to ensure that the procurement strategy for the production and assembly of follow-on Type 45 destroyers is on a competitive basis; [142963]

  (2) what conditions are necessary for the procurement of the first batch of Type 45 destroyers to ensure that yards capable of competing for downstream batches have the opportunity to compete equitably; [142961]

  (3) when he expects contracts to be placed with BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft for work on (a) the Type 45 First of Class, (b) ship 02 and (c) ship 03. [142962]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: BAE Systems Electronics (the nominated Prime Contractor for the Type 45 programme) has the intention of letting the ship manufacturing sub-contracts with shipbuilders either when a satisfactory risk sharing arrangement emerges (which could happen next year) or when the ship design is sufficiently mature that the shipyards can take on the remaining risk at an affordable price (which is likely to be the case in 2002).

  The prime contract, placed on 20 December, covers the construction of the first three ships of the class only. Sub-contractors must now reach satisfactory agreements with the Prime Contractor to secure the opportunities offered to them under the contract; the MOD will—through its involvement in the Integrated Project Team—ensure that these negotiations are conducted fairly. MOD agreement to all significant sub-contracts will be required.

  Plans are to seek bids for the next batch of three ships around 2004. BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft have expressed an interest in bidding for this work. Bids for work on the follow-on ships should be made to the Prime Contractor at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects(a) HMS Portland and (b) HMS St. Albans to be completed. [143032]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: HMS Portland was handed over on 15 December 2000.

  The contract for HMS St. Albans requires delivery by 30 November 2001, and this is expected to be achieved.

  Tornado GR1
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado GR1s he expects to be upgraded to GR4 standard. [143029]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: It is planned that 142 Tornado GR1s will be upgraded to GR4 standard.

  Service Families (Pets)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consult the Royal Army Veterinary Corps' Cyprus Defence Animal Support Unit about the repatriation of pets belonging to service families; and if he will make a statement. [143123]
  252W
  Mr. Spellar
  Responsibility for regulations governing the importation of animals into the United Kingdom rests with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). Service personnel are individually responsible for ensuring they comply with the regulations and for making travel arrangements for their pets.

  My Department is advised by MAFF that Cyprus is expected to be included within the PET Travel Scheme (PETS) early next year although a precise date has yet to be fixed. The Ministry of Defence liaises with the Commander British Forces Cyprus to ensure that any associated issues are properly addressed. The Cyprus Defence Animal Support Unit (CDASU) of the RAVC forms part of the Command and is currently advising service personnel about the veterinary aspects of the scheme prior to its introduction, including Rabies Vaccination/Blood Testing, Micro Chipping and Vaccination records.

  Voice and Data Communications System
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to procure for the RAF combat aircraft an integrated fully encrypted real time air-to-air and air-to-ground voice and data communication system; and if he will make a statement. [143351]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes. A number of RAF combat aircraft are already fitted with Multi Function Information Distribution System (MIDS) (formerly Joint Tactical Information Distribution System—JTIDS) Link 16 terminals which give this capability, including Tornado F3 and Sentry E3D aircraft. A similar capability is planned to be fitted to the majority of future combat aircraft types, including Eurofighter.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for the rationalisation of Royal Navy training facilities; and if he will make a statement; [143042]

  (2) what plans he has for the amalgamation of Royal Navy shore establishments; and if he will make a statement. [143043]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The Royal Navy's Special Communications Unit (SCU) at Leydene will close in 2001 and its activities will transfer to HMS Collingwood.

  A number of other reviews are in hand which may result in the amalgamation of RN shore establishments, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  The Royal Navy has completed a comprehensive study of its training estate to identify the estate necessary for training beyond 2010. The study will be considered along with the findings of the Defence Training Review and no decisions have yet been taken.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army personnel will be(a) allocated to the European Rapid Reaction Force, (b) able to be deployed with the European Rapid Reaction Force at any

  253W
  given time and (c) removed from availability for home defence as a result of such allocation and deployment; and if he will make a statement. [143691]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no such entity as a standing European Rapid Reaction Force. The UK has identified a pool of forces and capabilities which would enable it to make a powerful contribution to such operations in support of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, where NATO as a whole is not engaged. UK participation in any particular operation, and the nature of our contribution (including any potential use of the Territorial Army), would be matters for decision by the UK Government in the light of circumstances at the time.

  Our aim in restructuring the TA was to make it more integrated with regular forces and defence plans, with a shift in emphasis away from the TA's traditional home defence roles to other such as signallers, artillery, air defence, logisticians and particularly medical services. Maximum numbers deployed with regulars would depend on the nature and scale of the operation.

  Soldier Deaths (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates since 1974 on which soldiers of the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish Regiment have died during training exercises indicating(a) where the death took place, (b) at which barracks those officers were stationed in Northern Ireland, (c) whether the soldiers had, during their military career, been seconded for special duties or on assignment to other regiments and (d) who was responsible for the investigation of the cause of death and what were their findings. [142334]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 17 July 2000,Official Report, column 14W. Since my reply of 17 July, the Training Accident Investigation Team based in Netheravon has completed its investigation into the incident and have forwarded their evidence to the Forensic Science Service for further analysis. Their findings will be passed to the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police, who will issue the final report into the incident.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, for each year since 1995, the number of flights, including helicopter flights, taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas visits; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143858]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W.

  Detailed information in the format requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  254W

  Patriot Missile
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has discussed with the United States Government the possibility of the United Kingdom procuring the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile. [143344]

  Dr. Moonie
  No.

  Merlin Helicopter
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent loss of a Merlin production helicopter. [143331]

  Mr. Spellar
  On the morning of 27 October, a Royal Naval Merlin helicopter was forced to ditch in the sea off the cost of Scotland. None of the crew sustained any serious injuries. A formal accident investigation is under way and a Royal Navy Board of Inquiry has been convened to look at the broader implications of the accident. Sufficient evidence exists to confirm that the cause of the accident was limited to the crashed aircraft. Preparatory work to enable a phased return to flying is in progress and Royal Naval Merlin helicopters may be expected to resume limited flying this week.

  Naval Carriers
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what date he will take a decision on whether the Royal Navy's two new carriers will be built to carry(a) short take-off and vertical landing or (b) catapult take off and assisted landing aircraft. [143353]

  Dr. Moonie
  Assessment work to investigate design options for the Royal Navy's future aircraft carriers is on-going. A decision on whether the vessels will be built to carry short take-off and vertical landing or catapult take-off and landing aircraft will depend largely on the selection of the future carrier-borne aircraft. A decision on the demonstration and manufacture of the carriers is expected in December 2003.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the status is of the charter agreements for RFAs Sea Crusader and Sea Centurion; and if he expects to renew these agreements. [143033]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The current contracts for Sea Crusader and Sea Centurion run out in January and April 2001 respectively.

  However, in order to provide a continuing joint rapid reaction force (JRRF) deployment capability, the Ministry of Defence is seeking to charter three roll on/roll off vessels which come into service from September 2002 onwards. The MOD has received a number of tenders for the provisional service and a decision will be made in the new year on which three vessels will be taken up, once full technical and commercial evaluations have been completed.

  Modernising Government White Paper
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much, for each financial year from 1998–99 until the latest date for which sums have been allocated, his
  255W
  Department has spent and expects to spend on the implementation of the Modernising Government White Paper. [143694]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office,Official Report, columns 245–46W.

  Sunday People
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many legal proceedings he is pursuing against newspapers, in addition to that concerning the Sunday People newspaper, in order to prevent publication of information about the force research unit. [143187]

  Mr. Hoon
  In addition to the action against the Sunday People, legal proceedings are extant against one other newspaper, The Sunday Times, although no action has been taken since I obtained an order in December 1999 preventing the publication of certain information about the force research unit which would put lives at risk or damage national security.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Treasury Solicitor hours were spent in respect of each of the five recent court hearings involving his Department and Mirror Group newspapers and at what cost; on how many occasions a solicitor of the Treasury Solicitor's Department was employed to deliver material by hand to the editor of the Sunday People and at what cost; and how many staff hours employees of his Department have spent in these actions and at what cost. [143188]

  Mr. Hoon
  Staff in the Treasury Solicitor's Department have spent a total of some 200 hours on work relating to all five recent court hearings involving the Ministry of Defence and Mirror Group Newspapers, at a total cost of approximately £16,700. Information as to the amount of time spent on each court hearing is not currently available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A solicitor of the Treasury Solicitor's Department delivered court orders to the editor of the Sunday People personally on two occasions, at a total cost of £318.

  Records of staff hours spent by MOD employees, including internal legal advisers, and their costs, or individual cases, are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many flights including helicopter flights were taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas visits in each year since 1995; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143860]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more 256W
  than £500 as well as an annual figure on spending by all ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Military Intelligence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in identifying the source of military intelligence documents found in August in Clough, County Down; and how many people have been charged and convicted as a result of this raid. [142323]

  Mr. Ingram
  The documents in question were photocopies in very poor condition of what are believed to have been montages produced by the military in the mid-1970s. Relevant records are not available for this period and therefore the origins cannot be definitely ascertained. One person was arrested and two persons interviewed in relation to this discovery. However, insufficient evidence was available upon which to sustain charges.

  RUC Discipline
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many police personnel were questioned in the investigation of complaints made by Mr. Bernard Griffin; if he will list the issues of fact established in the criminal court; and how many disciplinary cases are pending; [142325]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the conviction of Darren James Neill and Michael Magowan; [142326]

  (3) if he will investigate the breakdown of discipline at Oldpark RUC barracks in February 1998; [142328]

  (4) if he will list those criminal convictions in which statements by or evidence of RUC officers Darren James Neill and Michael Magowan was given or taken into account; how many individuals are currently serving a custodial sentence as a result of such convictions; how he plans to ensure that those individuals who may be eligible to have their convictions reviewed are informed of their rights; and how many individuals are so affected. [142330]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is to be a judicial review associated with this case and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment at this time.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he received(a) in mitigation of the offences of and (b) seeking early release for Darren James Neill, Michael Magowan, Andrew Timothy Lea and Matthew Shane Butcher. [142327]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have received no representations in mitigation of the offences of these four individuals or seeking the early release of Darren James Neill and Michael Magowan. Andrew Timothy Lea and Matthew Shane Butcher did not receive a custodial sentence for their offence but were each fined £1,000.
  257W
  One representation was received from a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to Mr. Neill, asking that everything possible be done to protect the prisoner from threats and abuse from other prisoners. As Mr. Neill and Mr. Magowan were not convicted for a qualifying offence under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, they do not qualify for early release under the Good Friday Agreement.

  Fuel Smuggling
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border fuel smuggling. [141743]

  Mr. Ingram
  The problem of cross-border fuel smuggling is being tackled in a strategic and co-ordinated way on both sides of the border. I am determined that criminal elements do not profit from such illegal activity and have the full support of the Irish Government.

  RUC Widows
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what assessment he has made of the financial situation of Royal Ulster Constabulary widows and their families; and if he will make a statement; [143249]

  (2) if he will make an equal tax-free lump sum payment to RUC widows' families based on the difference between the gratuities payable before and after November 1982, as measured by the RPI and if the sum had been invested from 1982 to date; [143251]

  (3) if it is his policy to means-test the financial provision made to RUC widows' families; [143250]

  (4) what measures he will take to ensure the financial security of RUC widows and their families; and if he will make a statement. [143252]

  Mr. Ingram
  In July, John Steele CB OBE TD DL was asked to review the Patten Commission proposal for a substantial fund to be set up to help injured police officers and their families, and police widows. He reported at the end of October and a copy of the report is available in the Library.

  On 7 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that he welcomed Mr. Steele's comprehensive and thorough report, which covers the points made by the hon. Member, and that the Government were undertaking a detailed assessment of each of the specific proposals. That assessment, including the arrangements for setting up a Trust Fund, is continuing.

  Sentences (Monitoring)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to monitor sentencing of individuals according to(a) perceived community origin, (b) ethnic origin, (c) gender, (d) sexual orientation and (e) disability. [142277]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are considering the development of a strategy for equity monitoring the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland as it affects different categories of people, while ensuring that such monitoring does not compromise judicial independence.
  258W

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he has taken to correct incorrect benefit payments; and how much was(a) recovered and (b) paid in compensation for each major benefit in (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) the most recent figures available. [143103]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 20 December 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what action he has taken to correct incorrect benefit payments; and how much was (a) recovered and (b) paid in compensation for each major benefit in (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) the most recent figures available.
  When an error occurs prompt action is taken to correct the benefit payments due. If an overpayment of benefit has occurred, recovery action will be taken as appropriate. When there are arrears following an underpayment of benefit, our special payments unit consider a compensation payment in recognition of the fact that the customer has lost use of the sum owed because of the Departmental delay. The payment is calculated in the form of interest on the arrears of monies owed using the Average Retail Shares and Deposits rate supplied by the building Society Commission. The Department may additionally make a consolatory payment if the official error has had a direct adverse effect on the life of the customer. Further details about the Department's compensation scheme can be found in the guide to Financial Redress for Maladministration. A copy of the guide is kept in the House of Commons Library, and it is also available in the Publications section of the DSS internet site:
  www.dss.gov.uk
  Information about recovers and compensation is not available in the format requested. However, the information which is available is in the attached tables.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1: Overpayment recoveries

  £ million

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  Income Support (IS)

  61.5

  115.9

  Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA)

  0.0

  5.0

  Other Benefits

  41.1

  63.8

  Total

  102.6

  184.7

  Notes:

  1. No data are available from 1979–90, there was no system at that time to count overpayments.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance was introduced during 1996–97, recoveries of overpayments in that year were less than £100,000.

  3. Other benefits figures summarise all BA delivered benefits apart from IS and JSA.

  Table 2: Special payments1

  £

  Benefit

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  Attendance Allowance

  45,609

  30,848

  Child Benefit

  105,822

  73,917

  Disability Living Allowance

  396,251

  157,713

  Disability Working Allowance

  15,434

  25,955

  Family Credit

  125,053

  160,565

  Incapacity Benefit

  57,333

  334,781

  Income Support2

  36,017,170

  41,974,908

  259W

  Table 2: Special payments1

  £

  Benefit

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  Industrial Death Benefit

  2,613

  0

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  28,043

  133,939

  Invalid Care Allowance

  90,352

  156,446

  Invalidity Benefit

  260,662

  30,633

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  n/a

  143,733

  Maternity Allowance (inc. SMP)

  110

  7,702

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  65,059

  107,562

  Retirement Pension

  51,538,719

  581,658

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  57,835

  30,236

  Sickness Benefit

  29,772

  1,375

  Unemployment Benefit

  70,724

  0

  Widows Benefit

  283,764

  136,390

  Total

  9,190,325

  64,086,986

  n/a = not available

  1 No figures are available for 1979–80.

  2 Jobseeker's Allowance was introduced on 7 October 1996 and replaced both Unemployment Benefit and Income Support for the unemployed. The figure displayed for Income Support payments made during 1996–97 may also include special payments made in respect of Jobseeker's Allowance, as discrete records were not maintained at that time.

  3 Includes £4,747,031 paid under the Dorset Trust special exercises7.

  4 Includes £406,338 paid by way of special exercises (IS bulletin 105/98).

  5 Includes £275,092 paid by way of special exercise (Retirement LEAP exercise).

  6 A further £2,518,462 was paid to certain recipients of Incapacity Benefit, Retirement Pension, Widows Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance by way of compensation for delays arising from NIRS2 implementation.

  7 A 'special exercise' occurs where a systemic failure affects a number of similar cases, delays in administration occur following introduction of new legislation, or defective legislation which does not reflect the intention of Ministers adversely affects a group of customers.

  Winter Fuel Payments Helpline
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the functioning of the Benefits Agency Winter Fuel Payments Helpline. [143112]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Adrian Bailey, dated 20 December 2000.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking what steps he is taking to improve the functioning of the Benefits Agency Winter Fuel Payments Helpline.
  In order to improve the functioning of the helpline, the 150 lines are now open from 8.30am to 8pm instead of 4.30pm. There is also a recorded message for those people who ring and are unable to get through to an operator or the queuing system.
  These measures were implemented from 8 December 2000.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Independent Living Funds
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the purpose and operation of the independent living funds. [144281]
  260W
  Mr. Bayley
  It is Government policy to review periodically the need for and operation of Government agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other sponsored bodies. In keeping with this policy we will shortly be commencing a review of the Independent Living Funds (ILFs). This review will have the following terms of reference:To consider how the ILFs fit into overall Government provision in support of independent living for severely disabled people; to consider whether within the broad envelope of available funding the rules and conditions operated by the Funds make reasonable and equitable provision for severely disabled people to live independently; to consider the administration of the Funds; and to make recommendations.

  In addition to seeking the views of the Funds' Trustees, staff and clients we will also be conducting a public consultation exercise. We will shortly be writing to relevant groups and individuals to invite their comments. Details of the review will also be available on the internet at www.dss.gov.uk. Comments should be received by the Department by 16 March 2001 and should be sent to ILF Review, DSS, 6th Floor, The Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT. Comments can also be sent by e-mail to ilf.review@ms41.dss.gsi.gov.uk. It is expected that the result of the review will be announced in summer 2001.

  Pensioners (Australia)
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make arrangements to protect the position of pensioners reaching pension age after 28 February 2001 who have periods of residence in Australia. [144171]

  Mr. Rooker
  As I have indicated in response to letters from right hon. and hon. Members who have raised the issue on behalf of constituents, we have been considering how to make transitional arrangements. I am pleased to announce we are putting arrangements in place to protect the position of those people who have periods of residence in Australia, on their return to live permanently in the UK. We are protecting such periods of residence up to and including 5 April 2001 for the purpose of basic retirement pension and bereavement benefits.

  We shall, in advance of Primary Legislation, top up the pensions of people with residence in Australia prior to 6 April 2001 with an extra statutory payment if they have less than the full rate of basic pension. We will do this when they claim their pension.

  There will be no extra cost to public funds as we would have made such payments if the Agreement with Australia had continued. I am arranging to write to all Members of both Houses who have raised the issue specifically with me.

  We are protecting the basic pension position of people with residence in Australia before 6 April 2001.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice about the availability of(a) the Home Energy Efficiency plus Scheme and (b) other means-tested benefits is given to inquirers about Income Support. [142484]
  261W
  Mr. Bayley
  Income Support Information Sheet INF2(IS), issued with Income Support award notices, advises of other help people may be entitled to and includes a freephone number for advice on the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) and HEES plus for those over 60.

  Also available from Benefits Agency offices is Leaflet MG1 "A guide to Benefits" which gives various helpline numbers for information about benefits and other available help.

  Another source of information is the Benefits Enquiry Line which offers advice on other means-tested benefits and when appropriate will advise customers to contact the Home Energy Efficiency freephone.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to promote equality between(a) older people, (b) disabled people, (c) ethnic minorities, (d) religious minorities, (e) women and (f) gay and lesbian people, and the rest of the population, with respect to the (i) benefits, (ii) services and (iii) employment for which his Department has responsibility. [141488]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: The Social Security system in this country aims to provide financial support through benefits to individuals according to various sets of circumstances and needs, as defined through legislation and approved by Parliament. Some of the provision through benefits is targeted to very broad groupings by age, such as Child Benefit or Retirement Pension. Other benefits are defined and targeted more specifically to recognise particular personal circumstances. For instance, disability benefits help disabled people according to their needs. Depending on the extent of their disabilities, many disabled people face extra costs over and above the normal cost of living, and disability benefits provide help towards these extra costs, with the level of help reflecting a person's needs for either personal care or mobility. Other benefits reflect the provision of financial support to those on low or no income, such as Income Support. The benefit system aims to treat people fairly in a way that recognises diversity of circumstance and needs, and seeks to balance that with a focus on its key client groups (children, those of working age and pensioners).

  The services that the Department provides are linked to the benefit provision and include locally based offices, centralised offices, telephone-based provision and internet opportunities. The Department uses many methods of communication including television, helplines, face-to-face contact and written information available in a range of languages and type sizes, from various outlets. Access to information is designed to be open to all irrespective of individual circumstances. In respect of the services that this Department provides, we also aim to ensure that all our policies, programmes and services are taken forward in line with the joint-departmental guidelines "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment" issued in 1998.

  This Department as part of the Home Civil Service aims to be an employer which makes the most of what people can bring to their work, and values diversity. The Department is an Investor in People. It is committed to
  262W
  fairness and equality of opportunity for all in employment and advancement on the basis of suitability. The Department's equal opportunities statement requires that no eligible external or internal job applicant should receive less favourable treatment on the grounds of age, disability, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, religion or religious affiliation or because they work part-time. The Department offers, for example, family friendly employment policies, an open promotion system based on merit, specific schemes to encourage ethnic minority staff to develop their skills and careers.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of(a) the minimum income guarantee and (b) the pensioners' credit on the likely uptake of stakeholder pensions. [143845]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are consulting on proposals to introduce the Pension Credit from 2003. The Pension Credit will reward savings and therefore have a positive impact on the take up of second pensions, including Stakeholder pension.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each year since 1995, the numbers of flights including helicopter flights taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas visits; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143865]

  Mr. Rooker
  Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to raise the capital limits for people in residential care and nursing homes in line with the changes to the Department of Health's charging rules announced in the NHS Plan. [143771]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have no plans to raise the capital limits for people in residential care and nursing homes.

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each year since 1995, the number of flights, including helicopter flights, taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas
  263W
  visits; on how many occasions (a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143861]

  Dr. Reid
  Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Belize
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on Belize's application for relief under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative; and if she will make a statement. [144117]

  Clare Short
  The Commonwealth Debt Initiative announced in 1997 offers relief on old aid debts to poorer Commonwealth countries, provided they are committed to the international development targets, are actively pursuing sound economic policies that benefit the poor, are promoting responsive and accountable government which encourages transparency, and are bearing down on corruption.

  In assessing Belize's eligibility for debt relief, the UK and Belize Governments have jointly commissioned a study from KPMG to review the regulation of off-shore financial services and the effect of tax exemptions on pro-poor programmes.

  The two Governments have written to KPMG to confirm that the study should cover the issue of Public Investment Companies. When the study has been completed, and discussed with the Government of Belize, a decision will be made on Belize's eligibility for debt relief.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her aid for social welfare for Kosovo. [143277]

  Clare Short
  We are working closely with UNMIK and the World bank to prepare a social protection strategy for Kosovo. We are also investigating possible support to Centres for Social Welfare.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure that contracts funded by her Department are not given to companies which use child labour; and what monitoring is undertaken of this issue. [143545]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development works, within the framework of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, for the reduction 264W
  of child labour and elimination of its worst forms in a way which ensures children's survival and meets their development needs, particularly in health and education.

  DFID contracts include provision to terminate if a supplier breaks the laws of the country in which it is working including those relating to child labour. Construction work funded through DFID grants must be implemented using internationally accepted forms of contract. DFID is working on revised guidelines to improve labour standards for workers on DFID funded construction projects, which we hope will also be adopted more widely by our partners in developing countries.

  GATS
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services on developing countries. [142511]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Industry gave on 18 December 2000,Official Report, column 33W.

  Vacuum Aspirators
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what medical opinion her Department has(a) sought and (b) received on the safety and use of manual vacuum aspirators in refugee camps where sterilisation equipment is not available. [143356]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development follows guidance produced by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on the provision and use of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA). MVA provides a safe option for the treatment of incomplete abortion, either natural or induced. In settings where sterilisation is not possible, single use disposable equipment is used to minimise risk of infection. MVA increases women's access to post abortion care and reduces the risk of complications during treatment. Failure to properly treat incomplete abortion can have fatal consequences. WHO considers MVA an essential element of care at the first referral level of all health care services.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the process is by which costs borne by the Employment Service relating to the provision of services under the New Deal are repaid from the New Deal budget; and if he will list the sums transferred in each of the last three years. [142489]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: The Employment Service has agreed the arrangements for identifying New Deal expenditure with the National Audit Office. Most expenditure on activities supporting the New Deal is accounted for by the Employment Service through discrete account codes. The exception to this is paybill expenditure, where in a separate exercise staff costs are apportioned on the basis of the time staff spend on New

  265W
  Deal activities. The costs are then charged to the appropriate New Deal budget, so money does not need to be transferred.

  Expenditure on the New Deal has been published in the Departmental Report, which is available in the Library.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps is he taking to ensure that British Sign Language is adequately taught to deaf children in schools; [42537]

  (2) what plans he has to improve (a) access to courses in, and (b) recognition of, British Sign Language teaching. [142536]

  Jacqui Smith
  In addition to being a qualified teacher, all teachers working with classes of pupils who are hearing impaired must undertake a specialist mandatory qualification. In June, following a review of mandatory qualifications undertaken at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Teacher Training Agency issued a new course specification for providers intending to mount courses from September 2001. The criteria laid down for mandatory qualifications in teaching hearing impaired children require a minimum competence in signing equivalent to the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP) Stage 1 qualification.

  The Department is improving access to courses by contracting with both RNID and CACDP to recruit and train interpreters of British Sign Language. The question of recognition will be explored further with interested parties once the Government have ratified the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

  North Somerset Local Education Authority
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many permanent specialist science teaching vacancies there were in North Somerset local education authority schools for each year since 1979. [142863]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of full-time science teaching vacancies in maintained secondary schools in North Somerset local authority, on the third Thursday in January each year since the authority was created, is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997

  0

  1998

  1

  1999

  2

  2000

  0

  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

  A DfEE survey of maintained secondary schools in England in the first week of September 2000 indicated that there were about 1,000 secondary teacher vacancies.

  There was a growth of 2,000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.
  266W

  Sure Start
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the need for a Sure Start scheme in the Gedling constituency; and if he will make a statement. [142941]

  Yvette Cooper
  As a result of the Spending Review, investment in Sure Start has more than doubled, and by 2003–04 Sure Start will reach one third of all children under four living in poverty. The main criteria used in selecting districts for Sure Start are levels of disadvantage and poverty, though we also ensure a good mix of rural, urban, semi-urban and coastal areas and a good spread across the country. On the measures of deprivation we have used, Gedling has lower levels of poverty and disadvantage than the areas so far invited to develop a Sure Start programme. As the programme develops, we shall examine ways in which Sure Start can reach disadvantaged young children living in areas with small pockets of deprivation, and in rural areas. We shall be evaluating Sure Start carefully, and disseminating the lessons we learn widely, so that Sure Start will benefit all young children.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the next phase of Sure Start will be announced; and what plans he has to include in it small pockets of deprivation outside city council areas. [142834]

  Yvette Cooper
  [pursuant to her reply, 15 December 2000, c. 280W]: Sure Start is an innovative cross-departmental and pioneering programme, which fulfils the Government's undertaking to improve support for families and children before and from birth. Sure Start aims to transform the life chances of younger children through better access to family support, advice on child development, child care, health services and early education. It is focused on areas of disadvantage and open to all families in Sure Start local programme catchment areas. The fourth wave of Sure Start will be announced early in 2001, and will bring the total number of Sure Start programmes to 250 or more, meeting the target set in the first Sure Start Public Service Agreement. The 250 programmes will be spread across the country and contain a mix of rural, urban, semi-urban, and coastal areas.

  Following the Spending Review, investment in Sure Start has been more than doubled, and Sure Start will aim to reach one third of all children under four living in poverty by 2003–04. Although Sure Start must remain focused on areas of disadvantage, we shall also be exploring how Sure Start can meet the needs of disadvantaged young children living in small pockets of deprivation.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his policy is in respect of including the income from tuition fees paid by parents in his estimates of total spending on higher education. [143154]

  Mr. Wicks
  Publicly planned funding to higher education institutions has always included both block grant from the funding council and projected income from tuition fees. Having a proportion of tuition fees contributed by students and their families makes no
  267W
  difference, especially since we have continually said that it would be invested in higher education. Between 1998–99 and 2003–04, this has allowed the Government to provide a real terms increase of around 18 per cent.

  Now, for the first time in over a decade, there will be a real-terms increase in publicly planned funding per full-time equivalent student in England in 2001–02, which will be sustained in the following years. Of the almost £1 billion extra funding by 2003–04, only some 10 per cent. comes from tuition fees paid by students and their families. Additionally, we have increased student loans to ensure that students and their families do not have to contribute more overall to the costs of higher education.

  Connexions
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what aspects of the Connexions schemes in Cornwall, Devon and Lincolnshire focus on rural issues. [143261]

  Mr. Wicks
  Both Cornwall and Devon, and Lincolnshire are involved in the piloting of the Connexions Service and are developing their business plans to be in the first phase of delivery of the new service from April 2001.

  As part of the piloting of the service in Cornwall and Devon the Local Management Partnerships in both Cornwall and Devon are piloting aspects of a rural outreach service. The aim of this work will be a better understanding of the needs of young people in rural areas and a better targeting of resource towards those young

  Schools in the top 15 per cent. of 'most improved' schools in England, 1997 to 2000 (Performance Tables definition), with 50 per cent. or more of pupils 'known to be eligible for free school meals'

  School name

  Government office region

  Primary schools

  Elms Primary and Nursery School

  East Midlands

  Huntingdon Primary and Nursery School

  East Midlands

  Bosworth Primary and Nursery School

  East Midlands

  Southwold Primary and Nursery School

  East Midlands

  Newry Junior School

  East Midlands

  Kelvin Grove Primary School

  London

  Lawdale Junior School

  London

  Effra Primary School

  London

  Blue Gate Fields Junior School

  London

  Park Primary School

  London

  St. Alfege with St. Peter's Church of England Primary School

  London

  Queen's Park Primary School

  London

  Michael Faraday School

  London

  Woodberry Down Junior School

  London

  Brackenbury Primary School

  London

  Seven Mills Primary School

  London

  Arnhem Wharf Primary School

  London

  Brettenham Primary School

  London

  John Perryn Primary School

  London

  Mulgrave Primary School

  London

  Loughborough Junior School

  London

  Rhyl Primary School

  London

  Church Mead Junior School

  London

  Bangabandhu Primary School

  London

  St. James's and St. Michael's CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School

  London

  Tower Bridge Primary School

  London

  St. Anne Roman Catholic Primary School

  London

  The Beaumont School

  London

  Cardwell Primary School

  London

  268W
  people. Part of the work will explore cross-border working. The key agencies in the area, local communities and young people are all involved in the work.

  The Lincolnshire pilot involves a number of strands of activity that take account of the rural nature of the county. For example, the project strand that is looking at the involvement of young people and parents has highlighted the need to bring the service to the client through good help-line services. There is also a particular rural dimension to the issue of raising aspirations in communities where most people earn their living from unskilled agricultural work. In the South Holland district, the prospective Connexions Partnership is involved in the rural action zone. One theme of this is a "rural academy" which aims to provide enhanced educational opportunities by linking the resources of a number of existing schools. Another is to provide laptop computers on free loan through local libraries to encourage the use of internet based resources and services.

  Improved Schools
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of the top 15 per cent. of most improved(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in England in 1997 to 2000 by region have 50 per cent. or more of pupils in receipt of free school meals; and if he will make a statement on the provision of bonuses for teachers and staff in those schools. [143436]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 19 December 2000]: The names of the schools are listed in the table.

  School Achievement Awards will fund staff bonuses at rapidly improving and high performing schools. The first round of awards will be announced before Easter.
  269W

  Schools in the top 15 per cent. of 'most improved' schools in England, 1997 to 2000 (Performance Tables definition), with 50 per cent. or more of pupils 'known to be eligible for free school meals'

  School name

  Government office region

  Newport Primary School

  North East

  Fell Dyke Community Primary School

  North East

  Hawthorn Primary School

  North East

  Grangetown Primary School

  North East

  Mandale Mill Primary School

  North East

  Beechwood Junior School

  North East

  Tilery Primary School

  North East

  Montagu Primary School

  North East

  Ranworth Square Junior Mixed and Infant School

  North West

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  North West

  Simonswood Primary School

  North West

  Holy Family RC Primary School

  North West

  St. John's Roman Catholic Primary School, Rochdale

  North West

  Ashbury Community Primary School

  North West

  St. Thomas CofE Primary School

  North West

  Fender Primary School

  North West

  Wild Bank Primary School and Early Years Centre

  North West

  Saint Margaret of Antioch CofE (Aided) Primary School

  North West

  St. Alphonsus RC Primary School

  North West

  St. Aidan's Catholic Primary School

  North West

  Broad Oak Community Primary School

  North West

  Vyner Primary School

  North West

  Oakenrod Primary School

  North West

  Arrowe Hill Primary School

  North West

  St. James CofE Primary School, Farnworth

  North West

  Beever Junior Infant and Nursery School

  North West

  St. Teresa's Catholic Junior School

  North West

  Hillside Community Primary School

  North West

  Robsack Wood Community Primary School

  South East

  Halcon Community Primary School

  South West

  St. Jude's Catholic Primary School

  West Midlands

  St. Matthew's Church of England Primary School

  West Midlands

  Newstead Primary School

  West Midlands

  Regents Park Community Primary School

  West Midlands

  St. Vincent's Catholic Primary School

  West Midlands

  Yorkswood Primary School

  West Midlands

  Heathfield Primary School

  West Midlands

  Allens Croft Primary School

  West Midlands

  Farndale Junior School

  West Midlands

  Warren Farm Primary School

  West Midlands

  Westminster Primary School

  West Midlands

  Wyndcliffe Junior Community School

  West Midlands

  Dalton Foljambe Junior and Infant School

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Kinloss Primary School

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Stepney Primary School

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Woodlands Primary School

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Greenlands Junior School

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Thorpepark Primary School

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Ingram Road Primary School

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Wyther Park Primary School

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Secondary schools

  Sir John Cass Foundation and Redcoat Church of England Secondary School

  London

  Oaklands School

  London

  Selly Park Technology College for Girls

  West Midlands

  Aston Manor School

  West Midlands

  Sources:

  Primary and Secondary Performance Tables 2000

  Annual School Census 2000

  School Governors
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the(a) vacancy levels and (b) turnover rate among (i) parent, (ii) LEA and (iii) co-opted school governors; and what principles underlay his proposals for streamlining governing bodies. [143598]
  270W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: The Department does not routinely collect information on vacancy levels and turnover rates among school governors.

  Our proposals for streamlining governing bodies are designed to ensure that they focus on a less "hands on", more strategic approach to their responsibility for raising

  271W
  standards in schools, leaving head teachers to manage the day-to-day business. The Consultation on School Governing Bodies, launched on 18 November, also aims to lighten the executive burdens carried by governing bodies through transferring some—particularly staff-related responsibilities to heads. If those changes are agreed, we believe that it would be possible to have smaller governing bodies on which all the existing stakeholders would continue to be represented.

  Remploy Limited
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the findings of the second stage of the Quinquennial Review of Remploy Ltd. [144126]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department has completed the Financial Management Survey stage of the Quinquennial Review of Remploy. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library and will be sent to key stakeholders and contributors to the consultation exercise. The report will also be available on the DfEE website, www.dfee.gov.uk/remploy, early in the new year.

  This part of the Review considered the relationship between the Government and the Company to ensure that it operates to the highest standards in line with the commitment set out in the Modernising Government White Paper.

  As we set out in the Prior Options report we shall undertake a further look at Remploy when we have evaluated the delivery of their new Corporate Plan. We shall aim to begin this review in April 2002.

  Departmental Vacancies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff vacancies there were in(a) each directorate of his Department, (b) his Department's Legal Adviser's office and (c) Government offices for the regions on business relating to his Department on 1 July. [143590]

  Mr. Wills
  The numbers of staff vacancies for each of the Department's Directorates, Legal Adviser's Office and Government Offices for the Regions as at 1 July 2000 are given as follows.

  Staff vacancies

  Number

  Corporate Services and Development Directorate

  6

  Employment Equality and International Relations Directorate

  6

  Finance and Analytical Services Directorate

  5

  Lifelong Learning Directorate

  14

  Schools Directorate

  11

  Strategy and Communications Directorate

  10

  Private Office

  2

  Legal Adviser's Office

  0

  Government Offices for the Regions (DfEE business)

  37

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Trust Office
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the response was to the April 2000 policy statement 'Making Changes: the Future of the Public Trust Office; and what action her Department is taking to put into effect its proposals. [144308]

  Jane Kennedy
  Following publication of the "Making Changes" policy statement on 11 April 2000, much work has been done to take forward its proposals. I have today placed in the Libraries of the House a summary and analysis of the responses received to "Making Changes". As proposed in "Making Changes", and informed by the response to consultation, the Lord Chancellor will create a new body which is to be called the Public Guardianship Office. It will discharge the Court of Protection's decisions on behalf of mentally incapacitated people, a role at present undertaken by the Public Trust Office. The new body is being explored as a candidate for agency status. It will be set demanding targets to provide a high quality service to its clients.

  Central London County Court
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement concerning the performance of Central London County Court in processing work. [143595]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Court Service uses two key performance indicators to measure the performance of the county courts. The first indicator measures the general quality of service provided, including time taken replying to correspondence, answering telephone calls, the key facilities available, the rate of success of recovering money on county court warrants and the proportion of Courts' Charter Standards met. The national target for this standard is 83 per cent. For the year 1999–2000, the Central London County Court achieved 74.5 per cent. For the period April to November 2000, the court has achieved 70.1 per cent.

  The second key performance indicator measures the percentage of administrative process dealt with within five working days, for example, issuing a county court claim. The national target for this standard is 92 per cent. For the year 1999–2000, the court achieved 83.9 per cent. For the period April to November 2000, the court is achieving 70.3 per cent.

  The Court has experienced difficulties in meeting its targets as the result both of a loss of experienced staff and a growth in workload. These issues are being addressed as a matter of urgency and there is already some sign of improvement.

  Immigration Appeals
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of how many dismissed immigration appeals the adjudicator made a recommendation that the Home Office grant the appellant(a) leave to remain in and (b) leave to enter the UK in the last 12 months. [143608]
  273W
  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not held by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Modernising Government White Paper
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much for each financial year from 1998–99 until the latest date for which sums have been allocated his Department has spent and expects to spend on the implementation of the modernising government White Paper. [143700]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office,Official Report, columns 245–46W.

PRIME MINISTER

  Peacekeeping (Kosovo)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 11 December 2000,Official Report, column 358, what role is envisaged for the Rapid Reaction Force in peacekeeping activity on the (a) Kosovo-Serbia border, (b) Kosovo-Macedonia border and (c) Kosovo-Albania border. [143276]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

HEALTH

  Imperial Cancer Research Fund
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding was given by his Department to the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in each of the last three financial years for which figures are available; if he has any proposals to increase the amount; and if he will make a statement. [141377]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department does not directly fund the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF) but it does provide indirect support for ICRF research in several ways. For example, the Department funds the National Health Service costs of ICRF-funded research that takes place in the NHS, and many ICRF-funded researchers hold departmental/NHS research grants. In addition, the Department and ICRF, plus others, jointly fund substantial research projects such as the United Kingdom Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.

  The Department will be investing an additional £20 million a year by 2003 in the NHS Cancer Research Network, the Co-ordinating Centre for which involves ICRF. There are two groups one of which is led by Professor Peter Selby, Head of ICRF Cancer Medicine Research Unit at the University of Leeds. The second includes Professor Adrian Harris, Head of the ICRF Medical Oncology Unit at the University of Oxford.

  Hysterectomies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that no unnecessary hysterectomies are performed; and if he will make a statement. [141366]
  274W
  Yvette Cooper
  We are concerned that hysterectomies are not performed unnecessarily. As with all major interventions, the decision to undergo hysterectomy must be for the woman concerned in the light of the best available medical advice.

  We work closely with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which issued guidance in 1999 to all its Fellows and Members on the management of menorrhagia, the presenting problem for about half of all women who undergo hysterectomies. Earlier this year, the RCOG reminded its Fellows and Members of the need for informed consent for surgery. We expect the RCOG's guidelines to be followed by all health authorities and National Health Service trusts. These guidelines are increasingly being used in clinical audit and clinical governance programmes.

  CJD
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what compensation payments will be made to(a) the families of those who have died from CJD and (b) those suffering from this condition. [141370]

  Yvette Cooper
  On publication of the BSE Inquiry Report the Government announced their intention to establish a compensation scheme for victims of variant CJD and their families. Negotiations with the families and their legal representatives have started and are still under way.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the publication "Diagnosis and Incidence of Prion (Creutzfeldt-Jakob) Disease: A Retrospective Archival Survey with Implications for Future Research", published in Neurodegeneration, Vol 4, pp 357–368 (1995). [142267]

  Yvette Cooper
  This article, published in 1995, concluded that human prion disease might be more common than previously supposed, and that a further review of the epidemiology of the disease was required. Since then a number of research projects have been put in place to ascertain the extent to which cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) or variant CJD (vCJD) might have been missed. These include:A comprehensive examination of the Corsellis brain collection to identify any possible unidentified cases of prion disease (Dr. S. M. Gentleman, London);
  Neuropathological spectrum of human transmissible spongiform encephalopathies: relationship with atypical dementias: a national retrospective review (national study in various centres, co-ordinated by Professor J. W. Ironside, Edinburgh);
  Development of model for neuropathological surveillance of the elderly population (Professor J. Lowe, Nottingham);
  Multisource surveillance for all cases of Progressive Intellectual and Neuropathological Deterioration (PIND) occurring in children in the UK (Dr. C. Verity, Cambridge;
  Survey of Oxford autopsy brain tissue for evidence of CJD;
  Possible under-ascertainment of vCJD: a systematic retrospective study.
  275W
  Results from these studies to date have not revealed significant missed diagnosis of CJD or vCJD. The Department, however, takes very a seriously the need to ensure that no cases are missed and to that end is working closely with the National CJD Surveillance Unit and others to encourage continued vigilance in the health care sector.

  Passive Smoking
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make the draft approval code of practice on the protection of employees from passive smoking mandatory; and if he will make a statement. [142525]

  Yvette Cooper
  On 5 September, the Health and Safety Commission announced that it favoured the introduction of an Approved Code of Practice to safeguard the welfare of employees as far as environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace is concerned. We are considering our response.

  Orthodontic Services
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responses he has received to his consultation document, Modernising Orthodontic Services; and when he will announce his response to the consultation exercise. [142979]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have consulted three patient representative groups on the reform proposals for orthodontics: Patients Association; National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; and Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales.

  The responses were generally supportive of the reform of orthodontic provision in the General Dental Service. Discussions with the representatives of the profession are at an early stage.

  Human Papilloma Virus
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to introduce human papilloma virus testing as part of the National Cervical Screening Programme; [142867]

  (2) for what reason the plan to pilot human papilloma virus testing for women has been delayed until March 2001; [142874]

  (3) what representations he has received concerning the need for human papilloma virus testing as part of improvements to the National Cervical Screening Programme. [142873]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service cancer plan sets out our commitment to introducing new developments to the cervical screening programme. Plans to pilot the new techniques in liquid based cytology (LBC) and human papilloma virus (HPV) testing are highlighted in the plan as the means for informing service improvement.
  276W
  After receiving advice from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in June 2000, we decided to pilot LBC and HPV jointly. A joint protocol was developed which will provide more useful information and be more convenient for women as a number of tests can be carried out from the same sample. Sites in England have now been chosen and the joint pilot will start in March 2001.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra funding is being made available to ensure the full availability of NHS dentistry by 2001. [143263]

  Mr. Hutton
  The dental strategy includes up to £100 million funding up to the end of the next financial year, for modernising National Health Service dentistry. Meeting our target for increased dental access will cost another £80 million a year in extra treatment fees. As well as this earmarked funding, health authorities are able to use their growth funds to finance personal dental services, targeting local access problems.

  AIDS/HIV
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many persons died of AIDS in the UK in the last 12 month period for which figures are available; and what the comparable figures were for(a) 1995, (b) 1990 and (c) 1980; [143282]

  (2) how many persons were diagnosed as HIV positive in the United Kingdom in the last 12 month period for which figures are available; and what the comparable figures were for (a) 1995, (b) 1990 and (c) 1985. [143280]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows the number of AIDS deaths and newly diagnosed HIV infections reported in the United Kingdom for the calendar years 1985, 1990 and 1995 and for the last 12-month period. No deaths were recorded for people with AIDS in 1980. The table also shows the total deaths in HIV-infected individuals because in recent years (since effective combination antiretroviral treatment came into widespread use) this has become more representative of HIV-related mortality.

  HIV infections newly diagnosed

  Deaths in individuals with reported AIDS

  Total deaths in HIV-infected individuals1

  1985

  3,223

  121

  152

  1990

  2,533

  788

  896

  1995

  2,618

  1,510

  1,676

  Last 12 months2,3

  2,729

  229

  350

  1 Includes deaths in HIV-infected individuals without reported AIDS

  2 1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000

  3 The number of diagnoses and deaths are likely to rise as further reports are received

  Venereal Diseases
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons in the United Kingdom were diagnosed with sexually transmitted diseases other than HIV/AIDS in the last 12 month period for which figures are available; and what the comparable figures were for(a) 1995, (b) 1990 and (c) 1985. [143281]

  Yvette Cooper
  The available information is in the table.
  277W

  Total number of diagnoses1 of sexually transmitted infections (excluding HIV/AIDS) seen in genitourinary medicine clinics in the United Kingdom: 1985, 1990, 1995 and 1999

  Year

  Male

  Female

  1985

  222,402

  176,749

  1990

  187,673

  197,158

  1995

  196,116

  242,493

  1999

  247,851

  312,546

  1 Provide an indication of patient numbers but individuals may have more than one diagnosis

  Source:

  PHLS

  Nursing and Residential Care Beds
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data his Department collects from local authorities regarding availability of nursing and residential care beds in their areas; how often that information is collected and collated; and in what form it is published. [142811]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: National Statistics are collected and published on an annual basis on the numbers of residential and nursing care homes and the places or registered beds as at 31 March. Aggregated counts of residential care homes and places within these homes by primary client type and sector of provider are collected from local authorities. Aggregated counts of the number of private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics and the registered beds by type of home, primary client type and broad category of use are collected from health authorities. Both sets of collections identify homes that are registered to provide both residential and nursing care (i.e. dual registered homes). Some information is also collected from individual residential and nursing homes on the facilities available, number of occupied places and nursing staff. Collection of this information is linked to the main pre-announced annual inspection.

  Information is published in both electronic and paper form, the most recent relating to the position as at 31 March 2000, in the Statistical Bulletin "Community Care Statistics 2000: Residential Personal Social Services for Adults". Copies are available in the Library and are available at the Department of Health website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0028.htm.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total oncology drug budget was at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [143382]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is shown in the table and highlights a year-on-year increase in the cancer drug budget at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust since 1996 (first available figures):

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust—cancer drug budgets

  £

  Summary

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Oncology

  139,649

  262,245

  400,302

  494,446

  503,585

  Haematology

  254,000

  302,000

  442,428

  460,428

  462,638

  Total

  393,649

  564,245

  842,730

  954,874

  966,223

  Source:

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust
  278W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on proposals to pilot the clinical applications for logistics in the management trusts as developed at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [143381]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Patients Access Team have commissioned work to establish a strategic outline case. This work will systematically assess the range of strategic options to meet the information systems requirements to support the national implementation of booked admissions. The work will be completed by the end of February 2001. It will provide sufficient detail to allow Ministers to consider next steps.

  Defibrillators
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the locations of each defibrillator to be placed in pubic locations in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [143388]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government scheme to provide life-saving heart defibrillators in public places was launched in April 2000. 700 defibrillators will be placed in railway stations shopping centres, airports and bus stations across the country.

  Following initial pilot schemes, a list of sites for the roll out of the defibrillator programme is currently being identified for early in 2001. Each region will have sites allocated.

  Vaccination
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to offer parents a choice between separate injections measles, mumps and rubella and the combined MMR vaccination. [142850]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: Delivery of measles, mumps and rubella as three separate vaccines has never been recommended in the United Kingdom. Single antigen measles and mumps vaccines are not licensed in the UK. The importation of unlicensed single antigen measles and mumps vaccines is restricted by the Medicines Control Agency under the Medicines Act 1986. There is no evidence that the use of single vaccines benefits children and evidence that their use may put children at significant disadvantage. The evidence shows that MMR remains the safest way for parents to protect their children and the Department cannot support the use of separate vaccines and has no plans to make separate vaccines available.

  Autism
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the rate of diagnosis of autism in children at the earliest possible age. [142848]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The number of children identified as having autism is increasing. Although the full explanation for this is not clear, it is at least in part due to improvement in diagnosis by the clinical professions, including child mental health specialists and community paediatricians.
  279W
  We recognise the importance of health, social services and education agencies collaborating to facilitate early identification and effective intervention. For example, these agencies are working jointly to improve the provision of high quality care and treatment for children by building up locally-based child and adolescent mental health services. We have already invested £50 million of central funds towards these developments.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to help prevent childhood autistic spectrum disorders. [142844]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: Establishing the cause of autism will help in preventing, identifying and treating this distressing condition. The Medical Research Council (which is largely funded by Government) has recently invested £344,000 in one of the largest studies of the causes of autism ever attempted. The researchers will study whether autistic children have a history of other conditions or medical problems such as problems during birth and whether viral infections in the womb or soon after birth appear to play a role in producing autism. They will look at a representative sample of health records drawn from over 2 million people.

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about declaring 2002 autism awareness year; and if he will make a statement. [143592]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has received only one representation on this subject. There is already an autism awareness week each year, which is now held in May.

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance to the Medical Research Council to include ethnic monitoring in its research into autism. [143591]

  Mr. Hutton
  Both the Department and the Medical Research Council (MRC) take ethnic minority issues very seriously. The MRC, which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry, is entirely independent in its day-to-day research funding decisions. These take account of both health needs and scientific vision and opportunity including advice from the Department on our priorities. However, the Department does not as a matter of course seek to influence the design of particular MRC-funded research projects. As part of its strategy for research into inequalities in health, the MRC encourages all applicants to consider the feasibility of collecting information on ethnic origin, socio-economic status, gender, etc. in exploring the factors influencing health.

  Midwives
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase midwifery representation on the Nursing and Midwifery Council. [143516]

  Mr. Denham
  We propose that midwives should have equal representation with the other professions to be regulated by the new Council.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01 each 280W
  recipient of funds from his Department's coronary heart disease budget and the total sum to be received by each. [143568]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 December 2000]: In 1999–2000, coronary heart disease services were funded from the health authority unified allocations. For 2000–01, in addition to funding within unified allocations, funds were allocated specifically for heart disease. Recipients of these funds are as listed. We have also received £120 million from the Treasury Capital Modernisation Fund over two years to 2002, and a separate announcement on this will be made shortly.

  Partnership Programme
  A total of £3 million has been allocated to the following Partnerships:

  North Essex Cardiac Partnership

  North West London Coronary Heart Disease

  East London and the City Heart Disease Programme

  Manchester, Salford and Trafford Network for Cardiac Care

  East Riding and Hill CHD Partnership

  Southampton and South West Hants HA and Winchester CHD Partnership

  South West Peninsula Cardiac Consortium

  Dorset and Southampton Whole Systems CHD Partnership

  North Trent CHD Partnership Programme

  The Black Country Collaborative.

  Speech and Language Therapists
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the agreement reached between his Department and the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union on equal value pay for speech and language therapists; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [143181]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 December 2000]: An out-of-court settlement was reached for all speech and language therapists' equal pay claims, following decisions of the employment tribunal in three cases, and announced on 7 May 2000. The settlement also provided a new pay and grade structure for speech and language therapists which was notified to the National Health Service on 19 May 2000. The settlement was negotiated between the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union on behalf of the speech and language therapists and my officials.

  351 of the around 1,800 speech and language therapists who lodged claims have been offered retrospective payment.

  Retrospective payment is based on (i) the decisions of the employment tribunal and findings of the independent experts (this applies to the 1980s cases only); (ii) an assessment of the job weight carried out by work assessment experts; (iii) a formula agreed by negotiators to provide a reasonable and fair payment (individuals were not equalised with their individual comparators for many reasons); (iv) the length of relevant claim.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional financial funding will be made available to voluntary sector homes towards the payment of the increase in the London weighting allowance to take place in April 2001; and if he will make a statement. [143759]
  281W
  Mr. Hutton
  Independent sector residential care homes and nursing homes are responsible for negotiating their own contract rates with local authorities and other purchasers of their services. Local authorities are receiving a real terms increase in funding for personal social services for 2001–02 of 3.6 per cent.

  Exercise on Prescription
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the current list of GP practices in England which offer exercise on prescription. [143115]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: The Department does not keep a national register of practices which offer 'exercise on prescription' or 'exercise referral' schemes. However, details of existing schemes are held locally by health authorities or local authorities.

  The Department has funded two reviews by the former Health Education Authority that documented the progress of these schemes. The research showed that better designed general practitioner referral schemes can lead to small levels of increased participation in activity, but that practice across the country was highly variable.

  The Department will publish a National Quality Assurance Framework on GP referrals in early 2001. The Framework will aim to raise the standards and consistency of GP referral schemes, and help to make them more effective and self-sustaining.

  Under the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease, all National Health Service bodies will
  'have agreed and be contributing to the delivery of local programmes of effective policies on increasing physical activity'.

  By April 2001, GP referral schemes may form part of these local programmes.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the most effective method for the disposal of clinical waste; and what advice he gives to NHS trusts. [143321]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: Waste disposal in England is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Environment Agency (EA) who license and regulate larger waste disposal facilities, with small waste disposal facilities licensed and regulated by the local authority.

  No one method is equally efficient, effective and economic for the disposal of all clinical wastes in all circumstances. Waste producers must find the solution that best meets their requirements in the most satisfactory way.

  We have issued advice to the National Health Service on appropriate methods of disposing of clinical waste—Health Technical Memorandum 2075 "Clinical waste disposal/treatment technologies (alternatives to incineration)". Further and broader guidance is given in the Health and Safety Commission's "Safe Disposal of Clinical Waste". Copies are available in the Library.
  282W
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has he made of the cost and safety impact of transporting clinical waste and of the average distances such waste is carried. [143323]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: National Health Service bodies in England, in making their waste management contracts, follow the principle of seeking the best value and the best service for their particular requirements. Distance is one factor in the decision, but cannot be taken in isolation.

  Producers of clinical waste which is carried on the public highway must meet the statutory requirements for safe packaging.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total annual cost to the NHS is for disposal of clinical waste. [143322]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: The total annual cost to the National Health Service for disposal of clinical waste in England was £29.2 million for 1999–2000.

  To reduce the cost and environmental impact of incinerating clinical waste, we issued Health Technical Memorandum 2065 "Healthcare in waste management—segregation of waste streams in clinical areas". This document advocates a change of strategy from waste disposal to waste management in order to achieve the containment of waste disposal costs, the minimisation of healthcare opportunity costs, risk management and a reduction of environmental impact.

  Care Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to issue draft guidance to local authorities on charging for non-residential community care services; and what plans he has to consult service users when such draft guidance is issued. [144010]

  Mr. Hutton
  We will issue draft guidance for consultation shortly. The consultation paper and draft guidance will be sent to bodies representing service users and carers and will be on the Department of Health website.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make an announcement on guidance for charging for care services. [144029]

  Mr. Hutton
  We will issue a consultation paper and draft guidance shortly.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in care homes there were in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Essex in (i) 1997 and (ii) the latest date for which figures are available. [144092]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of beds in residential and nursing care homes at 31 March 1997 and 31 March 2000 are given in the table. Figures for the United Kingdom as a whole are not available.
  283W

  Care beds as at 31 March

  England

  Essex

  1997

  523,999

  14,388

  2000

  528,450

  13,854

  Source:

  DH Annual Statistical Returns RA, RH(N)

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many members of staff are employed by his Department, broken down by departments; and how many were so employed in May 1997. [141727]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Civil Service staff numbers are collected on a six-monthly basis (April and October) and are published by the Cabinet Office.

  On 1 April 2000 the Department of Environment, Transport and Regions, including its agencies, employed 17,810 permanent and casual staff on a full-time equivalent basis. On 1 April 1997, the Departments were separate. Individually, the Department of the Environment employed 3,869 staff and the Department of Transport employed 11,926 staff.

  The figures are not directly comparable because the combined Department assumed additional responsibilities for the regions. Further, April 2000 numbers include the Rent Service created in October 1999, comprising 890 staff of which 800 transferred from local authorities. Among other changes in staff numbers are increases in DVLA (1030) and VI (270).

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many officials(a) are and (b) were in May 1997 employed by his Department on a (i) part-time basis and (ii) full-time basis. [141726]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Civil Service staff numbers are collected on a six monthly basis (April and October) and are published by the Cabinet Office.

  (a) On 1 April 2000 the Department of Environment, Transport and Regions employed 17,810 permanent and casual staff on a full- time equivalent basis which equates to 18,680 staff on a head count basis, split as follows:

  (i) 2,110 part-time staff

  (ii) 16,570 full-time staff.

  (b) The breakdown of permanent and casual staff on a full and part-time basis is not available for 1 April 1997.

  On the above date the Department of Environment employed 3,869 permanent and casual staff and the Department of Transport employed 11,926 permanent and casual staff (these totals are provided on a full-time equivalent basis).

  The figures are not directly comparable because the combined Department assumed additional responsibilities for the regions. Further, April 2000 numbers include the Rent Service created in October 1999, comprising 890
  284W
  staff of which 800 transferred from local authorities. Among other changes in staff numbers are increases in DVLA (1030) and VI (270).

  Local Government Employees
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have been employed in local government in each of the last three years. [141729]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The number of full-time equivalent employees in local government in England is given in the table:

  Full time equivalent employees in local government in England (excluding police and magistrates courts), mid year count

  Thousand

  Year

  1998

  1,404

  1999

  1,419

  2000

  1,436

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  English Government Offices for the Regions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the current budget is and how many people are employed in, each of the English Government Offices of the Regions, excluding London,(a) in the current year and (b) in each of the last three years; and how many are budgeted for next year. [141732]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The current administrative budget and the administrative budget in each of the last three years for the Government Offices for the Regions (excluding London) are detailed in the table. Budget figures for the next financial year (2001–02) are yet to be agreed.

  £000

  GO

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  12000–01

  North East

  8,616.75

  8,618.84

  8,312.05

  8,221.62

  North West

  9,442.59

  13,690.13

  13,048.58

  13,397.92

  Merseyside

  4,199.53

  12.24

  0.00

  0.00

  Yorkshire and Humber

  8,475.01

  8,683.92

  8,888.68

  9,183.87

  West Midlands

  9,757.79

  9,474.35

  9,330.15

  9,794.44

  East Midlands

  6,436.24

  6,754.39

  6,951.28

  7,176.97

  East

  6,270.62

  6,269.43

  7,005.47

  7,391.26

  South West

  6,825.73

  6,985.03

  7,796.87

  8,226.98

  South East

  8,544.99

  8,561.40

  8,658.61

  8,952.79

  Total

  68,569.25

  69,049.73

  69,991.69

  72,345.85

  1 Allocations pre Mid Year Review

  Note:

  GO-NW and GO-M merged during 1998–99

  The current total number of staff employed in each Government Office (excluding London) in the current year and last three years are detailed in the table. Both the administration budgets and the staff numbers are for all the activities, not just those that relate to DETR responsibilities.

  In line with policy set out in the Performance and Innovation Unit report "Reaching Out—the role of central Government at Regional and Local level" published in February 2000, Government Offices are increasingly

  285W
  incorporating regional staff from a wider range of Government Departments, and are taking on an enhanced role in co-ordinating Government action at regional and local level.

  The figures include casual staff, staff on fixed term appointments, staff seconded out, staff on career breaks, staff on maternity leave and staff on special leave with no pay. Figures taken as at 1 April each year. Staff numbers for 2001–02 have yet to be finalised.

  Staff employed in Government Offices

  GO

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  North East

  269

  286

  261

  267

  North West

  428

  383

  401

  402

  Yorkshire and Humber

  274

  275

  251

  282

  West Midlands

  325

  348

  275

  271

  East Midlands

  218

  215

  222

  247

  East

  182

  185

  178

  195

  South West

  255

  196

  204

  227

  South East

  224

  197

  215

  248

  Total

  2,175

  2,085

  2,007

  2,139

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the individual budget of each regional assembly and regional planning authority in England(a) was last year, (b) is for the current year and (c) is budgeted for next year. [141724]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Budgets for voluntary regional assemblies and regional planning fora are matters for them. The Department does not have information on budgets for the assemblies but is currently collecting information on regional planning budgets. The Department has provided an additional £6 million in 2000–01 to 2003–04 for expenditure on regional planning in recognition of the new arrangements set out in PPG11.

  Agencies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list all the agencies responsible to his Department, the number of people they employ and their budgets. [141730]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The nine Executive Agencies for which DETR is responsible, their staff numbers and budgets are set out in the table.

  Agency

  2000–01 Staff

  2000–01 Gross cash budget (£ million)

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  4,773

  226.7

  Driving Standards Agency

  1,717

  80.0

  Highways Agency

  1,707

  1,451.3

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  1,045

  106.7

  Planning Inspectorate

  691

  34.7

  QEII Conference Centre

  52

  8.2

  Rent Service

  918

  36.1

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  87

  5.6

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1,808

  77.3

  Source:

  2000–01 Agency Business Plans
  286W

  Planning Inspectorate Employees
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are employed in the Planning Inspectorate; and what is their salary bill. [141731]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: As at 3 April 2000, 724 people were employed in the Planning Inspectorate. This figure includes 15 people who are employed by the National Assembly for Wales. The Planning Inspectorate's anticipated salary bill for 2000–01 is £23 million.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals are being evaluated for the transfer of responsibilities for regional development agencies and regional policy to another Department. [141547]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: None.

  Railway Transport
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are employed in transport on the railways; and how many were so employed in May 1997. [141728]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Statistics derived from the Annual Employment survey are available quarterly from the Office for National Statistics. The relevant survey figures for rail transport for June 1997 and June 2000 are 43,000 and 49,000 respectively. The figures comprise staff employed directly by the various rail companies.

  Government Office for London
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the responsibilities of the regional Government Office for London and its budget for(a) last year, (b) the current year and (c) next year. [141725]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The current administrative budget for the Government Office for London is £14.76 million. Their administrative budget for 1999–2000 was £16.33 million. We are not able to provide budget figures for the next financial year (2001–02) as they are yet to be agreed.

  The Government Office for London is responsible for managing programmes on behalf of the parent Departments, supporting and facilitating effective linkages between partners and programmes, informing the development of the Department's policies from the regional perspective and liaising with the Greater London Authority.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what future expenditure by(a) the Government, (b) NMEC and (c) English Partnerships on the site of the Dome is required by the Heads of Agreement for the sale of the Dome to Legacy plc, under any eventuality. [142176]
  287W
  Ms Armstrong
  The financial implications of any sale to Legacy plc will of course be addressed as part of the ongoing sale process. Such details are, though, commercially confidential while negotiations continue.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the minimum amount payable by Legacy plc on completion of the agreement for the sale of the Dome. [142177]

  Ms Armstrong
  Details of the proposed overall financial consideration for the sale of the Dome to Legacy plc must remain commercially confidential at this stage.

  Waste Disposal
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the Government will allocate the extra resources that are needed to achieve the changes to be made to meet the targets in the new National Waste Strategy, the European Landfill Directive and the recent Best Value Performance Indicators on Recycling; how they will be allocated to(a) waste disposal authorities and (b) waste collection authorities in two tier areas; if they will be ring-fenced; and if they will be allocated via supplementary credit approvals. [142727]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 14 December 2000,Official Report, column 200W.

  The additional provision for revenue spending on environmental and cultural services will be distributed through Standard Spending Assessments. We are developing proposals for the allocation of the £140 million provided specifically for waste and recycling, and will consult in the new year. The £220 million PFI credits will be allocated in line with the general criteria set out in my official's letter of 23 December 1999, and the specific criteria for waste projects which I announced on 22 September 2000.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the Government will protect local authorities if the targets in the National Waste Strategy change after waste disposal companies have introduced plant and infrastructure; and what compensation will be available for local authorities that have built energy-from-waste plants. [142730]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government have since June 1998 made it clear that we wish to see a firm emphasis on recycling and composting in future local authority waste management. We expect local authorities to take this into account when developing infrastructure. We have no plans to make compensation available to authorities that have built energy from waste plant.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assist local authorities which have let their new waste disposal contracts before the national strategy takes effect. [143616]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 14 December 2000,Official Report, column 200W. The Government are providing substantial extra resources for waste and recycling.
  288W
  Targets to recycle 25 per cent. of household waste have been in place since the early 1990s. The Government announced their intention to review the national waste strategy in January 1998 and published consultation documents in June 1998 and June 1999. Local authorities were, therefore, given notice of the intention to make a step change in waste management practices.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the proximity principle in waste management will be applied to incinerators that depend for their safe and profitable operation on(a) economies of scale and (b) a constant feed of large volumes of waste taken from a large catchment area. [143395]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 December 2000]: It is for Local Authorities to determine how the proximity principle, that waste should generally be disposed of as near to its place of origin as possible, can best be applied in their area. "Waste Strategy 2000", published in May, emphasises that energy from waste facilities should be appropriately sized and that care must be taken to ensure that contracts are sensitively designed to avoid 'crowding out' recycling.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incinerators he estimates will need to be installed to meet the Government's waste targets; and if he will make a statement. [144096]

  Mr. Mullin
  It is for local authorities to decide what mix of waste management facilities is appropriate for their area. The number of incinerators built will depend on how successful we are in tackling waste growth and in increasing recycling and composting.

  "Waste Strategy 2000" makes clear the Government's commitment to substantial increases in recycling and composting, and announces statutory targets for the recycling of household waste—doubling it in three years and nearly tripling it in five. Where a local authority does decide that an incinerator is needed, the authority should ensure that the plant is appropriately sized and that contracts are carefully designed so as not to compete with recycling. Incinerators should also incorporate Combined Heat and Power technology—where heat is used to produce electricity and to provide hot water to local homes and businesses—wherever practical.

  ACRE
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the changes which he is proposing to make, in responses to the Phillips report on BSE, into the operation of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, with special reference to the recommendations that(a) the secretariat is totally independent of his Department and should consist of administrators and not scientists, (b) the committee addresses risk assessment and not risk management, (c) the committee does not give policy advice and (d) the secretariat does not provide draft advice for the Committee. [142571]
  289W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Phillips Inquiry report raises a wide range of issues, of which nearly a quarter concern the management, operation and role of scientific advisory committees, such as the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE).

  The Phillips report does not recommend that the secretariats of Advisory Committees should be composed of administrators and not scientists. In fact the report flags the importance of Government Departments retaining 'in house' scientific expertise to enable then to understand and review the advice given by their committees.

  The Government are considering the implications of this extensive, and complex report, including issues raised at (b)-(d) and will publish a response in due course. If any changes are proposed in the operation of ACRE, they will be announced subsequently.

  Road Casualties (London)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many fatal accidents occurred on metropolitan London roads in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 2000. [142532]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of fatal road accidents on "Greater London" roads in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 2000 were:

  1980: 542

  1990: 394.

  Data for the years 1970 and 2000 are unavailable. The number of fatal accidents on "Greater London" roads for the last year for which figures are available (1999) was 254.

  A3 (Hindhead)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the Director General of the National Trust in the past three years on the A3 at Hindhead. [142994]

  Mr. Hill
  None, although the National Trust is represented on the Steering Group of the current road based study of the A3 at Hindhead.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to consider the consultants' report on the A3 tunnel at Hindhead; and if he will set out a timetable for action. [142993]

  Mr. Hill
  We anticipate that the Consultant's Report on the A3 Hindhead study will be presented to the South East England Regional Assembly plenary meeting on 14 February 2001. It will then be for the Assembly to make recommendations to Ministers, and decisions on the way forward will be taken in the light of these recommendations.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the amount of energy and electricity consumption in the service sector that is attributable to the use of air conditioning in offices. [142823]
  290W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Building Research Establishment estimates that about 11 PJ of energy consumption is attributable annually to the use of air conditioning in offices within the service sector. The estimated total annual energy consumption in the services sector attributable to air conditioning is about 48 PJ.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of new office buildings built in each year between 1990 and 1999 which had air conditioning. [142824]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has not estimated the specific figures centrally. However, the Building Research Establishment estimates the office space built each year between 1990 and 1999 with some air conditioning as follows:

  million

  Year

  M2 new build offices with some air conditioning

  1990

  2.0

  1991

  1.3

  1992

  0.9

  1993

  0.5

  1994

  0.6

  1995

  0.9

  1996

  1.1

  1997

  2.3

  1998

  2.8

  1999

  1.4

  The approximate amount of office space built with some air conditioning as a proportion of all new office space built in each of the above years is 50 per cent.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers local authorities have to require supermarkets to source a proportion of their products from local suppliers in considering the granting of planning permission; and if he will make a statement. [143083]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The sourcing of products by supermarkets is not normally a material planning consideration. There may, however, be circumstances where it could be demonstrated that the impact of a new supermarket would result in a significant reduction in local purchasing, which in turn would result in material harm to the local economy. For example, in a market town where local food shops currently source their stock locally, a significant reduction in local purchasing as a result of a new supermarket opening and local food stores reducing their purchasing or going out of business could have an adverse effect on the local economy. In such circumstances this might be a material consideration and, if so, would be taken into account in making the decision.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to issue guidelines to local authorities on the implementation of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. [143378]
  291W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Action Plan for Neighbourhood Renewal, which will be published shortly, will set out the way in which funding from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund should support local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies. A Special Grant Report, early in 2001, will set out the basis for the distribution of grant and the conditions attached to the funding.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whom he plans to consult on his proposals to end the 50 per cent. Council Tax discount for second home owners; when the consultation will be completed; and on what date he estimates that local authorities will first be able to charge the full tax. [143260]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 12 December 2000,Official Report, column 76W. The usual period for Government consultations is 12 weeks.

  Community Service Fund
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what system will be used to allocate funding from the Community Service Fund; and if he will estimate the size of the allocation for communities in the South-East Cornwall constituency. [143286]

  Mr. Mullin
  It will be for the Countryside Agency to decide how best to allocate the Community Service Fund, which will not come into operation until 2001–02. No decisions have yet been taken on allocation methods or amounts.

  Region and running total

  RTP name

  Projects funded to date

  Project start date

  Agency contribution

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1

  Harrogate

  Driver Training

  June 2000

  25,000

  2

  Harrogate

  Community Minibus

  September 2000

  8,000

  3

  Harrogate

  Travelwise News

  September 2000

  25,000

  4

  Harrogate

  Computer Scheduling

  September 2000

  21,600

  5

  Harrogate

  Night Out Bus

  September 2000

  26,400

  6

  Craven

  Brokerage Post

  July 2000

  —

  7

  Craven

  Driver Training

  June 2000

  25,000

  8

  Hambleton and Richmond

  Brokerage Post

  July 2000

  —

  9

  Hambleton and Richmond

  Wheels to Work

  November 2000

  77,300

  10

  Hambleton and Richmond

  Driver Training

  June 2000

  25,000

  11

  Ryedale and Scarborough

  Driver Training

  June 2000

  25,000

  12

  Barnsley

  Transport Co-ordination

  Jan 2000

  80,000

  13

  Kirklees

  Community Car Share

  November 2000

  13,400

  14

  Kirklees

  Taxi Vouchers

  November 2000

  14,000

  15

  North Lincolnshire

  Isle of Axeholme Minibus

  November 2000

  35,600

  North East

  16

  Tynedale

  Interchange Improvement

  February 2001

  1,000

  17

  Tynedale

  Travel Information

  February 2001

  2,500

  18

  Tynedale

  Driver Training

  February 2001

  2,000

  19

  Tynedale

  Encouraging Rural Taxis

  December 2000

  2,000

  20

  Tynedale

  Improving Provision for Walkers and Cyclists

  January 2000

  4,500

  21

  Tynedale

  Bringing Services to People

  February 2001

  2,000

  22

  Tyne and Wear

  Transport Information

  February 2001

  15,000

  292W

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what schemes have been funded through the Rural Transport Partnership scheme; and how much funding each scheme received. [143257]

  Mr. Hill
  The Rural Transport Partnership (RTP) scheme was launched in the autumn of 1998 to address social exclusion by bringing about long-term transport improvements in rural areas. Grants of up to 75 per cent. of the eligible partnership and project costs are available up to a current maximum of £250,000.

  A partnership is formed between relevant bodies in a particular area (e.g. local authorities, voluntary sector, health and employment bodies) to take a strategic view of the transport needs and provision of that area. Typically partnerships begin with the appointment of a partnership officer, who then conducts a transport needs analysis to produce an action plan of proposed projects for funding to address the needs identified. Once the partnership officer is appointed, a period of typically six months is needed to prepare the action plan for agreement with the Agency. Action plan projects require specific Agency approval and are listed in the table.

  In addition each RTP can also draw down a delegated fund of £10,000 per year in each of the partnership years, for small scale, stand alone transport projects.

  Although there are 71 RTPs set up to date, the table only covers 34, because the remaining 37 have been set up recently and are still developing their action plans.

  There are also two national RTPs not covered in the table. They are the Community Transport Association's RTP, which has received £39,313 and the Association of Community Rail Partnerships (Acorp) RTP. Acorp has received £27,810 to date. Both of these are national development projects to support community transport and rail activity. Rather than initiating their own schemes, these partnerships support projects promoted by others.
  293W

  Region and running total

  RTP name

  Projects funded to date

  Project start date

  Agency contribution

  23

  Tyne and Wear

  Transport Information

  February 2001

  10,000

  24

  West Durham

  Midas Training

  November 2000

  840

  25

  East Durham

  GP Car Service

  November 2000

  1,556

  East of England

  26

  Essex

  Community Transport

  November 2000

  26,640

  27

  Essex

  Hospital Link

  November 2000

  25,650

  28

  Essex

  Car Share

  March 2000

  34,780

  29

  Cambridgeshire

  Dial a Ride

  October 2000

  9,100

  30

  East Norfolk

  Flexi Bus

  September 2000

  22,010

  31

  East Norfolk

  Community Transport

  November 2000

  27,000

  32

  East Norfolk

  Flexi Bus

  August 2000

  22,410

  33

  West Norfolk

  Market Bus

  August 2000

  29,580

  34

  West Norfolk

  Flexi-Bus

  November 2000

  12,600

  35

  West Norfolk

  Development Officer

  November 2000

  —

  36

  Bedfordshire

  Link a Ride

  September 2000

  26,320

  37

  Bedfordshire

  Travel Club

  November 2000

  35,490

  North West

  38

  North Lancashire

  Link Bus

  November 2000

  9,000

  39

  Ribblesdale Rover

  November 2000

  28,000

  West Midlands

  40

  Herefordshire

  Community Transport

  June 2000

  43,221

  41

  Herefordshire

  Green Transport Promotion

  May 2000

  30,164

  42

  Herefordshire

  Wheels to Work

  December 2000

  52,727

  43

  North Warwickshire

  Busy Beeline

  December 2000

  15,064

  44

  North Warwickshire

  Wheels to Work

  January 2000

  39,135

  45

  Telford and Wrekin

  Community Car, Wheels to Work

  July 2000

  43,700

  46

  Telford and Wrekin

  Interchange Project

  April 2000

  30,000

  47

  Telford and Wrekin

  Wrekin Rider

  July 2000

  56,300

  South West

  48

  Wiltshire

  Volunteer Link Drivers

  June 2000

  26,000

  49

  Gloucestershire

  Jumpstart Jobsearcher

  April 2000

  3,500

  50

  Gloucestershire

  Volunteer Drivers

  April 2000

  5,600

  51

  Gloucestershire

  Drivers for the Elderly

  April 2000

  20,000

  52

  Gloucestershire

  Transport Co-ordinators

  April 2000

  10,000

  53

  Cornwall

  Wheels to Work

  April 2000

  22,500

  54

  Dorset

  Leisure Bus

  April 2000

  1,000

  55

  Dorset

  Scooters

  September 2000

  14,000

  East Midlands

  56

  Nottinghamshire

  Volunteer Driver Training

  November 2000

  25,000

  South East

  57

  North and mid-Hants

  Access to Services

  October 1999

  696

  58

  North and mid-Hants

  Transport Co-ordination

  October 1999

  13,447

  59

  South East Hants

  Transport Co-ordination

  October 1999

  10,064

  60

  South West Hants

  Transport for Work

  October 1999

  12,605

  61

  South West Hants

  Access to Services

  October 1999

  2,440

  62

  South West Hants

  Transport Co-ordination

  October 1999

  6,217

  63

  Cherwell

  Community Services

  October 1999

  14,233

  64

  Information and Training

  October 1999

  756

  65

  West Oxfordshire

  CT Directory

  October 1999

  745

  66

  Mini-bus

  October 1999

  421

  67

  Co-ordination

  October 1999

  20

  68

  South Oxfordshire

  Info and Training

  October 1999

  78

  69

  Access and Info

  October 1999

  532

  70

  East Berkshire

  Train, Coach, Taxis

  August 1999

  11,325

  71

  Integration

  August 1999

  21,438

  72

  Bluebird

  CT Service

  April 2000

  50,774

  73

  East Sussex

  Co-ordination

  November 1999

  73,000

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whom he plans to consult on plans to relax restrictions on rural community transport; and when the consultation will be completed. [143258]
  294W
  Mr. Hill
  We plan to consult representatives of all the bodies that have a role in the provision and regulation of community transport in rural areas, including Traffic Commissioners, the Community Transport Association, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and the
  295W
  Countryside Agency. In addition we will place a copy of the consultation paper on the Department's website so that any other body and members of the public may contribute their views.

  We expect the consultation to be completed next summer, to give adequate time for views to be submitted.

  Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding has been provided by his Department to the London Borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years. [143146]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The following funding was provided by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions to the London Borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years:

  2000–001

  Government Grant for Local Authority General Fund Revenue Support: £202,785,000

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy: £29,740,875

  Housing Investment Programme: £20,832,000

  All Services Basic Credit Approval: £16,794,000

  Single Regeneration Budget: £3,260,264

  Local Transport Capital Expenditure: £1,676,000

  Highway Maintenance Standard Spending Assessment: £7,293,000

  1999–2000

  Government Grant for Local Authority General Fund Revenue Support: £200,512,000

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy: £30,198,391

  Housing Investment Programme: £8,484,000

  All Services Basic Credit Approval: £731,000

  Single Regeneration Budget: £2,283,274

  Local Transport Capital Expenditure: £2,080,000

  Highway Maintenance Standard Spending Assessment: £7,968,000

  1998–99

  Government Grant for Local Authority General Fund Revenue Support: £197,549,000

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy: £33,601,236

  Housing Investment Programme: £8,249,000

  All Services Basic Credit Approval: £ nil

  Single Regeneration Budget: £2,226,000

  Local Transport Capital Expenditure: £2,308,000

  Highway Maintenance Standard Spending Assessment: £7,763,000.

  Rollercoaster Crash (Blackpool)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of investigations of the rollercoaster crash in Blackpool's Pleasure Beach in September. [143153]

  Mr. Meacher
  The HSE investigation of the incident when two trains were in collision on the PepsiMax Big One rollercoaster on 31 August 2000 is still in progress. An immediate Prohibition Notice on use of the ride other than for testing was served on Blackpool Pleasure Beach on 1 September. This was replaced on 15 September by a further Prohibition Notice restricting the use of the ride to one train only. The second Prohibition Notice is still in 296W
  force and will remain so until Blackpool Pleasure Beach has demonstrated that action has been taken to ensure that a collision between two trains cannot take place.

  HSE has not yet come to any conclusions about further enforcement action.

  English Nature
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the Moors Management Agreement initiated by English Nature, relating to Thorne and Hatfield Moors, and make it available in the Library. [143133]

  Mr. Mullin
  Discussions are currently taking place with the operator of the permission with regards to the release of the Agreement. It is hoped that this issue will be resolved soon.

  I will ask English Nature to write to my hon. Friend in due course.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of English Nature's progress in producing conservation objectives for important United Kingdom conservation sites; and if he will make a statement. [143134]

  Mr. Mullin
  In England there are 788 sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) which host features of European or international importance. Of these sites first drafts of conservation objectives for features of interest have been prepared for 557 SSSIs and a further 59 drafts will be prepared by 20 December. These draft conservation objectives are currently subject to internal discussion and review, and will be re-assessed in the light of agreed guidance from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is expected early next year. English Nature aim to produce conservation objectives for the remaining 327 SSSIs by April 2003.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the timetable is for English Nature producing conservation objectives for Thorne and Hatfield Moors and surrounding sites of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement. [143132]

  Mr. Mullin
  English Nature aim to produce conservation objectives for all internationally designated sites by March 2001, at which stage copies of each will be placed in the Library.

  Conservation Sites
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to produce detailed guidance for local authorities on the conduct of planning reviews arising from the designation of special areas of conservation and other sites of European significance. [143139]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Guidance on the review of extant planning permissions which are likely to have a significant effect on special areas of conservation or special protection areas is already set out in Annex C to Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 on nature conservation.
  297W

  Playground Injuries
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statistics his Department collates about injuries to children playing in local authority playgrounds; and if he will publish them. [143379]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) collates statistics on those accidents which are reportable under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. The table contains the statistics for the past four years.

  Injuries to children1 in local authority2 playgrounds3 as reported to HSE4

  Year

  Fatal

  Non fatal

  Total

  1996–97

  0

  278

  278

  1997–98

  1

  195

  196

  1998–99

  0

  125

  125

  1999–20005

  1

  104

  105

  1 Children are defined as individuals aged one year and up including 15 years of age. A search criteria of 0 years produces records where age is not known as well as children aged under age of one. These data cannot be disagregated.

  2 Local authorities have been identified by HSE: client status code—04.

  3 Playgrounds have been identified by HSE: process environment code—5550.

  4 Injuries reported to HSE's Field Operations Directorate

  5 Provisional.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to(a) compel or (b) encourage local authorities to ensure that children's playgrounds have soft surfaces to minimise the risk of injury. [143380]

  Mr. Meacher
  Health and safety legislation already compels local authorities to carry out an assessment of the risks to the health and safety of persons not in their employment who may be affected by the manner in which they carry out their undertaking. This would include assessing the risks in children's playgrounds and such assessments should consider whether the surface complies with published standards on impact absorbing surfaces. Guidance on these standards is available to all local authorities.

  Where local authorities fail to ensure playgrounds have suitable impact absorbing surfaces, HSE is prepared to take enforcement action.

  Rural Bus Service (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year since 1997(a) the amount paid to Shropshire from the Rural Bus fund and (b) the number of new or improved bus services in Shrewsbury; and if he will make a statement. [143389]

  Mr. Hill
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant was introduced in 1998–99, in that year Shropshire received £630,354 and introduced 46 new or improved rural bus services. In 1999–2000 the grant was the same but the number of services grew to 58. Shropshire has again been allocated £630,354 for the current financial year.
  298W
  Shropshire was also successful with two bids totalling £43,500 in the 1999 Rural Bus Challenge competition. They have also bid for funding from this year's competition; we hope to announce the results of that shortly.

  We have already announced that the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant is to continue and that the funding will be increased in future years. The Rural White Paper includes details of our intention to extend the grant to also provide for services in and around market towns.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year since 1997(a) the financial value of capital receipts and (b) the number of council houses repaired or improved in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [143371]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information reported by Shrewsbury and Atcham Council to the Department since 1997 is given in the table. These figures exclude Social Housing Grant.

  Capital receipts (all services) £000

  Total receipts

  Usable receipts

  Number of LA dwellings repaired or renovated

  1997–98

  2,659

  736

  433

  1998–99

  3,088

  965

  525

  1999–2000

  3,510

  1,037

  531

  Note:

  A proportion of capital receipts is "reserved", and must be set-aside as provision for credit liabilities. The remainder is "usable" and may be applied for capital spending as the authority sees fit.

  Source:

  Department of the Environment

  Capital Outturn Returns (COR5) and Housing Investment Programme Returns

  Dorneywood
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those people who have been entertained at public expense at Dorneywood since May 1997. [143268]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  When the Deputy Prime Minister has used Dorneywood for meetings on Government business, the costs involved have been paid by the Department. Since May 1997, Dorneywood has been has been used for meetings with a range of Ministers and officials on a number of occasions.

  Tyre Landfilling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from environmental organisations regarding the decision to extend the deadline for the cessation of the landfilling of tyres beyond 2003. [143143]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have not received any representations from environmental organisations. The Government have made no decisions on deadlines as these are already set out in the Landfill Directive. For landfill sites opened after 16 July 2001 the requirement is that they must cease accepting whole used tyres from 16 July 2003 and
  299W
  shredded tyres from 16 July 2006. For existing landfill sites the requirement is that they cease to accept whole used tyres and shredded tyres "as soon as possible" in accordance with their conditioning plan agreed by the Environment Agency and, in all cases from 16 July 2009.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of Railtrack's compliance with condition no. 7 of its operations licence in relation to the number of broken rails in each year since 1994. [143556]

  Mr. Hill
  The Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) is responsible for ensuring that Railtrack meets its network licence obligations. The Regulator has informed Railtrack that he regarded the excessive level of broken rails in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 as prima facie evidence of a breach of licence condition 7; and that the ORR and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) were commissioning an independent report from Transportation Technology Centre Inc. (TTCI). The TTCI report was published on 9 November.

  I understand that the ORR and HSE have asked Railtrack to respond to the TTCI report and for a statement of how it proposes to take the necessary action.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss with Railtrack the implementation of arrangements whereby future maintenance contracts for maintenance contractors will exclude the right of Railtrack to override recommendations for maintenance and renewal made by maintenance and repair contractors and include the right of maintenance contractors to vary repair and maintenance contracts with the approval of regulatory bodies. [143550]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack has prime responsibility for the safety and security of the railway it controls and for the health and safety of those who are affected by its activities.

  Railtrack's contracts for infrastructure maintenance require contractors to be compliant with specified standards designed to ensure safe and secure operation. The maintenance contractors are also obliged by the contracts to recommend renewals and other specified repair works to Railtrack.

  In order to continue to discharge its statutory safety obligations under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, Railtrack must accept responsibility for all decisions that relate to infrastructure maintenance, repair and renewal works.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions Railtrack has been served with enforcement orders relating to its operations since 1994. [143554]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSEs) Railway Inspectorate has served Railtrack with 79 enforcement notices since 1994.
  300W

  Notices issued against railtrack 1 April 1994 to 6 December 2000

  Improvement notice

  Prohibition notice

  1994–95

  7

  0

  1995–96

  12

  1

  1996–97

  9

  0

  1997–98

  6

  1

  1998–99

  8

  0

  1999–2000

  15

  3

  2000–01

  17

  0

  Imported Railway Lines
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will secure from Railtrack an assurance that all strings of railway lines imported and used on the national rail network comply with Railtrack specifications; [143548]

  (2) if bulging in railway line products supplied to Railtrack from Italy has implications for Railtrack's renewal programme. [143547]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack advise that the recent problems encountered with some rails from Italy are still undergoing evaluation. There is now an embargo on importing Italian rail until a full assessment is made of their quality assurance process. Railtrack have an additional quality approved supplier in Sweden and they will step into any breach caused by the Italian embargo.

  Bulging deficiencies in rail from any source may impact on work programmes. This is one of the reasons why Railtrack maintain supply contracts with several different rail manufacturers. Railtrack experience problems from time to time with any source of rail and need to be able to maintain their supplies.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if levels of asymmetry tolerance in relation to railway lines imported from Italy in 2000 have implications for the safety of the national rail network; [143561]

  (2) if levels of asymmetry tolerance in relation to railway lines imported from Corus operations in France have implications for the safety of the national rail network. [143562]

  Mr. Hill
  All measurement tolerances are uniform for the acquisition of all track products including rail and are designed to avoid safety implications.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if problems with the welding of railway lines imported from Italy in 2000 have implications for renewal of the national rail network. [143564]

  Mr. Hill
  There were no problems in being able to weld Italian rail. All rail is welded for Railtrack by Corus at two UK plants. There are ample supplies of rail for welding.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will secure from Railtrack an assurance that all rail track products used on the national railway network are as individual pieces of equipment traceable as to(a) country of manufacture and (b) name of manufacturer. [143551]
  301W
  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack advise that all rail is stamped with the manufacturers' unique identifier, the year and month of manufacture, the appropriate profile and grade of rail and the string number. Railtrack are able to identify which batch any single string came from and would always investigate the rest of any batch where a single fault has been found.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will request Railtrack to provide details as to the nature of the contractual arrangements for the import of railway lines from Italy. [143549]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a commercial matter between Railtrack and its suppliers.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the return of railway lines imported from Italy in 2000 was related to the need to maintain safety standards on the national rail network. [143563]

  Mr. Hill
  No rail has been returned to Italy. Railtrack have simply put an embargo on importing any more until such time as they are satisfied that the Italian company's quality control can reliably meet specification.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the implications are for safety arising out of comparative evaluations as to macrosegregation in the context of quality between railway lines produced by Voest Alpine of Austria, Luccini's of Italy, Corns operations in France and Corus operations in Workington. [143441]

  Mr. Hill
  The origin and quality of railway lines is a matter for Railtrack.

  Train Derailments
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list all train derailments since 1994. [143555]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSEs) Railway Inspectorate is able to provide a list of train derailments only for the two year period 1998–99 and 1999–2000, which is shown in the table. This shows derailments on all railways, which includes the Railtrack network, Metropolitan railways, London Underground, Heritage railways and Tramways.

  For earlier years the numbers of derailments are included in the Railway Inspectorate's annual reports. Copies are in the House Library.

  List of train derailments in the last two years1

  Date

  Location

  Time

  2 April 1998

  Warsop RLF

  15:17

  7 April 1998

  Machen Quarry

  15:53

  9 April 1998

  Hopton Road

  14:20

  12 April 1998

  Brocklesby Jcn

  07:44

  16 April 1998

  Tyseley

  18:03

  19 April 1998

  Clapham Jcn/Queenstown Road

  15:30

  19 April 1998

  Reading

  15:45

  19 April 1998

  Gloucester Yard Jcn

  23:52

  24 April 1998

  Margam Moors

  14:50

  25 April 1998

  Lindsey Oil Refinery

  15:45

  27 April 1998

  Eastfield

  21:36

  29 April 1998

  Ruislip Lido

  15:10

  302W

  List of train derailments in the last two years1

  Date

  Location

  Time

  30 April 1998

  Cannon Street

  08:34

  1 May 1998

  Wood Street

  06:09

  3 May 1998

  Llandudno

  00:00

  4 May 1998

  Cardiff Central

  17:55

  6 May 1998

  Pengam Flt

  :20

  12 May 1998

  Furzebrook

  12:22

  16 May 1998

  Brockenhurst

  23:10

  19 May 1998

  March

  00:38

  28 May 1998

  Ripple Lane Depot

  14:55

  28 May 1998

  Littlemore

  15:06

  31 May 1998

  Shebden Park

  17:00

  10 June 1998

  Bristol Temple Meads

  13:04

  12 June 1998

  Northwich

  04:12

  14 June 1998

  Lakeside Station

  15:00

  16 June 1998

  Sandy

  17:57

  19 June 1998

  Park Jcn

  13:35

  23 June 1998

  Kincardine Power Station

  02:53

  25 June 1998

  Allerton Jcn

  08:55

  28 June 1998

  Princess Street/Blundell Street

  16:30

  28 June 1998

  Princess Street/Blundell Street

  12:34

  28 June 1998

  Promenade/Foxhall

  16:00

  28 June 1998

  Princess Street/Blundell Street

  13:40

  28 June 1998

  Promenade/Foxhall

  16:20

  28 June 1998

  Princess Street/Blundell Street

  16:05

  8 July 1998

  Burntisland

  06:30

  8 July 1998

  Barnetby

  02:54

  8 July 1998

  Rotherham Central

  02:01

  9 July 1998

  Regent Road AOCL Crossing

  11:50

  12 July 1998

  Horbury Junction

  20:35

  14 July 1998

  Galton Jen

  06:35

  14 July 1998

  Claydon Lane Junction

  14:30

  14 July 1998

  Dent

  12:55

  28 July 1998

  Doncaster Belmont

  20:31

  30 July 1998

  Crianlarich

  01:50

  5 August 1998

  Holyhead

  08:37

  8 August 1998

  Pleasure Beach Loop

  16:10

  10 August 1998

  Clapham Junction

  06:17

  11 August 1998

  Bromley Junction

  22:29

  11 August 1998

  Mermaid Bridge (Bure Valley)

  16:40

  12 August 1998

  Woodgrange Park

  10:55

  14 August 1998

  Paddock Wood

  06:40

  14 August 1998

  Durnsford Road (Wimbledon)

  02:50

  15 August 1998

  Immingham

  06:22

  16 August 1998

  Toton

  12:20

  16 August 1998

  Morecombe South Jcn GF

  09:32

  19 August 1998

  Pleasure Beach

  16:32

  20 August 1998

  Clayton West

  13:10

  20 August 1998

  Hopton Road

  00:00

  27 August 1998

  Swindon

  04:34

  28 August 1998

  Be kton

  03:50

  30 August 1998

  Wickstead Park

  03:15

  3 September 1998

  Kingswinford Jcn

  12:23

  7 September 1998

  Scunthorpe

  08:35

  9 September 1998

  Blisworth

  05:00

  23 September 1998

  Royston

  03:58

  30 September 1998

  Ripple Lane Flt

  10:45

  13 October 1998

  Ripple Lane

  19:07

  14 October 1998

  Abercynon North

  11:13

  14 October 1998

  Pleasure Beach

  16:38

  19 October 1998

  East Loop-Little Bispham

  11:14

  22 October 1998

  Llanberis Station

  14:40

  23 October 1998

  Marshfield

  02:50

  23 October 1998

  Bicester

  09:45

  24 October 1998

  Sanquhar

  15:25

  25 October 1998

  Bold Street/Queens Terrace

  11:20

  26 October 1998

  Bold Street/Queens Terrace

  18:06

  28 October 1998

  Hopton Road

  16:38

  3 November 1998

  Crag Hall

  19:50

  6 November 1998

  Highworth Jcn

  11:39

  18 November 1998

  Bargoed

  13:47

  21 November 1998

  Paddington

  15:47

  22 November 1998

  Toton

  15:18

  27 November 1998

  Newport

  09:05

  303W

  List of train derailments in the last two years1

  Date

  Location

  Time

  28 November 1998

  Derby Station North Jcn

  21:25

  2 December 1998

  Salthouse jcn

  12:18

  2 December 1998

  Paddington

  10:43

  11 December 1998

  Steventon

  23:47

  13 December 1998

  Pitsea

  12:20

  21 December 1998

  Beattock

  20:30

  21 December 1998

  Falkland

  21:34

  4 January 1999

  Ditton No: 1

  11:15

  6 January 1999

  Brampton Fell

  06:45

  9 January 1999

  Coventry South Jcn

  15:25

  9 January 1999

  Leicester Braunston Gate

  09:10

  13 January 1999

  Pilning

  03:14

  15 January 1999

  Crosby Garrett Tunnel

  19:40

  16 January 1999

  Bescot

  23:48

  19 January 1999

  Immingham East Junction

  09:40

  22 January 1999

  Seven Sisters/Finsbury Park

  00:59

  22 January 1999

  Kensington Olympia

  05:25

  28 January 1999

  Daw Mill

  17:25

  31 January 1999

  Kilwinning

  03:45

  2 February 1999

  Neath and Brecon Junction

  10:05

  3 February 1999

  Dymchurch Station

  07:35

  4 February 1999

  Cardiff

  07:02

  5 February 1999

  Margam

  01:40

  7 February 1999

  Crouch Hill

  12:12

  10 February 1999

  Crowle

  08:00

  19 February 1999

  Hainault Depot

  00:39

  25 February 1999

  Willesden South Jcn

  21:41

  27 February 1999

  Glynn Square

  16:37

  8 March 1999

  Kildale

  06:45

  9 March 1999

  Glynn Square

  06:55

  11 March 1999

  Willeden South West Sidings

  22:02

  14 March 1999

  Dunston

  19:40

  8 April 1999

  Willesden South West Sidings

  22:39

  21 April 1999

  DM Dean Hill

  15:20

  24 April 1999

  Gunnersbury

  10:39

  6 May 1999

  Milky Way, Downland Cross

  16:40

  6 May 1999

  Healey Mills

  15:30

  8 May 1999

  Hednesford

  07:45

  11 May 1999

  Theale

  06:00

  13 May 1999

  Bognor Regis Sidings

  01:08

  21 May 1999

  Llanberis Stn Yard

  11:20

  30 May 1999

  Felling/Heworth

  15:39

  1 June 1999

  Truro

  19:50

  3 June 1999

  Warrington South Jcn

  04:42

  6 June 1999

  Brittania Points

  13:10

  15 June 1999

  Harrow and Wealdstone

  11:03

  15 June 1999

  Abergynolwyn

  11:20

  16 June 1999

  Tan-y-bwlch Station

  11:23

  20 June 1999

  Bescot

  10:38

  24 June 1999

  Middlewich

  22:30

  25 June 1999

  Milford

  16:05

  26 June 1999

  Halfway Station

  15:22

  29 June 1999

  Knutsford

  15:49

  2 July 1999

  Forders Siding

  21:21

  12 July 1999

  Bridgeton Yard

  15:02

  13 July 1999

  Hereford

  12:13

  15 July 1999

  Rolvenden Station

  11:05

  15 July 1999

  Wolverhampton

  15:49

  17 July 1999

  Paddington

  01:59

  21 July 1999

  Chelsea Bridge

  10:34

  6 August 1999

  Neath and Brecon Jcn

  13:05

  6 August 1999

  Tywyn Wharf Station

  16:15

  7 August 1999

  Cavendish Road, Bispham

  16:43

  9 August 1999

  Norwich Crown Point Depot

  09:00

  14 August 1999

  Stormy

  18:30

  14 August 1999

  Tower

  17:25

  17 August 1999

  Llangollen Station

  18:30

  17 August 1999

  Carn Brea

  15:54

  24 August 1999

  Talbot Square

  11:05

  27 August 1999

  Felixstowe Beach Lc

  18:30

  27 August 1999

  Treeton

  20:42

  29 August 1999

  Desborough

  12:16

  31 August 1999

  Tickhill

  08:34

  304W

  List of train derailments in the last two years1

  Date

  Location

  Time

  31 August 1999

  Derby

  00:09

  3 September 1999

  Derby, London Road Junction

  01:51

  4 September 1999

  Acton Canal Wharf

  14:45

  9 September 1999

  Pengam

  06:20

  10 September 1999

  Holyhead

  23:36

  14 September 1999

  Aberdeen

  18:28

  20 September 1999

  Shoeburyness Depot

  19:40

  22 September 1999

  Hale

  17:55

  27 September 1999

  Alexandra Dock Jcn

  16:00

  5 October 1999

  Westferry

  10:55

  5 October 1999

  Hertford East

  18:35

  11 October 1999

  Edington

  15:30

  11 October 1999

  Bletchley Cambridge Sdgs

  12:00

  13 October 1999

  Wardley

  18:55

  20 October 1999

  Workington No. 2

  00:49

  20 October 1999

  Landor Street Jcn

  02:06

  20 October 1999

  Bishops Stortford

  08:12

  24 October 1999

  Goathland

  09:44

  28 October 1999

  Corrour

  08:52

  30 October 1999

  Embankment

  14:22

  3 November 1999

  Margate

  00:15

  4 November 1999

  Lancaster

  07:15

  14 November 1999

  Temple Mills Manor Yard

  17:26

  28 November 1999

  Ardencaple LC

  19:08

  3 December 1999

  Barrhead

  06:10

  4 December 1999

  Stoneacre Loop

  14:30

  11 December 1999

  Immingham East Jcn

  10:05

  12 December 1999

  Milton Viaduct

  11:10

  16 December 1999

  Strood Tunnel

  13:03

  11 January 2000

  Garston Jcn

  10:35

  13 January 2000

  Luton North Jcn

  11:29

  19 January 2000

  Edgware Road Sidings

  14:36

  21 January 2000

  Kirkconnel

  21:49

  28 January 2000

  Witham

  22:10

  31 January 2000

  Winchfield

  06:25

  1 February 2000

  West Calder

  02:00

  2 February 2000

  Washwood Heath

  06:55

  10 February 2000

  Edgware Road

  21:25

  13 February 2000

  Aldgate

  12:56

  15 February 2000

  Bardon Hill

  00:40

  17 February 2000

  Hayes and Harlington

  16:00

  18 February 2000

  Cridling Stubbs LC

  20:45

  24 February 2000

  Croft Sidings

  21:30

  4 March 2000

  Worcester Shrub Hill

  00:01

  6 March 2000

  Acton Yard

  12:25

  8 March 2000

  Aldgate

  21:31

  28 March 2000

  Rutherglen Central Junction

  13:35

  30 March 2000

  Camden Road West Jcn

  21:39

  1 Information supplied by HSE's Railway Inspectorate

  Note:

  The list of train derailments is based on all derailments in Great Britain, as well as those on that have occurred on the Railtrack Controlled Infrastructure, the list includes those that have occurred on Heritage Railways, Tramways and Metropolitan Railways such as London Underground.

  Railway Lines (Ultrasonic Testing)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the implications for safety in the national rail network arising from not using angle probe techniques in the ultrasonic testing of railway lines; [143560]

  (2) if ultrasonic testing of railway lines at the site of the Hitchin crash included angle probe ultrasonic testing in the period prior to the crash; [143558]
  305W
  (3) if ultrasonic testing of railway lines on site throughout the UK rail network included angle probe ultrasonic testing as a matter of routine. [143559]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack advise that angle probe techniques are applied in ultrasonic testing of railway lines and these testing procedures are contained in Railtrack's Line Standards RT/CE/S/055.

  Balfour Beatty Report
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place a copy of the Balfour Beatty maintenance audit report on railway stewardship of August in the Library. [143557]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a commercial matter between Railtrack and Balfour Beatty.

  Heat-treated Rails
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of Railtrack's(a) current and (b) future renewal programme involves the use of heat-treated rails. [143552]

  Mr. Hill
  None. There is an embargo on the future use of mill heat treatment (MHT) rail pending investigations following the Hatfield incident.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the safety and usage implications for the life of railway lines arising out of the use of(a) heat-treated and (b) non-heat treated railway lines on the national rail network. [143553]

  Mr. Hill
  No such assessment has been made by either the Health and Safety Executive or Railtrack.

  Projects1

  Total investment by English Partnerships (£000)

  Speke Garston Regeneration costs to end 1996–97

  19,027

  Boulevard Industry Park, Speke

  10,267

  Merseyside Development Corporation, Princess Dock, Liverpool

  7,466

  Terminal Complex, Neptune Development

  6,707

  Rope Walks: Duke Street/Bold Street Public Realm works

  6,198

  Capital Exchange, Liverpool

  5,016

  Speke Garston Regeneration-Estuary (also known as Northern Airfield) Phase 1

  4,695

  Liverpool City Centre Offices

  4,500

  Exchange Buildings Offices, Liverpool

  4,449

  Liverpool City Centre Residential

  4,000

  Speke Garston Regeneration-Northern Airfield Land Acquisition

  3,902

  Rope Walks; Duke Street Triangle

  3,587

  Speke Garston Regeneration—off site works

  3,549

  Queen Square Hotel, Liverpool

  3,341

  Acquisition and Regeneration—45 acres leasehold land

  3,264

  Matchworks—Urban Splash

  2,988

  Speke Garston Regeneration—VAT project

  2,840

  Plot 2 Boulevard Business Park

  2,786

  Intercity (JIS) Ltd./Capital bank

  2.751

  Collegiate School Liverpool

  2,630

  Merseyside Development Corporation—Princess Dock Hotel

  2,554

  Medeva (also known as Evans Medical) Boulevard Industrial Park

  2,518

  Speke Garston Regeneration—Bryant and May acquisition

  2,195

  Conix Development Boulevard Business Park

  2,105

  306W

  London Underground
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much Government funding has been made available during the last 12 months for the improvement of London Underground stations; and if he will make a statement. [143530]

  Mr. Hill
  Government funding is provided to support LUL's overall investment programme. It is a matter for LUL to determine how the funds available for investment, including the funds which LUL generates internally, are allocated. In the last complete financial year (1999–2000) expenditure on station improvements totalled £52 million.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people he estimates are sleeping rough in the Greater London area. [143531]

  Ms Armstrong
  Figures published in August showed that as of June 2000 there were an estimated 546 people sleeping rough in Greater London on any single night. A breakdown of this figure by local authority area is available in the Library of the House. A street count was carried out in central London on 11 December and provisional estimates suggest that the number of people sleeping rough has reduced by around 100. The result of this count is being collated and will be made available to the House in the new year.

  Regeneration (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which regeneration projects in Liverpool have been assisted by Partnership Investment Programme funding; and how much funding has been allocated to each. [143174]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The following is a list of all PIP projects in Liverpool since 1994.
  307W

  Projects1

  Total investment by English Partnerships (£000)

  New Hall Place, Corner Project, Liverpool

  2,015

  Lime Street Student Flats/Retail, Liverpool

  1,971

  Plot F, Estuary Commerce Park

  1,909

  Post and Echo Office Redevelopment, Liverpool

  1,784

  Rope Walks—The Tea Factory

  1,692

  Rosemary Housing, Liverpool

  1,691

  Boulevard Industry Park (Plot 3)

  1,618

  Beetham Plaza/Wilberforce House

  1,476

  Canning Place and Media Factory

  1,346

  Plot H2(a) Estuary Commerce Park

  1,333

  Myrtle Street Housing, Liverpool

  1,318

  Plot 5 Boulevard

  1,300

  Temple Square Offices, Liverpool

  1,252

  Manchester Street, Liverpool

  1,204

  Plot 4 Boulevard

  1,201

  Rope Walks Duke Street/Bold Street Executive Teams Costs

  1,101

  Speke Garston Regeneration—Professional Fees

  1,079

  Rope Walks; VAT Centre

  1,029

  Everton Gardens

  971

  Highfield Gardens Housing, Liverpool

  934

  St. Johns House

  853

  St. Andrews Gardens, Liverpool

  852

  Plot C, Estuary (Powder Systems Ltd.)

  833

  Sylvester Street, Housing/Shops, Liverpool

  824

  Eldon Grove, Liverpool

  821

  Stanhope House Housing, Liverpool

  816

  Plot 1A—Boulevard

  713

  Plot 5B—Boulevard Industry Park

  704

  Cathedral Chambers Commercial Development Liverpool

  685

  Vauxhall Gardens

  684

  Lady Chapel Square

  636

  Powerhouse Foyer

  621

  130–134 Upper Parliament Street, Liverpool

  578

  Wood Street Offices/Housing, Liverpool

  564

  Sparrow Hall Estate Housing, Liverpool

  559

  Walton House

  558

  Kings Drive Housing, Liverpool

  550

  Bereys Building 2

  549

  Rope Walks; St Peters Church

  500

  15–19 Sweeting Street

  475

  Rope Walks; 116 Duke Street, Liverpool

  463

  Plot E, Estuary

  441

  Rope Walks; Starting Point Project

  429

  Prince Edwin Street Housing, Liverpool

  415

  15 Victoria Street, Liverpool

  387

  165–179 London Road, Liverpool

  376

  Playhouse Theatre, Liverpool

  374

  Vauxhall Community Centre

  348

  Speke Garston Reclamation—Matchworks (also known as Bryant And May) development

  342

  Cawdor Street Phase 1, Liverpool

  339

  Africa House Offices Mark 2, Liverpool

  314

  Pembroke Place Mixed Development, Liverpool

  302

  Merseyside Development Corporation—Vauxhall Neighbourhood Centre, Sylvester Street

  284

  Burroughs Gardens Housing, Liverpool

  275

  Lodge Lane/Upper Parliament Street

  266

  Merseyside Development Corporation—Peaston/YHA Tabley Street

  258

  1 Queens Square

  241

  Scotland Road Housing, Liverpool

  220

  3–5 Trueman Street, Liverpool

  202

  Speke Garston Regeneration—Liverpool Airport Terminal

  199

  The Millennium Discovery Park

  186

  Speke Garston Regeneration—Estuary Phase—Security Costs

  175

  Tithebarn Street Offices, Liverpool

  140

  Sunnyside Housing, Liverpool

  139

  St. Pauls Shepperd Centre

  132

  Mount Pleasant Student Flats, Phase 2. Liverpool

  114

  Abdullah Building Mixed Development, Liverpool

  110

  Lord Nelson Street, Liverpool

  109

  Grenville Street South Adventure Playground

  108

  Total

  162,623

  1 Over £100,000, 1994 to date

  308W 309W

  "The Future of Aviation"
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason copies of the national consultation document, "The Future of Aviation", were not made available in the Vote Office and no ministerial statement made to the House at the time of publication. [143448]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 11 December 2000,Official Report, column 25W. This statement informed the House that the consultation document would be published the following day. The consultation document does not contain any new statements of Government policy. Copies of the consultation document were received in the Libraries of the House and in the Vote Office on the day of publication, Tuesday 12 December. However, due to an oversight they did arrive late to the Vote Office.

  Gas Installation
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on extending the CORGI registration scheme to cover non-gas work carried out in conjunction with work on gas appliances; and if he will make a statement. [142638]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The Health and Safety Commission has received a number of representations on this issue in response to its Discussion Document "Gas safety review: Options for change" and an associated shorter document "Key issues for consumers". These are summarised in the Commission's report on the outcome of the Review: "Proposals for Change", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Non-gas work includes plumbing and electrical work not directly connected to gas safety, carried out by installers in conjunction with gas work on a combustion appliance. Only a minority of respondents to the Discussion Document expressed support for the extension of the CORGI registration scheme to cover such work. The great majority (53 out of 77, or over two-thirds) were not in favour of extending the scheme in this way. The same question raised in the associated consumer document elicited a similar balance of responses.

  The 'non-gas' activities of installers are already subject to the general requirements of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and associated regulations. The Commission has accepted the view that the increased prescriptive burden that an extension of the CORGI registration scheme would represent would be difficult to justify in safety terms. However, the Commission will ensure that the general health and safety requirements are duly emphasised in its Approved Code of Practice on "Standards of training in safe gas installation", which it plans to update in the light of the Review findings.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with other Government departments on ways of improving protection for consumers dealing with gas installation businesses; and if he will make a statement. [142639]
  310W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I am currently considering, in conjunction with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Health, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales the recommendations set out in the Health and Safety Commission's recent report "Fundamental Review of the Gas Safety Regime: Proposals for Change".

  My preliminary view is that the report's recommendations include useful measures for making further improvements to the safety regime for the installation and use of gas. I am discussing the recommendations with my colleagues in Government along with more radical proposals in certain areas. The Government will issue a statement in the new year on implementation.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the desirability of introducing a scheme for the formal recording of gas equipment sales; and if he will make a statement. [142588]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The Health and Safety Commission has received a number of representations on this issue, in response to its discussion document "Gas safety review: Options for change". These are summarised in the Commission's report on the outcome of the Review, "Proposals for Change". A copy has been placed in the Library.

  In response to a question on possible controls over do-it-yourself installation, the option of requiring retailers to record sales of gas equipment was supported by 26 respondents to the main Discussion Document, with 34 against; that of subsequent inspection by a central body was supported by 20, with 33 against. The parallel question in the associated shorter discussion document aimed at consumers elicited 36 in favour and 26 against such control. The main reservations expressed were over the possible compliance burden, bureaucracy and doubtful effectiveness of this approach.

  A similar question was asked in relation to further action directed towards non-registered installers. Responses here were equally divided, with 14 in favour and the same number against. Several supporting this option did so in view of its potential deterrent effect on non-registered installers. Those against had concerns about the cost, bureaucracy and doubtful effectiveness of this approach.

  The case for such action will be re-examined when additional data from improved accident reporting arrangements, to be introduced as part of the implementation of the Review findings, are available.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what directions overriding a note of dissent by an accounting officer have been given by the boards of non-departmental public bodies within his Department's remit since May 1997; and if he will place details of such directions in the Library. [143540]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There have been no such directions.
  311W

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) which of the applications objected to by the Environment Agency in 1999–2000 were(a) approved, (b) rejected and (c) called in for review; [143637]

  (2) if he will list the planning applications included in the Environment Agency's Annual report supplied to MAFF and his Department in June which were (a) approved, (b) rejected and (c) called in for review; [143636]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Environment Agency's Report on high-level target 12—Development in areas at risk of flooding covers the period from October 1999 to March 2000. It lists 403 applications and identifies those where the local planning authority decision was in line with or contrary to Agency advice and those not yet determined. It also lists 22 appeals but does not contain information on applications called in for review. I have placed the report in the Library of the House.

  High Hedges
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in drafting legislation to tackle high hedges; and if he will make a statement. [143635]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on 15 December 2000,Official Report, column 290W.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent information has been received by his Department concerning changes in air temperature, precipitation and ice cover in Antarctica; and if he will make a statement. [143412]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: Meteorological information for Antarctica is provided to the UK Government by the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). The Antarctic Peninsula region has experienced a significant rise in temperature of more than 2°C in the last 50 years and in the frequency of precipitation events resulting in a reduction in both ice shelves and perennial snow cover. Other areas, such as the South Pole, show significant cooling, but changes in ice cover over the remainder of Antarctica are not known. There is no significant trend in sea ice area over the last 27 years of high quality records. A report on the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, commissioned by my Department, shows that expert opinion is divided on the likelihood and cause of any collapse of this ice sheet, although the majority consider it to be unlikely. Such a collapse has been considered to be a possible consequence of global warming. The report concluded that there is a very low risk of collapse in the next three centuries, however, this issue remains a key matter for research at BAS.

  Incineration (Dogs)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if a person with a permit from a local authority to(a) use his
  312W
  premises as a knackers yard and (b) to incinerate specified risk material requires a waste management licence to incinerate dogs. [143846]

  Mr. Meacher
  Yes, subject to the following considerations.

  The incineration of waste is classified as a waste disposal operation under the amended Framework Directive on waste. This means that any person operating an incinerator is required to hold a permit—as defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (as amended). A waste management licence, issued under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is a permit for these purposes and would usually be required where the incinerator is designed to burn waste at a rate of 50 kgs per hour or less. An exemption from licensing may apply where the conditions set out in regulation 17 and paragraph 29 of Schedule 3 to the 1994 Regulations are fulfilled.

  An authorisation under Part I of the 1990 Act is required for incinerators designed to burn waste at more than 50 kgs per hour.

  Structural Funding
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many projects submitted under the Merseyside Objective 1 2000 to 2006 Programme have been passed to the relevant section of DTI for clearance under European Commission state aid rules. [143848]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Thirty-three such projects have been referred to the Department of Trade and Industry for an opinion.

  Modernising Government White Paper
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number, purpose and total value of contracts with external consultants and advisers that(a) have been let and (b) are due to be let, by his Department to further the implementation of the Modernising Government White Paper indicating those contracts that relate specifically to management consultancy. [143705]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The cost of implementing the White Paper on Modernising Government by my Department is not separately identified within the resources allocated in the Comprehensive Spending Review and the Spending Review 2000. The plans for my Department along with others are set out in the respective White Papers, "Modern Public Services for Britain", Cm 4011 and "Public Services for the Future", Cm 4181; and Spending Review 2000, Cm 4807 and Cm 4808. The Department's individual spending plan is set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper for 1999–2000, Cm 4812.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make it his policy to require that the sellers' packs, proposed in the Homes Bill, will include(a) an energy efficiency rating for the property, (b) advice on

  313W
  cost-efficient energy saving measures that could be taken in the property and (c) the consequent savings due to these measures; [143189]

  (2) what steps he is taking to promote energy efficiency to new home buyers; and if he will make a statement. [143278]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Homes Bill establishes the requirement for a person marketing a residential property to compile a seller's pack, and enables the Secretary of State to prescribe by statutory instrument the contents of the seller's pack.

  The pilot study carried out in Bristol earlier this year tested some of the potential components of a seller's pack. This pack included an energy efficiency assessment incorporating an energy rating using the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP), the Government's recommended system for energy rating of homes. It also included generic advice on measures to improve energy efficiency. The inclusion of such information was well received by home buyers, although some concerns were expressed about the format of this information and the accompanying advice. We are looking into these points further.

  It is currently intended that Regulations prescribe the inclusion of an energy report in the seller's pack, and that this will include generic advice on measures to improve energy efficiency, and an indication of the cost and pay back period of each of those improvements.

  As regards new homes, all new dwellings must comply with Part L of the Building Regulations, Conservation of Fuel and Power. We are currently reviewing Part L. In addition, through the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme, we encourage housebuilders to build and promote highly energy efficient dwellings which would deliver a Standard Assessment Procedure energy rating of 80 or more on the 1–100 scale (the SAP 80+ initiative). Under an amendment of the Building Regulations taking effect from 1 January 2001, builders will have to post up notices of SAP ratings in new homes.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, for each year since 1995, the number of flights, including helicopter flights, taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas visits; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143873]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government has given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  314W

  Heathrow
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he has made a decision on the proposals for changes to the preferential use of Heathrow's runways at night; and if he will make a statement. [144168]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have concluded that it would not be fair and equitable to maintain the current Westerly Preference at night. It would be irrational to maintain in operation a noise mitigation measure that no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally intended. Indeed, it now has the perverse effect at night of adding to the sum of the disturbance that may be caused.

  It makes no sense for the Westerly Preference to be operated at times when there are few or no take-offs, because it does not serve as a noise mitigating measure, and it is incompatible with the Government's aim to minimise the impact of the airport on the local environment.

  I have considered carefully the arguments put forward for introducing and easterly preference at night, because I recognise this would provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people, but it would not provide a fair and equitable outcome. Everyone, whether they live in a densely populated area or otherwise, is entitled to the same consideration and respect.

  I have decided that the current Westerly Preference should be replaced at night by a weekly rotation between westerly and easterly operations whenever weather conditions permit.

  I expect the new arrangements will be introduced in the spring, but full implementation will not be possible until the completion of runway resurfacing work in 2002–03.

  No changes are being made to the night restrictions regime introduced in 1999.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the policy in respect of working holidaymakers employed as supply teachers. [144125]

  Mrs. Roche
  The purpose of the working holidaymaker scheme is not to meet skills shortages, or enable teachers to secure employment in the United Kingdom, but as a concession to the normal arrangements working holidaymakers who are qualified teachers are allowed to undertake supply teaching during their stay. In keeping with the ethos of the scheme, any teaching work should be incidental to a holiday and they should not be working for the whole of their time here.

  For those non-European Economic Area (EEA) nationals who wish to engage in full-time teaching employment in the United Kingdom there are already provisions under the work permit scheme, and provisions in the Immigration Rules enabling approved exchange schemes for teachers and language assistants.
  315W
  I have nonetheless considered representations about the particular staffing difficulties and disruption faced by schools when supply teachers in their employ leave during the course of a school term because their leave to enter or remain as working holidaymakers has expired. In the interests of schools and their pupils, and in the light of the unique considerations which apply to the completion of school terms, I have agreed to amend the policy instructions in respect of working holidaymakers. This change will enable a short extension of leave to remain in the United Kingdom to a working holidaymaker who is already employed as a supply teacher, and whom the school wishes to retain, to enable them to complete the school term during which their have to remain as a working holidaymaker has expired Such leave will be granted on an exceptional basis outside the Immigration Rules in order to benefit those whose leave will expire during the course of a term but will not permit extensions to cover a whole term or more. Schools wishing to employ working holidaymakers as supply teachers will be expected to take account of the date upon which such a teacher's leave to enter or remain is due to expire when planning the coverage of vacant posts over the school year.

  Football Disorder
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hooligans have received football banning orders since the enactment of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000; what impact the Act is having on the behaviour of English football fans overseas; and when the working group on football disorder will report its findings. [144127]

  Mr. Straw
  The courts have imposed 122 football banning orders under the measures contained in the 2000 Act. While there are no grounds for complacency there has been no significant disorder involving English football supporters overseas since the Act came into force. The early indications are that the new measures are helping to deter disorder and encouraging the vast majority of travelling supporters to rid English football of its hooligan reputation. A copy of the interim report of the Working Group on Football Disorder has today been placed in the Library. It outlines the group's provisional findings and the work upon which it has embarked. The group has been tasked to produce by April of next year a collective and cohesive plan for improving the image of English football, the behaviour of its followers and the role of football at all levels in promoting social inclusion. Measures aimed at tackling the racist and xenophobic attitudes that so often prompt football violence and disorder will feature in the plan.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's spending on official publications was for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01; and what the planned expenditure is for 2001–02. [141449]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Total annual figures for spending on official publications are available for the financial years 1997–98 onwards. Collated data are not available for the cost of publications produced in 1996–97. For figures 1997–98 and 1998–99,
  316W
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 25 October 1999, Official Report, column 693W, which confirmed annual total expenditure of 1997–98 £4,600,752 and 1998–99 £4,339,587 respectively.

  The total expenditure for 1999–2000 was £3,348,854 and current expenditure for 2000–2001 to date is £2,541,317.

  It is at this time not possible to provide any figures for planned expenditure for the financial year 2001–02.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997; and what the total cost is to the Department of each publication. [141462]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Detailed figures for the production of new publications for the Home Department are available only from 1 April 1999, when the total Department's publications budget became centralised.

  Before this, individual Directorates within the Home Department were responsible for production of and payment for publications. It is not therefore possible to provide a complete list of new publications or costs prior to this date.

  The following lists cover the financial years 1999–2000 and 1 April 2000 to date (6 December 2000). These costs include preparation, production and purchase of copies for official use, but not staff costs.

  New publications produced by Communication Directorate from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  £

  Active Community Unit: Supporting Families

  9,532

  Active Community Unit: Policy Action

  4,920

  Active Community Unit: Giving Time Getting Involved

  4,933

  Active Community Unit: Strengthening

  3,552

  Active Community Unit: Family Policy

  500

  Active Community Unit: Listen-Up Document

  6,500

  Criminal Justice Consultative Council: Summary of Activities

  2,446

  HMI Probation: Probation Service

  2,501

  HMI Probation: Gwent

  4,792

  HMI Probation: Gwent Q&E Report

  2,280

  HMI Probation: 1998 Annual Report

  4,068

  HMI Probation: Powys

  4,367

  HMI Probation: Test

  1,386

  HMI Probation: West Midlands

  5,926

  HMI Probation: Staffordshire

  4,980

  HMI Probation: Shropshire

  5,395

  HMI Probation: Warwickshire

  5,368

  HMI Probation: Hereford and Worcs.

  4,936

  HMI Probation: Region 1

  2,605

  HMI Probation: Region 2

  17,069

  Victim Perspective

  7,154

  Integrating Business and Information Systems: Strategic Plan/Leaflet

  27,060

  Justice and Victims Unit: Homicide Leaflets

  1,490

  Action for Justice

  1,875

  Vulnerable/Intimidated Witness

  587

  Victims of Crime (language versions)

  33,668

  Release of Prisoners

  8,451

  Planning to Protect

  2,890

  Juvenile Offenders Unit: Implementation Guidance

  3,088

  Court Ordered Secure Remand

  1,100

  Probation Service Inf. Strategy

  5,283

  Probation: Extended Sentences

  2,255

  Probation Service Booklets

  12,088

  Probation: What Works

  5,329

  Probation Service/Sex Offenders

  1,310

  Probation: National Systems

  50,537

  Domestic Violence:Inter-Agency Guide

  8,940

  European Elections Leaflet

  466,902

  317W

  New publications produced by Communication Directorate from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  £

  Police Policy: Dismantling Barriers

  701

  Police Policy: Mega Mela Leaflet

  2,450

  Police: Graduate Opportunities

  10,225

  Prisons Ombudsman Annual Report

  7,116

  Prisons Ombudsman: Leaflets

  3,635

  Human Rights: Whitehall Guidance Materials

  25,696

  Human Rights: Task Force

  7,254

  Human Rights: Introductory Guide

  16,740

  Human Rights: Core Guidance

  11,290

  Emergency Planning Materials

  6,080

  Millennium Bug Leaflet

  4,288

  Joint Charter

  1,291

  Home Office Annual Report

  15,200

  Home Office Business Plan

  5,000

  Home Office Recruitment

  5,555

  Racial Equality in Public Services

  19,460

  CCTV Prospectus

  2,184

  Making Arrests

  1,664

  Neighbourhood Watch Report

  1,680

  Crime Reduction: Pathfinders Report

  26,142

  Tackling Vehicle Crime

  6,210

  Ministerial Tour Materials

  10,140

  Retail Crime

  1,699

  Crime Reduction Strategy

  34,097

  Cardiff Crime Leaflet

  1,327

  Neighbourhood Watch Package

  20,640

  Vehicle Key Code

  1,280

  Drugs Prevention Advisory Service: Briefing Papers

  18,280

  Drugs Prevention Advisory Service: Our Developing Prevention Agency

  4,034

  Drugs Prevention Advisory Service: Report and Summary

  9,669

  Drugs Prevention Advisory Service: Guidance Manual

  8,424

  Drugs Prevention Advisory Service: Drugs and Young Offenders

  5,980

  Drugs Prevention Advisory Service: Compendium

  25,813

  Fire Safety: Candles Leaflet

  12,707

  Fire Safety: Guidance 'Toolbox'

  40,000

  Fire Safety: Escape Plans

  32,714

  Fire Action Plan (languages)

  3,353

  Chief Inspector of Prisons: Annual Report

  6,780

  CM 4355 Draft Legislation

  4,159

  Youth Justice

  803

  Immigration and Asylum Bill

  4,258

  Interception/Communications Report

  4,753

  Data Protection Act

  6,097

  Funding of Political Parties

  7,552

  Animal Procedures Report

  19,953

  Private Office Misc. Reports

  82,318

  Legal Advisers: Building A Safe Just and Tolerant Society

  2,350

  Lawyers in the Home Office

  493

  Misuse of Drugs

  3,418

  Legal: Lighters Refill

  1,675

  Prevention of Terrorism

  1,498

  Statutory Instruments

  35,309

  HMI Constabulary—Managing Learning

  18,696

  HMI Constabulary—Cumbria

  2,292

  HMI Constabulary—West Yorkshire

  2,342

  HMI Constabulary—Briefing Paper

  747

  HMI Constabulary—Essex Police

  3,330

  How Long Youth Cases Take

  980

  National Criminal Intelligence

  2,798

  HMI Constabulary: Hampshire

  2,317

  HMI Constabulary: Metropolitan Police

  7,492

  HMI Constabulary: Leicestershire

  2,021

  HMI Constabulary: Inspection into Integrity

  10,930

  HMI Constabulary: Strategy

  4,527

  HMI Constabulary: Annual Report

  4,923

  HMI Constabulary: Reports

  101,190

  Sentencing and Offenders: Booklet

  4,397

  Rehabilitation of Offenders

  1,219

  Anti-Social Behaviour Booklet

  4,072

  Rehabilitation of Offenders

  1,219

  Detention/Young Offenders

  1,081

  Total

  1,506,070

  318W

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142226]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000", is available in the Library.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects cannot be matched in the way requested. However, the following are examples relating to Blackpool, South constituency or the immediate locality:

  Crime data for all recorded offences are collected centrally at police force area level. Blackpool, South forms part of the Western Division of the Lancashire Constabulary, who have provided the following information on the overall number of recorded crimes in this Division:

  Year ending 31 March 1997: 20,143

  Year ending 31 March 2000: 18,599.

  These figures are not, however, directly comparable as there was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which laid more emphasis on measurement of one crime per victim, and also expanded the coverage of offences.

  A number of projects have been funded in Blackpool under the Crime Reduction Programme:
  Two projects under the Reducing Burglary Initiative worth a total of £91,200.
  One project under the Targeted Policing Initiative worth £103,000 to tackle vehicle crime and general disorder.
  The Youth Justice Board funded a Splash Programme on the Mereside estate in the 2000 school summer holidays and Blackpool have been invited to run a Splash scheme in Easter and summer 2001 school holidays. The Youth Justice Board has also been working with Blackpool to establish a Youth Inclusion project.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Blackpool, South to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and 154 Youth Offending Teams have been established;
  the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 ensures greater protection for victims in rape trials;
  Ministers have taken proper responsibility for the Prison Service;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by he Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the backlog of asylum applications has been cut from 103,495 in January this year to 74,380 as at October 2000;1
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire related deaths in the home.
  319W

  Cross-sectoral Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the local, sub-regional and regional partnerships, boards of zones and other cross-sectoral bodies supported by his Department; and the funding streams with which they are associated. [142186]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is not held centrally. In delivering its Aims, the Home Office works in partnership with a wide range of organisations, both formally and informally. At local level, the Home Office is working with the Regional Co-ordination Unit to ensure effective delivery of Home Office services, including through local partnerships.

  Some examples of partnerships and cross-sectoral bodies include the 376 crime and disorder partnerships in England and Wales, youth offending teams (YOTs), the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB), vehicle crime reduction action team (VCRAT), drug action teams, black and minority ethnic twinning volunteering partnerships and prison healthcare delivery.

  Crime and disorder partnerships are led by the police and local authorities, but also involve others such as health, education, private and voluntary sectors. They are required to formulate and implement a crime and disorder strategy for their area and are able to bid for funding for particular crime reduction projects from the crime reduction programme.

  Youth offending teams are a local partnership between police, probation officers, social workers, health and education staff. They are responsible for delivering community based intervention programmes to make young offenders face up to their crimes and change their attitudes and behaviour and to promote youth inclusion. YOTs are resourced through contributions from the agencies involved.

  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is a cross-sectoral, non-departmental public body. It was established in September 1998 with the Juvenile Offenders Unit as the Home Office, Sponsor Unit. The YJB receives funding from the Home Office through monthly grant-in-aid payments.

  Another example of a cross-sectoral partnership is the VCRAT. This comprises of senior representatives from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Retail Motor Industry Federation, the Association of British Insurers, the Automobile Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers (including Scotland), Police Superintendents Association, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Home Office and the Scottish Executive. VCRAT is working to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over five years (1 April 1999–30 March 2004) and advising on progress with implementation in the light of recorded vehicle crime figures as they are published. VCRAT itself does not have access to funds, but funding is available from the Crime Reduction Programme to support its work.
  320W
  Drug Action Teams (DATs) are locally organised teams with representatives from police, probation, local authority services and health. They are responsible locally for delivery of the Government's drugs strategy. Each of the local agencies in the DAT are funded individually. Additionally, DATs receive funding through the Drugs Prevention Advisory Service, to assist in the co-ordination of their work.

  Black and Minority Ethnic Twinning Volunteering Partnerships aim to raise national awareness of good volunteering practice in black and minority ethnic communities; to improve opportunities for black and minority ethnic volunteers and increase their involvement in mainstream voluntary organisations; and to provide access to funding. £800,000 from the Home Office Community Support Grant has been provided to fund the initiative over the period 1999–2002.

  The Prison Service, working with the National Health Service (NHS), supports a partnership to reform and deliver more appropriate health services to prisoners. This involves prison governors and health authorities identifying the health needs of prisoners and developing local joint prison health plans. The process is led from the centre by two joint Prison Service/NHS units—a policy unit and a task force—located within the Department of Health.

  National Black Police Association
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the National Black Police Association; and if he will make a statement. [142499]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Association is represented on the steering group overseeing the follow up to the report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which last met on 21 November 2000. The Secretary of State last met representatives of the Association on 19 October 1998 for a bilateral. I last met the Chair and Deputy Chair on 18 July 2000. My right hon. Friend, strongly supports the Association in its work of developing support networks for minority ethnic police officers.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) his Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142717]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office uses advertising in various media to inform the public about how they are affected by Departmental legislation, and also to encourage good practice in such areas as fire safety, crime reduction and voter registration. More recently a substantial police recruitment campaign has been launched.
  321W
  Total expenditure during the years requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  5.23

  1997–98

  1.4

  1998–99

  1.8

  1999–2000

  5.65

  2000–01

  11.08

  1 Spend to date

  Note:

  Figures include Value Added Tax

  Advertising is undertaken through the Central Office of Information.

  The breakdown of advertising campaigns excluding those under £50,000 is as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  Vehicle Crime Reduction

  1,900,000

  APSG Police Recruitment

  80,000

  Electoral Registration

  693,000

  Special Constables Recruitment

  2,100,000

  Fire Safety

  460,000

  1997–98

  APSG Police Recruitment

  75,000

  Electoral Registration

  570,000

  Special Constables

  420,000

  Fire Safety—Chips pilot

  305,000

  1998–99

  APSG Police Recruitment

  75,000

  Electoral Registration

  580,000

  Special Constables

  355,000

  Fire Safety—Smoke Alarms

  370,000

  Crime Partnerships

  430,000

  1999–2000

  APSG Police Recruitment

  75,000

  Electoral Registration

  575,000

  Special Constables

  910,000

  Fire Safety—Chips national

  1,330,000

  Fire Safety—Escape pilot

  345,000

  European Parliamentary Elections

  1,870,000

  Passport Agency

  545,000

  2000–011

  Police recruitment

  4,100,000

  Vehicle crime reduction

  4,000,000

  Fire safety

  2,200,000

  Human rights

  780,000

  1 Spend to date

  Each campaign is evaluated to ensure maximum effectiveness and value for money. Evaluation criteria are set according to the individual objectives of each campaign (for example increases in awareness and understanding of fire safety issues are measured, along with changes in public attitudes and subsequent shifts in fire statistics). The results of each evaluation exercise are used to inform future campaign development.

  Historical data on the individual communication objectives and evaluation criteria for each campaign can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.
  322W

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that voluntary organisations do not suffer financial penalties as a result of the requirement to check all volunteers with the Criminal Records, Bureau. [142534]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Records Bureau is being established under Part V of the Police Act 1997, which does not lay down a legal requirement for all volunteers to be subject to checks through the Bureau. Checks will be carried out on individuals on application. The fees to be charged for such checks have not yet been settled, but they will be as low as possible. Before making regulations setting the fees, we shall carry out a regulatory impact assessment to consider the implications for voluntary organisations and other users of the bureau's service. The outcome will be made public.

  Operational Care
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces in England have been offered special payments in respect of the additional workload involved in Operation Care. [143136]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Merseyside police has not asked for a special payment for Operation Care. Neither have any other police authorities requested such payments for any major child abuse investigations that have been mounted.

  Chief constables would normally be expected to meet the cost of such operations from within the forces available budget, and from its reserves.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many temporary firearms certificates have been issued by Cheshire Police in each of the past six months to holders of firearms certificates who are awaiting renewals. [143855]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that the following number of police permits have been issued under section 7 of the Firearms Act 1968:

  Month

  Number

  June

  1

  July

  1

  August

  1

  September

  1

  October

  0

  November

  1

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department In how many times in each of the past six months, and for what reason, North Wales police has issued written permission for a named person to possess firearms and ammunition in the name of the authority of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation dealer's certificate No. 116 for the purposes of section 8 of the Firearms Act 1968. [143856]
  323W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Section 8 of the Firearms Act provides that a person carrying on the business of a registered firearms dealer or a servant of any such person may, without holding a certificate, have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, a firearm or ammunition in the ordinary course of that business. The police have no authority to issue 'written permission' for a person to act as a dealer's servant: this is a matter of fact.

  We understand that last month North Wales police issued a firearm certificate permitting a new employee of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) to possess firearms and ammunition held by the dealership as a temporary measure while BASC's approval as a target shooting club was being renewed. This is a purely administrative matter, and BASC, North Wales police and the Home Office are not aware of any problems arising from this.

  Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what residency qualificants are operated by the Metropolitan police when considering for recruitment applications; what plans he has to review the qualifications; and if he will make a statement. [143795]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The nationality requirements for applicants to the police service in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan police, were set out in my reply to my hon. Friend on 14 December 2000,Official Report, column 258W.

  Cabinet Office guidance, on which police forces base their policy for carrying out security clearances of applicants, recommends that the normal residency requirement for security clearance is that the applicant has been resident in the United Kingdom for the previous three years. However, if the applicant has spent the previous three years in another country discretion may be given to undertake overseas security checks where this is possible.

  I understand that within the Metropolitan police, following the introduction of the Metropolitan Police Recruitment Taskforce, short periods abroad (i.e. of less than six months), are disregarded. Longer periods are still a matter of concern as counter terrorism checks can be carried out in a meaningful way only where the residency of the person can be confirmed.

  To ensure that those candidates who have been broadening their horizons by visiting foreign countries and gaining experience of other cultures are not disadvantaged, a new protocol has been agreed with Special Branch. This protocol states that where a candidate appears suitable in every other respect, but residency is in question, Special Branch will carry out an individual risk assessment which may include a personal interview with the candidate. In appropriate cases, Special Branch will offer clearance for the recruiting process to continue.

  I have no plans to review the qualification in respect of residency.
  324W

  Police Checks
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost has been to the Scout movement as a result of charges for police checks on those wishing to work with children. [143793]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are currently refining our estimates of the likely cost of operating the Criminal Records Bureau, and thus the cost of carrying out checks. Information as to charges will be announced as soon as possible.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if charges for police checks on people wishing to work with children are applicable in Wales. [143794]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Existing national policy, agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers, on the conduct of police checks relates to both England and Wales. Similarly, the Criminal Records Bureau, through which such checks will be possible from next summer, will provide a service in both England and Wales.

  Home Affairs Research and Statistics Directorate
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the titles of projects(a) undertaken and (b) completed by the Home Affairs Research and Statistics Directorate in the past six months, indicating which of these have been published; and how their findings have been made available. [142333]

  Mr. Straw
  The available information taken from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics (RDS) business plan has been included in a table that has been placed in the Library. The RDS Business plan is also published on the Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk).

  In addition to publication, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate findings are available on the Home Office website and the research is regularly referred to at seminars and conferences.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each year since 1995, the number of flights, including helicopter flights, taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas visits; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143870]

  Mr. Straw
  Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500, as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  325W

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  CAP (Rural Development)
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the proportion of common agricultural policy expenditure by him devoted to rural development. [142344]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Government are committed to further enhancing rural development measures: the "second pillar" of the CAP. We announced this commitment on 7 December 1999 with the seven-year, £1.6 billion, England rural development programme. We estimate that, by 2005–06, spending on rural development will have risen to 15 per cent. of total CAP expenditure in the UK. At Community level, we will continue to press for a greater share of EU funding from the second pillar.

  Livestock Farmers (Compensation)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about agrimonetary compensation for livestock farmers. [142345]

  Ms Quin
  Livestock farmers will have received around £340 million in agrimonetary compensation from 1997 to the end of 2001.

  BSE
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to implement the recommendations of the BSE inquiry report. [142346]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I intend to publish at the end of January the Government's interim response to the report. Lord Phillips' findings go to the heart of what is good governance, including properly informed policy-making; joined-up Government; best use of advisory committees and expert advice; timely decision-taking; a consistent and proportionate approach to risk management and precaution—especially when dealing with uncertainty; and effective implementation of policy decisions. The report's conclusions also emphasise the need for openness and better communication with the public about scientific knowledge and risk to inform consumer choice.

  The interim response will focus on actions already taken on these key themes, as well as addressing how we will deal with the 160 plus detailed lessons that the report identifies. It will form the basis of consultations and discussions, enabling all those interested to contribute to the final response that the Government will make later next year.

  In my statement on 26 October, I said that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would commission an independent assessment of current scientific understanding, including emerging findings, of the origins of the BSE epidemic. We have now asked Professor Gabriel Horn to chair this review.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle, slaughtered as a consequence of the anti-BSE measures, are held in cold stores in the United Kingdom; and at what cost. [143316]
  326W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: No cattle slaughtered as a consequence of the anti-BSE measures are currently held in cold storage in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he is undertaking into alternatives to the incineration of cattle slaughtered as an anti-BSE measure. [143324]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: MAFF is funding two research projects which are looking into alternatives to the incineration of cattle slaughtered as a control measure for BSE. These projects are in their early stages and results are not yet available. The first project is looking at the effectiveness of high temperature, pressure and alkali in inactivating the TSE agent; the second is looking at the effect of high pressure steam. Both these projects are using pilot scale apparatus, but could be scaled up for industrial use.

  Hill Farming
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to ensure that aid to hill farmers encourages the adoption of environmentally beneficial farming practices. [142347]

  Mr. Morley
  The upland environment depends on viable hill farm enterprises. Less favoured area support payments include environmental objectives and are tied to good farming practice. The taskforce my right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 23 November is examining how to strengthen hill farming in England using the whole range of ERDP and other measures.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance the Government have given to hill farmers to help them diversify. [142351]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Rural Enterprise Scheme provides new grains for all types of farmers, including hill farmers, seeking to pursue good diversification projects. Other measures, such as the vocational training scheme and the farm business advice service, also offer relevant support.

  Livestock Sales
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has held with farmers' representatives in the last month to discuss the sale of livestock. [142352]

  Ms Quin
  I and my colleagues meet with farmers' representatives on a regular basis, during which we often discuss issues relating to the livestock industry. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Minister attended the Smithfield Show on 26 November and livestock industry representatives attended the agricultural strategy industry forum meeting hosted by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 23 November.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his priorities are for the 2002 review of the common fisheries policy. [142348]
  327W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government wish to see the maintenance of key features of the present arrangements, such as national quotas, based on relative stability and access restrictions within national 6/12 mile limits. At the same time, we want to secure improvements to make the CFP a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks, including enhancing the regional dimension, integrating environmental considerations more fully and reducing discards.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to secure a greater regional dimension to the common fisheries policy. [142356]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been actively supporting the strengthening of the regional dimension of the common fisheries policy. At my initiative, the Irish sea cod recovery programme has been developed through regional consultations involving fishermen, scientists and managers from the member states concerned. A similar model will now be used for the North sea cod and hake recovery programmes. This is very much the direction in which I want to see the common fisheries policy develop.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he plans to provide to horticulture; and if he will make a statement. [142349]

  Ms Quin
  We assist the horticulture sector through a programme of strategic research and development, costing about £10.3 million in the current year. In addition, we have recently launched new schemes under the England rural development programme, including the rural enterprise scheme and the processing and marketing grant scheme, both of which will provide opportunities for the horticulture industry to improve its competitiveness.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the agricultural wages board arrangements on rates of pay in the horticulture sector. [142353]

  Ms Quin
  My Department conducts an annual survey of earnings and hours of agricultural and horticultural workers.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the UK horticulture industry about the climate change levy. [142355]

  Ms Quin
  We have received several representations.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he held with horticulturalists representatives in the last month. [142361]

  Ms Quin
  We maintain regular contact with representatives from across the horticultural industry. Last month I attended and addressed the Worshipful Company of Fruiterers Dinner. I have accepted an invitation to the Fresh Produce Consortium Convention in the new year.

  Ear Tagging
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the effect on the welfare of livestock of ear tagging. [142350]
  328W
  Mr. Morley
  Many representations have been received voicing concerns about distance readable cattle eartags. It is, of course, an EU requirement for all cattle born after 1 January 1998 to be identified with at least one distance readable eartag. Such tags, although still relatively new for the UK, have been in use for some time in other European countries and no welfare problems have been reported.

  The identification of sheep and goats by eartag or tattoo will also be legally required in Great Britain from 1 January 2001. We have already issued guidance to farmers on best tagging and tattooing practice.

  Pesticides
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce pesticide use. [142357]

  Mr. Morley
  We strictly regulate pesticides use, on the basis of independent scientific advice. We encourage farmers and growers to use pesticides responsibly and the pesticides forum promotes minimisation of use.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his estimate is of average farm income in the financial years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1999–2000. [142358]

  Ms Quin
  Total income from farming is the preferred measure of aggregate farming income. It consists of business profits plus income to workers with an entrepreneurial interest. Figures are calculated on a calendar-year basis.

  In 1996, the average total income from farming per person (full-time equivalent) was £22,400; in 1997 it was £12,800; and in 1999 it was £10,100. The first estimates of this year's total income from farming per person, published on 30 November, indicate an average of £7,500.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has held with pig farmers' representatives in the last month to discuss the state of the industry. [142359]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  My ministerial team and I have between us held or attended seven meetings involving pig farmers or their representatives since the beginning of November. Principal among the topics discussed have been: the pig industry restructuring scheme, which has now received full EU Commission approval and is open to both outgoers and ongoers; and the recent outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia, where I am pleased to say the final area movement restrictions affecting commercial pig operations were lifted this week. Producers will also have been heartened by the ending of the export ban on live pigs from Norfolk and Suffolk at midnight last night. I am sure the House will want to join with me in paying tribute to Jim Scudamore, the chief veterinary officer, his staff and the state veterinary service and their administrative colleagues for their sterling efforts in controlling the disease, for representing the
  329W
  national interest so effectively at EU and wider international level, and for responding so swiftly to the many practical problems which the outbreak created.

  Flood Risk (Dredging)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent advice he has received from the Environment Agency about the contribution that dredging can make to the alleviation of local flood risk; and if he will make a statement. [142360]

  Mr. Morley
  While for many rivers dredging is an important part of the maintenance regime, there can be a limit to the amount of dredging that may sensibly be performed. On some rivers, for example, too much dredging could cause the river banks or walls to collapse; larger watercourses often do not need dredging as they tend to be self cleaning; while deepening a tidal river will not create any additional capacity in the river as the level will be governed by the tide.

  On some rivers with a very large catchment, such as the Severn, the volume of water is such that any increase in channel capacity would have to be extremely large to have even a noticeable effect on flood levels. This would go far beyond simple dredging and would create a channel which would be unsustainable during normal flows. The Environment Agency consider that they cannot justify carrying out dredging work for flood defence purposes on such rivers because benefits are so limited.

  Regulation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of Government regulation on farmers in the last year. [142363]

  Ms Quin
  The red tape review teams looking at all areas the industry identified as burdensome completed their findings in the last year. Implementation so far of their recommendations on intervention, and IACS and inspections has saved £3 million as well as reduced time spent form filling, while new measures to achieve further savings, for example through electronic forms and co-ordinated inspections, are already well under-way. In addition, every possible new regulation affecting business is subject to regulatory impact assessments and these are published.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has held with organic farmers representatives in the last month. [142364]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister met representatives of the Soil Association on 27 November.

  Farms Sizes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average acreage is of a farm in England and Wales. [143506]

  Ms Quin
  The average size of a main holding in England and Wales is 60.7 hectares.

  Source:

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census, June 1999.
  330W

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who chaired the July meeting of the Interdepartmental Group on animal welfare; for what reason no meeting has taken place since July; and what is on the agenda of the next meeting. [143404]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), chaired the July meeting of the interdepartmental ministerial group on animal welfare. The group agreed to hold these meetings twice yearly and will meet again next year. The date and the agenda have yet to be fixed.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  CPS
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposal to restrict trial by jury on the Crown Prosecution Service's workload. [142365]

  The Solicitor-General
  It is estimated that the proposed Bill to amend the procedure for determining mode of trial for offences triable either way will result in a reduction in the number of trials taking place in the Crown court of around 14,000 per annum. These trials will take place in the Magistrates court. The reduction in the number of Crown court trials will enable the Crown Prosecution Service to focus more effectively on the serious and complex cases that are tried in the Crown court.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps he has taken to raise the profile of the Crown Prosecution Service within local communities. [142371]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Glidewell report recommended that the CPS should establish a more positive relationship with the public. Each of the 42 Chief Crown Prosecutors has taken on this role at a local level by establishing and maintaining links with MPs, the press and local community groups.

  CCPs explain the Service's role and listen and respond to local concerns in a number of ways. They include attending local community and ethnic minority interest group meetings, visiting schools, hospitals, universities, places of worship, and court "open days". Many CCPs also host CPS "open days" for the public and the CPS has translated the Code for Crown Prosecutors into twelve community languages, available on the CPS website.

  Each CCP accounts for the performance of their Area to the communities they serve in a local Annual Reports. The reports on the first year of performance were published in October 2000.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many legal proceedings have been initiated under the Human Rights Act 1998. [142367]
  331W
  The Solicitor-General
  Issues may be raised under the Human Rights Act in any legal proceedings. The Lord Chancellor's Department has introduced arrangements to survey cases through data collection systems in the Magistrates courts and the Courts Service. The results of the first quarter will be available in February. However I understand that there has been no overall increase in the number of civil and criminal cases following the Act's entry in force. In very many cases, human rights points are simply raised alongside other claims.

  Victim Impact Statements
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General when victim impact statements will be permitted; and what plans he has for assisting victims in providing such statements. [142370]

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Solicitor-General when victim impact statements will be permitted; and what plans he has for assisting victims in providing such statements. [142374]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Home Secretary earlier this year announced his plans to introduce during 2001 victim personal statements (previously referred to as victim impact statements or simply victim statements). The new name was adopted to make it clear that these statements will not deal solely with the effects of the crime upon the victim. This remains their principal purpose, but personal statements will also enable victims to say what they feel about many other issues important to them. They may, for example, wish to voice their fears about intimidation and their concerns about bail; say whether they wish to seek compensation; whether they would like information on the progress of the case; whether they would welcome help from the support agencies; and so forth.

  Criminal justice agencies are working with the police and Victim Support to produce guidance on how the new scheme will operate. The guidance will include an explanatory leaflet for victims, notes for practitioners and a booklet for police officers giving advice on the scope and purpose of the scheme.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Solicitor-General what proportion of cases prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office in the last 12 months resulted in convictions. [142373]

  The Solicitor-General
  In the past 12 months, 17 of the 18 cases prosecuted by the SFO resulted in convictions. In the 17 cases which resulted in convictions, 36 defendants were convicted and four acquitted. This represents a case success rate of 94 per cent. and a conviction rate of 86 per cent.

  Mr. Bernard Griffin
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out the substantive reasons adduced by the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions for his decision to drop charges against Mr. Bernard Griffin. [142329]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the given reply on 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 632W. I will write further to my hon. Friend.
  332W

TREASURY

  Access Charges
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's progress in developing legislative proposals to open up access to payment systems and oversee access charges. [143601]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government today issued a consultation document setting out their proposals to give the Office of Fair Trading new powers aimed at promoting effective competition in payments systems for the benefit of consumers.

  Copies of the consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Further copies are available from the Treasury, and can also be accessed via the Treasury's website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  Manufacturing Work Force
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net change in the number of people employed in manufacturing in the United Kingdom in each of the last 12 months. [141689]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Graham Brady, dated 21 December 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of people employed in manufacturing in the United Kingdom in each of the last 12 months (141689).
  Regular monthly information is only available for employee jobs in manufacturing. The monthly estimates are based on the results of employer surveys which count employee jobs. The number of employee jobs is higher than the number of persons employed because it includes second jobs which cannot be identified separately. Information is published monthly in Table B.12 of "Labour Market Trends" copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library. A quarterly series of Workforce Jobs in the manufacturing industries is also published in Table B.12 and in Statbase on the ONS website www.statistics.gov.uk. Workforce Jobs include employee jobs, self-employment jobs and Government Supported Trainees.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many families are eligible for the working families tax credit; [142480]

  (2) how many recipients of the working families tax credit are receiving it via the payroll; [142481]

  (3) in how many families the working families tax credit is paid to (a) a woman and (b) a man. [142479]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the number of families eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 757W. For the number of families where WFTC is paid to (a) a woman and (b) a man, and for the number receiving it via the payroll, I refer to my letters to the hon. Member of 22 September and 19 October, respectively. Copies of these letters are already available in the Library.
  333W
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people who are eligible for Working Families Tax Credit have been paid compensation for delays or errors in payment. [142462]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: 95. In such circumstances, the Inland Revenue's Code of Practice allows for these ex-gratia redress payments to be made.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the effect on carbon dioxide emissions of the introduction of the climate change levy on the United Kingdom horticulture industry; [142621]

  (2) how many EU member states have imposed a climate change levy on their horticulture industry; [142590]

  (3) what reliefs are available for horticultural enterprises in EU member states which impose a climate change levy on horticulture. [142624]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: In relation to the climate change levy, the Government recognised the position of the UK horticulture sector with the special package of measures announced in Budget 2000.

  Eight other EU member states have introduced or are developing some form of energy tax. The climate change levy has been designed to safeguard the competitiveness of UK firms, and, for the horticulture sector, the position in the Netherlands is of particular importance. The Dutch energy tax has recently been extended to include the horticulture sector.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of energy used by sectors of British industry eligible for the lower tax rate of climate change levy expressed as a proportion of total industry use; and what is his most recent estimate of the proportion which will be subject to the lower rate. [142955]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The Government expect that around 60 per cent. of energy use in the manufacturing sector and 35 per cent. of all business energy use will qualify for an 80 per cent. discount on the climate change levy.

  Widowers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with TaxAid about the implications for recently widowed men of the out-of-court settlement with Mr. Christopher Crossland. [143509]

  Dawn Primarolo
  TaxAid have not approached Treasury Ministers on this issue but have asked for a meeting with Inland Revenue officials which has taken place. The friendly settlement reached with Mr. Christopher Crossland has no implications for other recently widowed men.

  EU Budget
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average net payment to the EU was in each of the last 11 years. [143672]
  334W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's latest estimated outturn for the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC Budget in 1999–2000 can be found at footnote 1 to Table B17 of the pre-Budget report (Cm 4917) published in November. Details of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC Budget for the period 1988–89 to 1998–99 can be found in departmental reports of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments from 1994 to 2000

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net contributions to the EU in 2001. [143673]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Government estimates of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC Budget for future years are given on a financial year basis. The Government's latest forecast for 2000–01 and 2001–02 can be found at footnote 1 to Table B17 of the pre-Budget report (Cm 4917) published in November.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the content and purpose of table B20 of the pre-Budget report; [143676]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the item on EC contributions in table B20 of the pre-Budget report; and which particular sums are included within the figures quoted. [143675]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The accounting adjustments set out in table B20 in the pre-Budget report (PBR) reconcile the public spending aggregates used by the Treasury for planning and control purposes with Total Managed Expenditure (TME) and the National Accounts aggregate for total public sector expenditure based on internationally agreed definitions. The purpose of this table is to ensure that this adjustment is clear and transparent.

  The line for EC contributions in Table B20 shows those adjustments needed to Net payments to EC institutions to reconcile to TME.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on(a) the Maastricht Deficit referred to in table C of the Budget 2000 publication HC 346 and (b) how he calculated the windfall tax receipts and associated spending. [143674]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Table B6 in the November 2000 pre-Budget report shows that the Treaty reference level of 3 per cent. of GDP for the general government deficit is achieved comfortably throughout the projection period 2000–01 to 2005–06.

  Tables 4.1a and 4.1b of the pre-Budget report give estimates of the allocation of windfall tax receipts from 1997–98 to 2000–01, and how the windfall tax is expected to be used to finance the Employment Opportunities Fund from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what announcements he has made to date concerning the date on which the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 will become fully operational; and when he expects the Act to become fully operational. [143853]
  335W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 received Royal Assent last June. There has been good progress on implementation since then. The Treasury has issued 13 pieces of draft secondary legislation.

  Consultation on six draft orders published in October by the Treasury has now closed. We are grateful for the comments we have received and will be studying them closely.

  The target I set last July of N2 in about one year remains. It is still too early to be precise on when the Act will come into force. As soon as I can give a firm date I will do so, and plan to do so during the spring. I will provide a reasonable time for industry preparations between announcing a firm date and N2.

  Healthcare Plans
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the administrative charges to be levied by the Financial Services Ombudsman for the handling of complaints; and what steps he is taking to ensure that charges will not be substantially greater than the sums likely to be dealt with in relation to complaints about low cost healthcare cash plans offered by not-for-profit organisations. [143678]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) published a joint consultation paper on funding the Ombudsman in November 2000.

  Both the FSA and FOS are mindful of the particular circumstances of small firms, and the need for charges to be proportionate to the nature and size of complaints. That is why the consultation proposes special arrangements for small firms, under which, once a minimum levy has been paid, case fees would not apply.

  VAT (War Memorials)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on charging VAT on war memorials, with special reference to the Korean war memorial in West Lothian. [142816]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The construction of war memorials is standard rated as has been the case since the introduction of VAT in 1973.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to publicise the risk to consumers who purchase tobacco over the internet of the goods which they have purchased being seized by Her Majesty's Customs; and if he will make a statement. [143190]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In September, the Government launched a campaign designed to increase public awareness of tobacco smuggling. As part of this campaign, information has been placed on most of the major internet search engines to target anybody searching for cigarettes. This includes links through to a Customs and Excise web page which fully explains the legal implications of purchasing tobacco over the internet.
  336W

  National Insurance Rebates
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the compensation scheme for those people with personal pensions who have suffered from delayed payment of their rebate from the National Insurance Fund. [142081]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 26 October 1998, Official Report, column 32, special compensation arrangements commencing at the beginning of November 1998 for delayed age-related rebates in respect of the 1997–98 tax year.

  Kindertransport Survivors
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement concerning the claim of Kindertransport survivors for German pensions. [143594]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury is not responsible for determining entitlement to social security benefits either in the United Kingdom or in other EU member states.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated loss of duty to the Inland Revenue as a result of spirit, beer and tobacco purchases in France by UK residents during the last 12 months. [143619]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise have responsibility for excise duties. For the latest published overall estimates of cross-border shopping I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given on 26 November 1999,Official Report, columns 254–55W. Customs do not have figures for revenue lost from purchases in individual countries.

  Capital Allowances
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of providing capital allowances (1) for IT assets, using the definition of IT used in the Finance Act 2000, leased by SMEs, with first year allowances at 100 per cent., over a five-year period; and if he will set out the basis used in the costing; [143792]

  (2) for assets bought or leased by SMEs, with first year allowances at 100 per cent., over a five-year period; and if he will set out the basis used in the costing; [143791]

  (3) for assets leased by SMEs, with first year allowances at (a) 40 per cent. and (b) 100 per cent., over a five-year period; and if he will set out the basis used in the costing. [143790]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government regret that information on the level of expenditure on assets leased by small and medium-sized enterprises is not available.

  Modernising Government White Paper
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the number, purpose and total value of contracts with external advisers and consultants that(a) have been let and (b) are due to be let, by his Department to further the implementation of the

  337W
  Modernising Government White Paper, indicating those contracts that relate specifically to management consultancy; [143704]

  (2) how much, for each financial year from 1998–99 until the latest date for which sums have been allocated, his Department has spent and expects to spend on the implementation of the Modernising Government White Paper. [143702]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office,Official Report, columns 245–246W.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many flights including helicopter flights were taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas visits in each year since 1995; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143872]

  Mr. Timms
  Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Stability Pact
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to submit an updated annual Convergence Programme as required by the Stability and Growth Pact. [144246]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As required under the Stability and Growth Pact, an updated, annual Convergence Programme is being submitted to the European Commission today. Copies of the Programme are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has set guidelines for the overnight investment of the foreign exchange reserves held by the Bank of England. [143844]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A description of credit risk management for the Exchange Equalisation Account is given in the Credit Risk section (paragraphs 21–23) of the Foreword to "Exchange Equalisation Account: Accounts 1997–98".

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average rate of return earned by the Bank of England on its foreign exchange reserves during 1999–2000. [143843]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the rate of return on the foreign exchange reserves is given in the financial accounts for the Exchange Equalisation Account.
  338W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Sales
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the system of prior scrutiny of arms sales by the United States and Swedish legislatures. [143692]

  Mr. Hain
  The systems of prior scrutiny of arms exports by the legislature in the US and Sweden are very different, and in each case reflect the particular circumstances in those countries. In both cases, only a small minority of licence applications are subject to prior scrutiny.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the responsibilities and duties of Lord Levy, as the Prime Minster's personal envoy in the Middle East. [142970]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: To develop the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with the countries the Prime Minister asks him to visit, and to exchange views on key regional issues with leaders in those countries.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ministers and Heads of Government Lord Levy met on his last visit to the Middle East as the Prime Minister's personal envoy. [142971]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: Lord Levy's last visit in the region as the Prime Minister's envoy was to the Palestinian Authority on 8 October, when he passed a message on the Prime Minister's behalf to President Arafat.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with Lord Levy to discuss Latin America. [143304]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 20 December 2000, Official Report, column 237W.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits undertaken by Lord Levy since February as representative of Her Majesty's Government, indicating in each case the(a) dates, (b) destinations, (c) cost to public funds and (d) purpose of the visits. [142974]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister: to him on 20 December 2000, Official Report, column 236W; to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), on 20 December 2000, Official Report, column 235W; and to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 1 November 2000, Official Report, column 510W.

  Lord Levy paid his own travel expenses. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Embassies provided practical support, the cost of which is not separately itemised.
  339W
  The purpose of the visits was to develop the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with the countries visited and to exchange views on regional issues.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which dates Lord Levy has had meetings with(a) Ministers and (b) senior officials in his Department since 1 May 1997, giving in each case the purpose of the meetings; and if he will make a statement. [142972]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: Lord Levy liaises regularly with the Foreign Secretary, Ministers and a limited number of officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Secretary last saw him on 6 December and I last spoke to him on 14 December.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical support was given by his Department to Lord Levy during his recent visits to Middle Eastern states on official business as the Prime Minister's personal envoy. [142973]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on behalf of the Prime Minister on 30 March 2000, Official Report, column 262W. Similar practical Support was given during Lord Levy's recent visits to Middle Eastern states as the Prime Minister's Envoy.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role Lord Levy played in the recent round of Middle East peace talks. [142969]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, Lord Levy and I have encouraged the parties to maintain their dialogue, to take steps to bring the violence to an end, and to resume negotiations. I am encouraged at the recent news that negotiations have resumed.

  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the current Quinquennial Review of Wilton Park Executive Agency. [144124]

  Mr. Hain
  The first stage of the review of Wilton Park has recommended that Wilton Park should retain its status as an Executive Agency of the FCO. Ministers have accepted this recommendation. The review has been conducted by Sir Robin Fearn KCMG. The first stage of his report is available on the FCO's and Wilton Park's websites. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  NATO Parliamentary Assembly
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to the composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. [144128]

  Mr. Vaz
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has replaced the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) as a member of the delegation.
  340W

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on disclosure of matters relating to the rights of former inhabitants of Diego Garcia arising from their length of association with the islands; and if he will make a statement. [142815]

  Mr. Battle
  The papers relating to the exclusion of the Ilois from the British Indian Ocean Territory were disclosed in the recent High Court proceedings. The conduct and openness of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was commended by the Court.

  Aylesbury Automation
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received export licence application No. 16047 from Aylesbury Automation; when he expects to give a decision on the application; and if he will make a statement. [143706]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to today's reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Howells),Official Report, column 247W.

  "What Europe Means to Me"
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many essays(a) critical of further political integration in Europe and (b) opposed to UK membership of the European Union were (i) submitted and (ii) awarded prizes in his Department's competition, "What Europe Means to Me". [143656]

  Mr. Vaz
  As co-sponsors, local newspapers in Leicester, Liverpool and Leeds agreed to receive and judge all the entries for the competition.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if potential entrants to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office competition, "What Europe Means to Me", were informed that essays critical of closer political integration in Europe would be accepted. [143657]

  Mr. Vaz
  No. Our co-sponsors, local newspapers in Leicester, Liverpool and Leeds, simply asked entrants to write an essay on the theme of "What Europe Means to Me".

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 2000,Official Report, column 300W, what unpublished agreements there are with (a) other countries, (b) the EU and (c) NATO concerning arrangements for the European Rapid Reaction Force. [143847]

  Mr. Vaz
  The objective of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy is that EU nations, co-operating together, should be able rapidly to deploy troops for crisis management operations, where NATO as a whole is not engaged. This will not involve the establishment of a standing rapid reaction force, let alone a European Army. The decisions listed in my previous answer constitute the framework for this initiative. The EU and NATO will need to reach an overall agreement, covering
  341W
  arrangements for consultation, NATO support for EU-led operations, security issues and capabilities. An interim agreement on security measures was reached between the EU Council Secretariat and NATO in July 2000, to allow for the exchange of classified information.

  Nice Council
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has negotiated an opt-out for North Sea oil from the provisions of Article 100(1) TEC, to which QMV was extended at the Nice Council. [143782]

  Mr. Vaz
  There was no need for an opt-out to be negotiated. The United Kingdom has sovereign rights over its North Sea reserves under international law, and the EC Treaty does not confer competence on the Community to claim ownership of or control over them. Article 100(1) TEC cannot be used to displace the framework of rights existing under international law.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he has obtained on the interpretation of the no bail out clause in Article 100(2) TEC, to which QMV was extended at the Nice Council. [143783]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government negotiated a specific declaration linking Article 100(2) TEC with Article 103. Article 103 makes clear that a member state shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of other member state Governments or other member state public bodies, except in the case of mutual financial guarantees.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason references to the Western European Union were deleted from paragraphs one, two and three of Article 17 TEU, as set out in the provisional Nice Treaty. [143780]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Council in Nice approved the Presidency Report on the European Security and Defence Policy. The Report noted that the European Union has confirmed its intention of itself assuming the crisis management function of the WEU.

  This position was reflected in the Declaration of the WEU Ministerial Council in Marseilles on 13 November 2000. Article 17 of the TEU includes provisions governing the EU's relations with the WEU in respect of crisis management. The amendments made to Article 17 at Nice update the Treaty in the light of the decisions at Marseilles and Nice itself and recognise the fact that these WEU provisions will no longer be relevant as the EU assumes the crisis management functions of the WEU.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason it was decided at the Nice Council to abolish the national veto on the establishment of enhanced co-operation under the TEC. [143785]

  Mr. Vaz
  In an enlarged EU it is not reasonable for one member state to hold up all the others wishing to proceed with enhanced co-operation, provided that the rigorous conditions for enhanced co-operation have been met. These provide that enhanced co-operation is open to all and that the single market is protected; and will help ensure that there is no development of an inner core.
  342W
  In addition the appeal clause we secured allows a member state to seek discussion by the European Council of a proposal for enhanced co-operation before any decision is taken. This is the right balance between the interests of member states and the benefits of greater flexibility in an enlarged EU.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason he agreed at the Nice Council to extend QMV to incentive measures in Article 13 TEC. [143788]

  Mr. Vaz
  Incentive measures, such as the exchange of best practice or information between member states, are exactly what we are encouraging the Commission to pursue. Extending QMV to these will facilitate co-operative action on non-discrimination. This is an agenda that the Government are keen to pursue. But, at our insistence, the Treaty makes explicit that QMV cannot be used for any harmonisation of national legislation or regulation.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under the provisional Clause A agreed at the Nice Council, dealing with the general principles of enhanced co-operation, for what reason it was decided(a) to insert a new condition relating to co-operation and the process of integration and (b) to delete the condition relating to the interests of states not participating in the relevant measures. [143786]

  Mr. Vaz
  Clause A of the provisions on enhanced co-operation is intended to reinforce the point that enhanced co-operation should serve the interests and objectives of the Union as a whole, rather than a small group of member states.

  The reference to enhanced co-operation not affecting the interests of non-participating members states was felt potentially to be a cause of legal uncertainty, because it could give rise to spurious legal challenges to enhanced co-operation by non-participating member states. This would not be in the UK's interest.

  The clause maintains the requirement that enhanced co-operation must not affect the competencies, rights and obligations of non-participating member states.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason he agreed at the Nice Council to the extension of Article 191 TEC. [143787]

  Mr. Vaz
  With UK support, it was agreed at Nice to provide a legal base for a Statute to regulate the funding of European Political Parties, which were first recognised in the Maastricht Treaty.

  The European Court of Auditors recommended such a Statute in its recent report into the funding of political groups in the European Parliament. The proposal for a Statute has the support of the main groups in the European Parliament, including the party of European Socialists and the European People's Party.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost of the EU and its member states of increasing the number of(a) Commissioners to a maximum of 27 and (b) MEPs to 732, as agreed at the Nice Council. [143784]
  343W
  Mr. Vaz
  No specific estimate has been made, but enlargement of the EU will of course cost money. However it will also bring huge benefits for Britain through creating more prosperity and more jobs.

  The financial perspective for the EU until 2006 has been agreed under Agenda 2000, which took enlargement into account and created a ceiling for payments.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason it was decided to extend Article 137 of the Treaty of European Communities to cover measures designed to encourage co-operation on the modernisation of social protection systems without prejudice to point (c), and for providing for agreement by QMV, as agreed at the Nice Council. [143779]

  Mr. Vaz
  QMV under tiret (k) of Article 137 is limited to co-operation between the member states. Harmonisation of their laws and regulations is explicitly excluded. It makes sense to exchange information with our partners and encourage the development of modern and sustainable social protection systems. This was one of the goals we agreed at Lisbon. QMV will make it easier to bring it about.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent terrorist attacks on British nationals in Saudi Arabia. [143776]

  Mr. Hain
  There have been three car bombs in Saudi Arabia. One in Al-Khobar on 15 December, one in Riyadh on 17 November, and another in Riyadh on 22 November. These have resulted in the death of a British Citizen and the injury of four others. No group has claimed responsibility for these incidents and the motive for them is unclear.

  The Saudi authorities have arrested a US citizen in connection with the two Riyadh car bombs, but have not ruled out other possible lines of investigation.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Saudi Arabian authorities regarding the terrorist attacks on British nationals there. [143777]

  Mr. Hain
  A British police team is in Saudi Arabia to liaise with the Saudi authorities over the latest incident. A week ago, the same team liaised with the Saudi authorities, in charge of the investigations into the first two bombings. They continue to receive full co-operation.

  We are in close touch with the Saudi Government over the incidents. Our Ambassador is in regular contact with the Acting Minister of the Interior.

  Kidnappings (Africa)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those(a) British citizens and (b) British citizens with dual nationality who have been kidnapped in Africa from 1 January 1999 to date, indicating the (i) date of the kidnap, (ii) identity or suspected identity, of the kidnappers and (iii) outcome of the kidnaps. [143778]
  344W
  Mr. Battle
  Not all kidnappings of British national are reported. However, to our knowledge, the following kidnappings have taken place in Africa since 1 January 1999:1999

  In January 1999, two British nationals were taken hostage by an Ijaw group. They were later released.

  On 9 February 1999, Jim Simpson, a British national, was abducted by local youths in Warri, Nigeria, along with an Italian and a Nigerian. He was released unharmed on 17 February.

  On 14 February 1999, Martin Westbury and his young son Benjamin, both British nationals, were abducted by armed youths in Warri, Nigeria. They were released unharmed on 15 February.

  On 1 March 1999, Joanne Cotton, Steve Roberts, Mark Lindgren, Martin Friend, Gary Tappenden (all British nationals) and Mark Avis (joint New Zealand/British national) were abducted by Rwandan Interahamwe rebels in Bwindi National Park, western Uganda, along with a number of other Western tourists. Gary Tappenden and Mark Avis found their way to safety; the other four were murdered by their abductors, along with four US and New Zealand tourists.

  On 3 March 1999, Ian Lane (British national) was abducted by armed men in Warri, Nigeria. He was later released.

  On 8 June 1999, three British nationals were taken hostage by local youths in Nigeria. All were released.

  On 20 June 1999, a British national was taken hostage near Port Harcourt in Nigeria, probably by an Ijaw group. He was released on 12 July.

  On 3 August 1999, a British national was taken hostage by armed youths in Nigeria. He was released on 10 August.

  On 4 August 1999, five British soldiers, who were part of a UN team were taken hostage by a group of former Sierra Leone Army rebels in Sierra Leone. They were released on 8–9 August.

  On 7 August 1999, two British nationals were taken hostage by local youths. They were released on 11 August.

  On 9 August 1999, two British nationals were taken hostage by local youths in Nigeria. They were released on 11 August.

  On 11 August 1999, four British nationals were taken hostage in Liberia by an armed gang. They were released on 13 August.

  On 30 September 1999, a British national was taken hostage in Nigeria. He was released on 3 November.

  On 11 October 1999, British nationals were kidnapped from their compound in Port Harcourt by local tribesmen. They were all released the next day.

  On 9 November 1999, a British national was taken hostage in Ondo State, Nigeria. He was released on 14 November.
  345W
  On 21 December 1999, a British national was abducted, in Nigeria, by an unknown group. He was subsequently released.

  2000

  In April 2000, Major Andy Harrison was detained in an area of Sierra Leone controlled by the RUF. He was brought out by the UN on 14 July.

  On 7 April 2000, oil company employees were taken hostage by local 'activists' in Nigeria. We believe there were some British nationals involved. The incident was resolved peacefully the same day.

  In May 2000, Alan Smith, an aid worker, was taken hostage by RUF in Sierra Leone. He later escaped.

  On 16 June 2000, a British national was taken hostage in Nigeria by local people. He was released the same day.

  On 13 July 2000, a British national was briefly taken hostage in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He was released unharmed.

  On 26 July 2000, Jonathan Ward, a British aid worker, was taken hostage by tribesmen in Somalia. He was released on 19 September.

  Around 31 July 2000, five British nationals were taken hostage as part of a larger group on two oil rigs in Nigeria. The hostage takers were two local groups. All were released on 4 August.

  In August 2000, five British nationals were taken hostage in the Delta Region of Nigeria. They were released on 5 August.

  On 25 August 2000, a group of British Army personnel were taken hostage in Sierra Leone by the West Side Boys. They were all released in an operation carried out by UK military forces.
  346W
  On 26 October 2000, a British national was taken hostage by a local group in Nigeria. He was released the same day.

  On 8 November 2000, a British national was taken hostage by local oil company employees in Nigeria. He was released.

  On 5 December 2000, a British national was held hostage by Nigerian oil workers on a Nigerian oil platform. He was released unharmed on 6 December.

  Article 100 TEC
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which Article 100(1) TEC has been used in the past(a) year, (b) five years and (c) 10 years. [143781]

  Mr. Vaz
  Article 100 TEC was introduced under the Maastricht Treaty as Article 103(a). On 1 May 1999, when Amsterdam came into force, it became Article 100 TEC.

  It was used three times in 1997:
  for Council Decision 1997/374/EC repealing a Decision on the exporting of crude oil and petroleum products from one member state to another in the event of supply difficulties.
  for Council Decision 1997/8/EC repealing a Directive concerning the restriction of the use of petroleum products in powers stations.
  for Council Decision 1997/7/EC repealing a Directive obliging the member states to maintain minimum stocks of fossil fuels at thermal power stations.

  It was used once in 1998:
  for Council Directive 1998/93/EC amending a Directive imposing an obligation on member states of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and petroleum products.

  The Government are not aware of Article 100 (1) TEC being used in any other circumstances.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,
City of Newcastle upon Tyne Act.

London: Street works
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will arrange for a census to be taken of all the holes in the road in the London area, making clear the age of each hole.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, it is fitting that on the last sitting day of the year 2000 we should return to the question of holes in the road. London boroughs and other local authorities should keep information on street works that are notified to them by undertakers, as well as information on their own road networks, on a street works register, although it may not be possible in all cases to obtain the precise information requested in the noble Lord's Question. However, early in the new year my department will launch a research project to assess the scale of street works in England, including London.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while I am obliged to the Minister, does he agree that the mere fact that no one can possibly say how many holes there are in London's roads, who owns them or how long they have been there indicates a total lack of control of the problem? Will the noble Lord take time to remind highway authorities that they have a duty to make possible and sustain movement, not to impede it? Will the Minister also remind those who are responsible for digging the holes that their disregard for the convenience and interests of the public should not continue indefinitely, because that way they will win the detestation and contempt of the public?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, while I accept much of what the noble Lord says, it ignores the progress that has been made, particularly in central London, on the initiative of the central boroughs. The Central London Partnership, which together with the utility and cable
820
companies co-ordinates the approach to this problem, is developing a forward plan for the purposes of routine maintenance to ensure that particular roads in central London are dealt with by all the undertakers only within a specified period of the year. That procedure cannot entirely cater for emergencies, but normal installations and repairs will take place on a much more rational basis. That plan is now being drawn up. As to the attitude of the undertakers, while there may have been an element of truth in what the noble Lord says, they now co-operate closely with the plan. My honourable friend Keith Hill will meet the cable and utility companies at very senior level early in the new year. We have made clear our concern that they should contribute to solving the problem.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, behind this amusing Question lies a very serious point which applies not only to London but to Manchester. Does my noble friend agree that one day this very serious point may be dealt with by suggesting to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who is obviously short of Ministers, that he should appoint a Minister for the coordination of holes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the designation of ministerial responsibilities is entirely a matter for the Prime Minister, not me. I suspect my right honourable friend believes that he has already designated transport Ministers within the department. in particular my honourable friend Keith Hill, to deal with this precise problem. As my noble friend Lord Macdonald indicated to the House a few weeks ago, under the Transport Act we are taking new powers to ensure that, at least in part, the costs of road disruptions are met by those who undertake these works. By triggering Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 next year and keeping open the possibility of full lane rental if serious problems persist, we now have the legislative means with which to deal with the problem. I believe that Ministers have already paid enough attention to this matter without the Prime Minister having to designate anybody else.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is that not exactly the point? The Minister referred to Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act. He promised us an order back in the spring and then said that it would happen by the autumn. It is now mid-winter. When was it laid, and where is it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provisions of Section 74 will be triggered early in the new year. The provisions of the Transport Act to allow for full lane rental, which means that one pays from day one—whereas Section 74 is only for overstay—is to be kept in reserve and will be available to Ministers should the Section 74 powers not work.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, have the Government given consideration to the possibility that in major cities all of the services could be put into small tunnels

821
under the roads so that access to them and the provision of new services would be possible without the need for any digging?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is hoped that these additional financial pressures will force companies into taking the matter more seriously. In certain locations there is a possibility of trenchless technology. The problem is that there is so much underground in the centre of our cites that is not properly mapped. In old city centres it is difficult to provide a single duct because there are already so many ducts in place. In new or less congested situations that is a possibility. Even in the City of London provision has been made for ducts for new works, but that does not deal with the problem of repairing existing facilities.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that except for emergencies, such as a burst watermain, no new holes should be dug in roads anywhere until train services are back to normal? The combination of endless roadworks plus 20 per cent more traffic than normal on the roads is fatal.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, first, there is not more than 20 per cent more traffic. If all those who previously travelled on the railways transferred to the roads there would be an increase in traffic of considerably less than 10 per cent. They are not doing so because rail services are beginning to improve and will continue quickly to do so in the new year. So that is not a problem. There is a need not only to maintain the roads, for which highway authorities now have the facilities, but also to improve and update Britain's cabling so that we can take advantage of the new technologies.
In many cases the increase in the number of roads being dug up is because we have made a step-change in adopting new technology, principally in city centres but increasingly elsewhere. That is a positive step, supported by the Government and which should be supported by this House. The measures that the Central London Partnership and authorities are taking better to co-ordinate this work and to ensure that particular parts of the city are dealt with at the same time are a major step forward.

Poverty in the United Kingdom
11.14 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make public their latest assessment of poverty in the United Kingdom in the light of the study by the New Policy Institute published on 11 th December by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we have already done so in our report Opportunity for all.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, especially because I believe that
822
it has affected her personal arrangements for starting the Recess. I would have accepted and understood if another member of the Government had taken her place todady.
Has the noble Baroness noticed that this study records that the very poor have increased by 0.5 million since 1997; its definition being households living on less than 40 per cent of the average income in the country? Since the study records that there has been no reduction in the numbers of poor children during those three years, how do the Government expect to reach their target for eliminating child poverty?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is a very pertinent question. Government measures will have lifted 1 million children out of poverty by 2001. Turning to the first part of the noble Lord's question, we know that of those below 40 per cent mean or 50 per cent median income about one-fifth are pensioners, two-fifths are families not in work, and two-fifths of those are lone parents. The answer to the issue is to bring those not in work into work, but I remind the noble Lord that the income statistics on which this report is based were drawn up from late 1998, before the minimum income guarantee which helps pensioners over the 40 per cent line was introduced; before the minimum wage was introduced, and before working families' tax credit was introduced. Those are measures to help people into work where appropriate or to support them with higher levels of benefit.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, fuel poverty, which affects some 4.5 million households in Britain, is an important and unfortunate aspect of poverty in this country. Can she confirm that it is the Government's objective to eliminate fuel poverty within the next 10 years?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, so far as we possibly can we intend so to do. The noble Lord is right, we have seen winter death figures for the elderly going back up after a temporary drop, which is unacceptable. That is why I am sure he, like us, welcomes the £200 winter fuel allowance and the increased money being spent by my colleagues in the DETR on warm home insulation projects both here and in Scotland.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the report mentioned on the Order Paper there is a finding that at any time during 1999,
"around 150,000 young adults aged 16 to 18 were not in education, in training or in work"?
Can the Minister say what material support was open to those people and on which forms of support they actually relied?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe I can help the noble Earl. Of those young people aged 16

823
to 18 who were not in work, in education or training and not claiming benefit, 50 per cent were living with their families; 27 per cent were living with their families and claiming benefit; 15 per cent were living independently and claiming benefit; and 8 per cent were living independently and not claiming benefit. It is the 8 per cent figure of that 150,000 that the noble Earl and I would both be concerned about. We are seeking to work with them.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Rowntree Foundation should be congratulated on the major contribution it has made in this area since the original study in York at the beginning of the last century? The Prime Minister has said that the Government's aim is to eliminate child poverty within 20 years. According to the report there has so far been no improvement. Does this precisely mean absolute poverty or relative poverty? Against what criteria do the Government propose to measure their performance? The Minister mentioned that the figures are somewhat out of date. The report stresses that reporting of those figures needs to be speeded up. What are the Government doing to eliminate or reduce the gap between the period when the figures are collected and when they are published?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there were about six questions there. We would all welcome having more up-to-date statistics. These income figures are based on figures in the autumn of 1998. Therefore, the below average incomes for households are already two years out of date. The Government also have to rely on similar statistics for their report.
Since April 1997 our budget measures have taken 1 million children out of poverty. We are on target to take one quarter of all children in poverty out of poverty in the next five years; half, we hope, in 10 years; and all in 20 years. As the noble Lord knows, the ways in which we are so doing are not only raising benefit levels but encouraging their parents—they are predominantly the children of lone parents—into the labour market. If we can do that, both the lone child and the parent will benefit. Those are our tests.
The noble Lord asked what was our definition of poverty. Poverty is multi-faceted. It is not just about poverty of income but also poverty of poor life chances. On the poverty definition of income, we are looking at either 50 per cent mean or 60 per cent median, as the mean is tweaked by high average incomes. Otherwise one could get a situation whereby, if the national wealth increases by 20 per cent but the wealth of low income families increases by only 10 per cent, they become poorer, and if the country's wealth falls by 20 per cent but the wealth of poorer families falls by only 10 per cent, they become richer. That is the problem of relative definition. It is about equality as much as it is about poverty. But our hope—and our
824
expectation and strategy—is to lift those children out of poverty in the next 20 years. We are already on target to do so.

Road Schemes: Environmental Considerations
11.20 a.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
How their decision to approve 39 road schemes in the local transport settlement accords with the statement in the Ten Year Transport Plan that,
"there will be a strong presumption against schemes that would significantly affect environmentally sensitive sites, or important species, habitats or landscapes".
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have not changed their policy towards roads and the environment. We retain a strong presumption against accepting road schemes which would adversely affect environmentally sensitive sites. All road schemes accepted in the local transport plans have been examined against the Government's transport criteria of safety, environment, economy, accessibility and integration, using the new approach to appraisal. That ensures that all relevant factors are taken into account when making decisions to give schemes the go-ahead, including any potential impact on sensitive sites.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very full Answer. The presumption against road schemes in environmentally sensitive sites was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Macdonald in AONBs letter to the Guardian of 31st July. Given that presumption, is it not a little odd that, of the 39 schemes, none was rejected on environmental grounds but nine of them go through SSSIs or AONBs?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the approach to appraisal has to take strong account of all relevant factors, but the presumption is there. However, where there is no alternative to a road scheme, other factors may outweigh marginal damage to SSSIs. My noble friend will find that of the nine schemes to which he referred the majority involve slight damage and that in other cases we are talking about, for example, crossing a waterway, which does not damage or affect the whole of that site. I appreciate that in a number of those locations there has been anxiety. But the majority of the schemes which were put forward and appraised by local authorities have not been accepted. My noble friend must also recognise that in the local transport plan as a whole less than 15 per cent of the total funding allocation went to major road schemes. The bulk of it was used for local schemes, public transport improvements and safety and environmental improvements.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on this albeit rather modest

825
resumption, after nearly four years of famine, of the road improvement schemes. I hope that many more schemes will be approved in the near future.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am happy to accept the congratulations of the Opposition. I have a feeling that there was an underlying theme to the noble Lord's intervention of which perhaps I would not entirely approve. The Government have been consistent. We have never said that we would not have new road schemes. We have said that roads have to be put into an integrated transport context and that the environmental dimension has to be taken fully into account. That has been done in relation to these local transport schemes and it is being done in relation to a number of potential improvements to the highways network. But that needs to be looked at in a multimodal context so that we take some traffic off the roads as well as improve, in appropriate circumstances, the road network.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister remember that the biggest cut in the road programme was made on 30th November 1996 by the previous government? On that occasion a large number of very much desired bypasses were eliminated from the programme. Do the Government agree that when people's quality of life in small towns and villages suffers as much as it often has from the huge increase in traffic, it is most important that they should eventually receive bypasses? Does he further agree that there is a problem with the Government's programme for detrunking roads? It will mean that responsibility for bypasses will be with local authorities, which, first, are likely to have much less money with which to provide them and, secondly, are in some cases much less sensitive to the environment than has been the Highways Agency in recent years.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not think that the process of detrunking roads will have the adverse effects to which the noble Lord refers. It will allow the local transport authority to take account of the role of those roads within its overall transport strategy. The roads are not necessarily strategic roads. They just happen historically to be part of the Highways Agency's network. It is better to look at them as local and regional roads rather than as strategic roads. Resources will follow the transfer of responsibility. I believe that local authorities will be sensitive to the environment and will go through the same appraisal system as should Highways Agency roads. As far as concerns the general point on bypasses, what the noble Lord said underlines the fact that there are environmental aspects to consider on both sides. Quality of life, noise, safety and traffic congestion within villages need to be tackled for environmental reasons. In some cases, those matters are outweighed by the fact that the bypass might destroy beautiful
826
land. In other cases, the balance of the argument goes the other way. However, in both cases, environmental aspects are important.

Postal Disruption
11.26 a.m.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they are making to meet representatives of the Post Office management to discuss the current disruption of mail services.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, there have been two reasons for recent disruption to mail services—industrial action, both official and unofficial, by mail and counters staff and the effects of disruption on the railways, which has caused mail trains to miss vital connections. The delivery of the mail services is a matter for the Post Office management, which has been keeping my department informed about these recent problems.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Does he not agree that this is now becoming a matter of significant public concern? Long before the Hatfield rail accident and the ensuing disruption of rail services there were significant delays in postal services as a result of official and unofficial strike action. Does he agree that there has been a conspiracy of silence in terms of not informing the public about the disruption? What do the Government intend to do about it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the main problem has undoubtedly been rail disruption, which was bound to have an impact on services. Some 20 million letters are carried on an ordinary day and as many as 60 million at other times. The Post Office has been working extremely hard to use air and road transport to compensate for the problem of rail disruption. There have also been minor unofficial walk-outs, but those have been dealt with. I do not think that there has been a conspiracy of silence. On the contrary, in a number of press releases the Post Office has drawn attention to the situation and asked the public to help by posting early. The public have responded to that.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I declare my interest as a former postman. Does my noble friend agree that no one is happy about industrial action? Does he further agree that what is required are meaningful discussions between the representatives of the people who work in the Post Office and the management to overcome some of the difficulties that have been apparent for some time? Should we not pay tribute to those men and women who over the past few weeks have done a tremendous job in delivering the mail through flooded areas and in clearing the record backlog of mail caused by the rail disruption? Is this not a time for us to be grateful to people who get up in

827
the early hours of the morning or who work all night to make sure that we get a wonderful postal service which is still the envy of the world?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that the Post Office should not be criticised heavily for the low level of service due to rail disruption. I believe that their workers have tried extremely hard to cope with that. Furthermore, I agree that, at this time of year and in these circumstances, enormous pressures are put on Post Office workers. Something in the order of 150 million items are passing through sorting offices each day. However, in terms of industrial relations, I have to say that that is a matter for which the Post Office management and the workers must take some blame.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether he was satisfied with the press release sent out yesterday by his department concerning the high street banks? I understand that they are now prepared to fund the universal bank. Because no further information was given on the matter, can the Minister tell the House for how much, for how long and on what terms this has been agreed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that the question put by the noble Baroness has a great deal to do with the delivery of mail, but I am happy to respond to it. It is clear that, because we put out the press release, we are happy that an agreement in principle has been reached with the banks on the universal bank, in spite of the scepticism which has been voiced about it. I have also made it clear on previous occasions that negotiations are continuing. When those are finalised, we shall give details as regards exactly what contribution will be made by the banks and the services to be provided.
Lord Judd: My Lords, further to the question put by my noble friend, does the Minister accept that it is important for those of us who live in rural areas to pay a special tribute to the quality of service maintained by the Post Office in such areas, and indeed to show appreciation for the way in which those workers maintain it? We should acknowledge the key role played by many Post Office workers in sustaining contact with isolated people, in particular the elderly. As we come up to Christmas, this is an appropriate time to extend our special thanks to those postal workers.
My noble friend referred to the pressure being put on the Post Office to use road services. Does he agree that, in the context of strategic environmental policy, it would be a disaster if the Post Office were to be forced to use the roads rather than the railways? Does he further agree that there is a tremendous need for the Government to bring together the Post Office and the railway companies to ensure that an effective and strategic service will be maintained in the future?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, my noble friend has put two questions to me. I am happy to join him in paying tribute to those who provide postal
828
services in rural areas. Not only do they provide a good service, but they also make a real contribution to the community.
As regards the use of road services, this is simply a response to the current situation. I believe that the Post Office has been quite right to make every effort to ensure deliveries to customers. If that means that it is necessary to use alternative methods of transport., that is surely right. However, I do not think that that is relevant to the fundamental question; namely, that for environmental reasons we all wish to see as much mail carried by rail and public transport as is possible.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that none of us would wish to understate the significance of the problems faced by the Post Office following the Hatfield rail disaster? However, is he also aware that what is going on in some parts of the Post Office at present rather reminds one of some of the industrial relations problems of the late 1970s and early 1980s? Industrial relations in the Post Office are now among the worst in this country. Does the Minister believe that the Post Office management now recognises that it has a major problem with which it must deal? Let us hope that that view will be shared by the trade unions. They appear to walk away from problems of this kind and pretend that they are exclusively the responsibility of management.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that, while the matter of rail disruption is not something for which the Post Office should be heavily criticised, the question of industrial relations, which are certainly not good, is a matter for which the whole of the Post Office—I repeat, the whole of the Post Office—has to accept responsibility.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, further to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the Minister stated that this problem has been "dealt with". Can he explain that curious phrase, which seems to resemble the "final solution"?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that comment was made in the context that the official walkout and demonstrations which took place in a number of areas—Coventry, Kensington, Westminster and Romford—have now come to an end, with the exception of an overtime ban in Romford. My comment had no greater significance than that of confirming that those situations have now been resolved, with the single exception of the Romford overtime ban.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while postal services in the countryside continue at a high level, the reverse is now the case in many city centres, even leaving aside the current difficulties? Can the Minister tell the House what plans the Government have put in place to

829
address those difficulties? Furthermore, can he ensure that, when the Government are re-elected, this will be made a priority in the order of events?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: my Lords, these are matters for the Post Office. We have put in place the Postal Services Commission. It will take a great interest in the level of service provided both in rural areas and in city centres. It will be for the commission to put pressure on the Post Office to achieve its targets.

Psychotherapy Bill [H.L.]
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a body to be known as the general psychotherapy council; to provide for the regulation of the profession of psychotherapy, including making provision as to the registration of psychotherapists and as to their professional education and conduct; to make provision in connection with the development and promotion of the profession; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Alderdice.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Adoption
11.36 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"I wish to make a Statement on the White Paper, Adoption, A New Approach, which I am publishing today. Every child should have the best possible start in life. As the country now with one of the largest economies in the world we should be aiming to provide opportunities for all children, whatever their backgrounds.
"The Government have a special responsibility to ensure that every child in our society has the opportunity to grow up in a stable and secure family. This is why we have taken action to lift over a million children out of poverty, to raise child benefit by record levels and to increase support to families through the working families' tax credit. In all, we are spending an extra £6 billion each year in real terms on financial support for children. It is also why we have taken action to strengthen safeguards for children, with new legislation, new resources and new programmes such as Sure Start and Quality Protects. Together, these two programmes alone will see the investment of over —1.8 billion over the next three years in services helping some of the most vulnerable children in the country.
830
"Ultimately, it is stable families and strong communities which provide the foundations for a fair society. Children do best when they grow up in a stable, loving family. When children cannot live with their birth parents, we have a shared responsibility to make sure that they can enjoy the kind of loving family life which most of us take for granted.
"As every Member of this House knows, the opportunity to grow up in a stable family environment has not been properly extended to looked-after children who, for one reason or another, cannot live with their birth families. It is not only the children who have lost out. Society as a whole has paid a heavy price for this failure. At any one time, local councils look after 58,000 children. Seven in 10 of them leave care at 16 without a single qualification. Almost four in 10 male prisoners under the age of 21 have been looked-after at some stage in their lives. Some 25 per cent of people sleeping rough on the streets of London have been in care. This is not a failure of the child in care. This is a failure of the system of care.
"These children—perhaps above all others—need the safety, stability and loving care of a permanent new family; and they need that stability as quickly as is humanly possible. That is not the case at present. Children stay in the care system far longer than they should. Over 28,000 children have been in care continuously for more than two years. Too often, despite the best intentions of all involved, they are passed from pillar to post. Nearly one in five looked-after children have three or more placements in a single year. Some have six or more. For those children, the care system does not provide the stability they need to overcome their troubled pasts and to build a successful future. These children need a better chance in life. They deserve a better deal.
"Adoption can provide just such a new start in life for a looked-after child. Too often, it has been seen as a last resort when it should be considered as a first resort. In some councils, 10 per cent of looked-after children are adopted.
"In others, it is less than 1 per cent. Because adoption services are run on a local basis, both children and adoptive parents can miss the chance that adoption brings. Overall, the system—including the courts—can be slow, cumbersome and unfair. Of course, the safety of every child should be of paramount concern but, on average, children are waiting nearly a year and a half before it is decided that adoption is best for them; and even after a decision is taken that they can be adopted, they wait still longer. Overall, the average time taken to adopt a looked-after child is three years—an eternity in a child's eyes.
"People who want to adopt children from the care system need a better deal as well. We are short of adoptive parents but the system deters people from adopting. It is slow, intrusive and simply inappropriate in many cases. There have indeed been cases where potential adopters have been told

831
that they cannot adopt simply because they are too old or too middle class. Blanket bans of this kind only have one effect—they fail to put the needs of children first. Families who do adopt children overwhelmingly do a brilliant job for those children. It is not an easy job because many of the children are not easy. They and their adoptive parents deserve more support.
"Adoption services and adoption laws are in need of reform. The current 1976 Act is based on legislation that dates back to 1958; nor is it consistent with the Children Act 1989.
"In February this year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister launched a thorough review of adoption. He commissioned the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office to look at the evidence and make recommendations for action. The PIU report was published for consultation on 7th July this year. The report found that there was clearly scope for many more looked-after children to be adopted. The Prime Minister made it clear in July that the Government accepted some of its key recommendations. In particular, the Prime Minister announced that new legislation would be brought forward next year.
"The White Paper I am publishing today outlines the most radical overhaul of adoption law and practice in 25 years. New legislation will seek to place children's safety, welfare and interests at the heart of the adoption process. It will link adoption more closely with the principles of the Children Act; and it will extend the options courts have to secure a permanent family life for looked-after children. A new 'special guardianship' order will be created for those children who want a more legally secure permanent family than can be delivered through foster care or residence orders, but who do not want to sever all legal ties with their birth family.
"A clearer legal duty will be placed on local councils to plan for and provide comprehensive support services for adoptive families. Families adopting children will be entitled to have their needs for support services properly assessed. They will have access to a comprehensive package of post-adoption support—including adoption allowances—in a way which is more consistent across the country. We are already consulting on introducing paid leave for adoptive parents; and for potential adopters whose application is rejected, we shall introduce a new right to an independent review.
"Local councils and voluntary adoption agencies will need to make substantial improvements to their adoption services. Some are already doing so. Last year the number of adoptions rose from 2,200 to 2,700. But much more needs to be done. New resources will be made available to produce better results. The Government will provide —66 million-worth of investment in local authorities over the next three years to help to transform adoption
832
services for children. In exchange for this cash, I shall expect to see clear improvements in performance.
"In the future we expect the majority of councils to do what the minority are already successfully doing—working collaboratively with other councils and local adoption agencies. Council performance on adoption will be more rigorously monitored—not least through the SSI and the Audit Commission. Where a council is persistently failing to deliver, I shall not hesitate to use my intervention powers to transfer its adoption services to a different agency.
"An adoption register for England and Wales will be established. It will match children with adoptive parents across the country where a local family cannot be found or where the child needs to move away from the local area. I am today issuing invitations to tender for the new register with a view to it becoming operational next summer.
"The courts too will need to improve their performance. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been looking carefully at the causes of delay in children's cases. The White Paper sets out how we shall speed up adoption cases. In the corning year. the Lord Chancellor's Department will, first of all, increase the number of judges specifically trained to deal with family work, and make better use of the available expertise; secondly, set up pilots to evaluate the benefits of concentrating adoption work in specialist adoption courts with experienced judges and court staff; and, thirdly, work with the president of the Family Court Division on guidance to courts on better case management and take further steps to improve the way the courts deal with adoption cases.
"Next year too the new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will be set up, bringing together services for children in one comprehensive agency, allowing them better to meet the needs of children.
"These changes in local courts and in local councils will not—by themselves—be enough to bring about the step change in adoption services that children need. So today I am also publishing for consultation the first ever set of national adoption standards. They will help to drive up the standards of service for children and adoptive parents in all parts of the country. The standards set challenging new targets to speed up adoption processes.
"Six months after becoming looked-after continuously, every looked-after child will have an agreed plan for permanence. It may cover efforts to rehabilitate a child with their birth family, but where adoption is the plan for permanence, suitable adoptive parents should be found within a further six months. This will be a major improvement on the current situation. It will almost halve the average time it takes to find an adoptive family for the child. For foster parents who want to adopt a child and it is in the child's interests to do so, we shall go further. For foster carers' applications to adopt a child in

833
their care, where it is in the best interests of the child to do so, in future the application will be processed in just three months.
"The standards will also set out how prospective adopters will be welcomed and treated in an open and fair way. There will be no blanket bans on people because of their age, health or other factors. While it is clear, for example, that the best family for a child will be one that reflects their birth heritage—and certainly more needs to be done to recruit adopters from diverse ethnic backgrounds—no child should be denied loving adoptive parents solely on the grounds that the child and the parents have different racial or cultural backgrounds. The child's interest—their safety and well-being—will be the crucial factor in determining their adoptive parents. I hope that these measures will help us to treat adopters better and support them better so that we can attract more adoptive parents to adopt more children successfully.
"It is right that we are ambitious for these children. It is right that we are ambitious for the prospective families. There is no shortage of children looking for a stable, loving, permanent family. A 1999 report for my department found 2,400 children waiting to be adopted and 1,300 adopters waiting for children. Adoption must become a first-choice option for looked-after children who cannot return home. The White Paper therefore sets a new national target to deliver a minimum 40 per cent increase in lasting adoptions by the year 2005, although I hope that the measures that I have outlined today will help us to achieve a 50 per cent increase over that period. Our aim must be to give many hundreds more looked-after children the chance to live as a permanent member of a stable, secure and loving new family.
"Children get only one chance to grow up. A looked-after child should have the same life chance as any other child: a chance to belong; to have a stake; to get on in life. For too long too many have been denied these chances—the innocent victims of a system which has failed to meet their needs for a permanent secure loving family. It is a failure we would not tolerate for ourselves. We should not tolerate it for others. The reforms to adoption I have announced today will transform the life chances of hundreds, hopefully thousands, of children. They deserve no less. I commend our proposals to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
11.49 a.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is with more than my usual degree of warmth that I thank the Minister for coming to the House to repeat the Statement on the final day of the pre-Christmas Session. It is a great pity—although, of course, understandable—that not more noble Lords are present to listen to this extremely important set of announcements.
834
Perhaps I may begin by saying that I greatly welcome almost everything that the Statement contains. The Minister will know that just before the 1997 general election the previous government had prepared a Bill in draft to reform the current adoption laws. Since the election, successive health Ministers, beginning most notably with Mr Paul Boateng, have devoted considerable effort to the same end and, I may say, on much the same lines.
I am in no doubt that adoption, fostering and the care system generally are, together, a pivotal area of social policy. What we do or fail to do for our looked-after children influences every aspect of society. We therefore owe it to them and to ourselves to put the system right where it is failing.
As the Minister has told us, a great deal in the system is failing. The Statement speaks of the variability of performance among local authorities in the numbers of looked-after children successfully placed with adoptive parents. That is putting it mildly. I have in front of me a table showing the percentages of children adopted under each local authority in 1999. Near the bottom of the league is Barnet, with 0.47 per cent and Lambeth, with 0.61 per cent. Twenty-seven local authorities score under 2 per cent. By contrast, at the top of the league come Warrington, with 9.03 per cent; York, 9.6 per cent; Middlesbrough, 10.86 per cent; and Sutton, with 13.74 per cent.
Why should this be, when it is plain to all who have had anything to do with this subject that children who grow up in a loving and supportive family progress, flourish and grow to adulthood in a way that children in care, with their disrupted lives, cannot hope to do?
Yet, at 31st March 2000, 58,100 children were being looked after. That was 5 per cent more than a year earlier. Although the rate of children entering care is now falling, children in the care system are staying there longer. What is striking about the statistics is the large number of children who are under one year of age when entering care. Many stay in care for years on end.
It is often said that behavioural problems and disabilities in children are what prevent more children being adopted. The truth is that the majority of children in care are of normal intelligence and do not have serious health problems, other than those that perhaps result from neglect while being looked after.
The Statement does not go so far as to use the phrase "political correctness", but it is entirely appropriate to cite misplaced theory and dogma as among the prime reasons for the failure to adopt more children from care. In many cases, social workers are neither trained nor resourced to cope with what is inevitably a very difficult set of decisions about a child's future welfare.
In particular, there is evidence that many are not aware of the implications for a child's development of attachment to an individual couple. The courts often introduce delay by insisting that birth parents have every possible chance to show themselves capable of caring for the child, even when those birth parents may have failed repeatedly to do so.

835
I welcome the emphasis in the Statement on more and better training for judges in family courts. I also very much welcome the new legal duty to be placed on local councils to plan for and provide support for adoptive families and to produce plans for permanence for every looked-after child within six months of his or her entering the care system. I am delighted that there is to be a national adoption register and national standards. I am delighted that there are to be targets for delivery. It is excellent news that potential adopters whose application is rejected will have the right to seek an independent review. Above all, it is excellent that the needs and interests of children are to be the governing principles for the new measures. All these are measures for which my party has been enthusiastically pressing for some considerable time.
Will the Minister say a little more about the concept of special guardianship? I shall need to reflect further on the idea. I probably need convincing of the wisdom of divided legal rights in relation to a child with two sets of parents who may be pulling in opposite directions. When, and in what circumstances, do the Government envisage this mechanism being used? Secondly, what support is envisaged for adoptive parents and children? Often, a family needs help and advice well after the adoption has taken place.
Thirdly, we should not overlook the needs of parents who relinquish children for adoption as the result of unplanned pregnancies. Do the Government acknowledge the value of mother-and-baby refuges? Is it not highly regrettable that so few refuges exist? There is a lack of facilities for mothers considering adoption, which itself prevents infant adoption; and there is a reluctance among social workers to discuss adoption with women who are contemplating it. I cannot be alone among your Lordships in viewing the abortion statistics in England and Wales as an appalling testament to the attitudes towards unplanned pregnancy that are currently prevalent.
I turn finally to the issue of training, particularly training for social workers. Does the Minister agree that many social workers lack adequate training, not least in the field of child development? What measures will the Government take to improve training and to address the shortage of trained social workers in many parts of the country? Do they agree that more support needs to be given to voluntary adoption agencies, where much expertise resides?
I hope that legislation in this area can be brought forward at an early date. We on these Benches look forward to giving it our constructive support.
11.57 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I should like to strike the same festive note as the noble Earl in thanking the Minister warmly for repeating the Statement. Looked-after children suffer many disadvantages which children from stable homes do not; and they face a greater risk of criminality and homelessness later in life. Following the passage of the Children (Leaving Care) Act earlier this year, the
836
proposals in the Statement are an extremely welcome approach to tackling the problem at its roots and minimising the number of children in long-term care. The Minister and the noble Earl cited the current adoption figures for children in care. Clearly, that performance is not good enough.
This is, however, an acutely difficult area of public policy. There are many issues relating to the rights of birth parents, the speed of care and adoption processes and the suitability of certain types of prospective adopters. The reasons quoted by social services departments for not allowing adoption have included being overweight, being over 35, being too middle-class, being the wrong race, and so on. The Government have steered an effective but principled course in making these recommendations and I warmly welcome them.
To some degree, there are challenges regarding implementation of the reforms. The history of government attempts to tackle these issues over the past few years is instructive. They might properly have been optimistic about the impact of a circular from Mr Boateng in August 1998; however, it became apparent that indirect management by circular was not enough—hence the Prime Minister's summit in April 1999. I pay tribute to him for his personal involvement in this matter. That was followed in July by the excellent report of the Performance and Innovation Unit. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in his place, in a sense seeing the birth of his child.
Clearly it became apparent that a more radical approach was required in tackling such issues. Hence we have the White Paper.
The underlying principles to be adopted are of the most fundamental importance. I welcome the commitment to legislation to bring adoption principles in line with those in the Children Act 989. The essence of the decision on adoption must be the interests of the child: his or her needs and rights must be paramount. However, the consent of a natural parent is important, and that consent should be overridden only where the advantages are significantly greater for a child if consent is not forthcoming.
Quite often, the process followed as regards care orders, freeing orders and adoption is so delayed that the child is prejudiced. Some of the figures in the PIU report are quite startling. The process can take several years. As the Minister said, this can be an eternity for a young child and prevents the bonding that is so necessary with adoptive parents. Then there are the figures about multiple placements. Some 29 per cent of children in care had had four or more placements. Nearly one-fifth of placements fail. There are also, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, massive variations in the time taken and in the performance of different local authorities.
I live in Lambeth, and London has been a particularly under-performing area. The fact is that the earlier a placement takes place, the more successful it is. That means that a fast process is vital. We certainly welcome the new combined one-year target

837
within which care and adoption processes should take place. We also welcome other elements in the White Paper; for example, the pledge on improvements of performance by local authorities. There is also the setting up of the adoption and permanence task force, especially its remit to "scrutinise the backlog"—a phrase used in the PIU report. But what powers will that task force have? Will it simply have the right to make reports and review progress? In particular, what relationship will it have with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the court services area?
Will the task force have the right to review the availability of legal aid and the speed of court processes? Will it be able to sort out the "lack of grip" referred to so often in adoption and care processes? I understand that it will exercise its responsibility together with the Social Services Inspectorate and the national care standards commission, but the key objectives regarding responsibility for enforcing national standards and ensuring that local authorities are put to the task must be clearly identified.
We very much welcome the setting of national standards, but some clarity about whether that also applies to the court services and to the Legal Services Commission would be helpful. I should like to know how that will relate to the earlier circular of 1998. We strongly welcome the proposed review by the independent body where adoption is refused, and the setting up of a national adoption register. We especially welcome the new duty to be imposed on local authorities to plan and provide, subject to assessment, support services post-adoption. The Government have mentioned a significant figure of £66 million in that context. Can the Minister say whether that will be ring-fenced? Further, will the new adoption allowances be included within that figure or be excluded from it?
There are other key areas that I have no doubt will be covered in the proposed legislation, or in further measures to be introduced in due course. I refer particularly to the changes to maternity and paternity leave provision, which are much more generous to adopters. We welcome the consultation that is taking place and hope that that will reach an early conclusion. Mention was made in previous consultations about the need to ensure that freeing orders are not made, and that the child's relationship with both parents is not broken until adoption takes place. I wonder whether the Minister has anything to say on that subject.
The access to records is mentioned in passing in the White Paper. Again, it consists of a pure outline; there are no details as to the contents. We look forward therefore to the way that that will be settled in due course because that is clearly a very sensitive area. The area of websites and how they are used in this context are also most important. I have seen no reference in the White Paper to the latter. I assume that that will also be the subject of legislation at some stage.
838
Generally, we very much welcome the contents of this White Paper. I am sure that the legislation will not be easy to draft in some of the areas. However, I can assure the Minister that such legislation will get a very fair wind from these Benches.
12.4 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the warm welcome that they have given to the principles contained in the White Paper. I am sure that we shall be able to take forward the general consensus that this is the right way to proceed when legislation is introduced. I cannot give a firm date in that respect, but earlier in the year the Prime Minister said that legislation would be introduced next year. Therefore, we can hope to make speedy progress on the matter.
I very much share the key point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the importance of ensuring that adoption, fostering and the care system work well together. That is necessary if we are really to provide the high quality support and services that are required for this huge number of children—58,000, as the noble Earl said—who are being looked after at present.
The various actions that the Government have taken—the Quality Protects programme; the enhanced monitoring of local authorities; the establishment of the general social care council; and the introduction of the Children (Leaving Care) Act—will, together, provide a much more robust package that will enable us to deal with the problems that many noble Lords have graphically illustrated over the years. Ultimately, much of this comes down to local authority performance. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to variations in performance, especially in relation to the percentage of children looked after who had subsequently been adopted. I, too, have a similar range of figures: 0.5 per cent of looked-after children in Merton in 1998–99, compared to 10.5 per cent in Calderdale.
Although huge variations in performance between different local authorities cause concern, they also show that we can turn the problem around. As ever, the task is to pull up the performance of the less good to a point that is nearer the level of those which perform best. I believe that the various mechanisms that we have put in place will enable us to do so; for example, the adoption and permanence task force will play a very important role in that respect both in spreading best practice and in working with poorly-performing councils.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised about the task force's remit in relation to the courts. There are two points that I can make in response. First, we are working very closely with the Lord Chancellor's Department in its review of issues relating to childcare in the courts. We aim to achieve a consistency of approach. Secondly, in monitoring the performance of local authorities, I am sure that the task force will undoubtedly wish to talk to those involved in the court administration in a particular

839
area to ensure that there is a consistency of approach across the boundaries. That is most important and has been one of the problems in terms of the huge delay experienced in completing an adoption process.
As the Statement makes clear, we have, in addition to the task force, set robust targets for local authorities. Our performance assessment approach in terms of measuring the progress that it makes, our ability to intervene in a number of ways, special measures with very close monitoring by the Social Services Inspectorate, and the ability for the Secretary of State ultimately to take intervention powers, will, I believe, give us the tools with which to ensure that local authorities do perform much better than they have in the past.
The issue of political correctness has raised its head. All of us have been concerned about the reported decisions of some local authorities in relation to adoption. The Statement makes clear the principles under which we expect local authorities to perform. It is just worth mentioning that the full facts regarding certain cases that have featured in media reports have not always been revealed because, clearly, the issue of confidentiality must be considered. When social services departments are subject to enormous criticism, there is sometimes very little that they can say about the aspects of a specific case.
Having said that, it does not take away my concern about the performance of many local authorities and the need to move away from so-called ideological considerations to a more balanced approach. I also believe that the poor adoption rates in some local authorities have little to do with political correctness or ideology but are due to a lack of priority, grip and attention. We have the ability now to ensure that local authorities give sufficient attention to the matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about workforce training. I agree that it is crucial. All work undertaken with children as part of the adoption process and the assessment and preparation of adoptive families must be carried out by qualified social workers. The only tasks related to adoption which do not need to be undertaken by qualified social workers are administrative. We have a recruitment and retention problem with social workers. We also need to address the worrying trend in the reduction in applications for training as social workers. The work we are doing 'with the ADSS, the local government association, will help in this area. We have also to consider how we can improve the status of social workers. The bashings that they receive—sometimes justified, more often not—do not encourage people into social work. Yet society relies on these people to carry an enormous workload and pressure. The answer is undoubtedly to see what we can do to boost their image. I am a great believer in the general social care council. Setting up a professional statutory regulatory body is one way in which we can enhance the quality.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me about special guardianship. Essentially, this is for the use of the court if it decides in the child's interest—to meet the needs of children for whom adoption is not
840
appropriate. It might include older children who do not wish to be separated legally from their birth parents even though they cannot live with them but would like a more formal relationship with their foster parents. That is likely to be in relation to older children.
Post-adoption support is very important. Parents who adopt children often complain that once they adopt the child the local authority loses interest in them. We know that it is a challenging process, often with children who have been very disturbed. So one of the most important parts of the White Paper is the provision of assessment to see what support the adoptive parents require. It will also involve the ability to provide financial support. This is very important. Some foster parents who would have wished to adopt children have incurred a real financial disadvantage because some local authorities phase out rapidly the financial payments they receive as foster parents. This proposal will enable us to get over that problem.
Finally, the £66.5 million funding for adoption will be ring-fenced.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement and share his objective of stability. I seek amplification on a couple of points. First, will the rights of the adopted child to know the circumstances and identity of his or her natural parent be affected by these proposals? Is it proposed to make any changes?
Secondly, can he say a little more about the other side of the equation: the protection provided for an adopted child and the adoptive parents from capricious and often unpredictable behaviour in subsequent years by the natural parents? I am sure that the Minister will be aware of cases where secure relationships have been disrupted quite unjustifiably, without there being apparently any proper legal protection for the child or his adoptive parents. If we cannot get the balance right in those two areas, we are unlikely to be able to achieve the stability that he and, I am sure, all noble Lords seek.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. These are difficult issues in terms of the relationship between birth parents, the adoptive parents and the child who has been adopted. I am aware of some of the tensions and, sometimes, the difficult situations in which adoptive parents have found themselves. There clearly is no easy answer. I do not have specific answers.
Having a support system for adoptive parents after the child has been adopted would enable the adoptive parents to talk over those problems with and seek advice from a key worker within the local authority's adoption service. That might not be as much comfort as the noble Lord would wish. But it is important that parents who have taken the step of adopting a child feel that at the end of the day they are not on their own: that if they need to look for information, advice and support, it is there.

841
The noble Lord asked whether birth parents were being given new rights under the proposals. No, there are no new rights. But we recognise that losing a child is a significant event for an entire family. Therefore one believes that birth families should be given support and help. They need to understand the adoption process and to come to terms with the child being adopted if that is in the child's best interests.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on these excellent and reassuring proposals. I declare an interest as the parent of an adopted child.
Perhaps I may seek assurance that in assessing parents social workers will not ask irrelevant questions about the religious or political affiliation of prospective parents. I base the question on information given to me by my own very good social worker about the reasons why parents have been prohibited from adopting—for instance, through membership of a perfectly legal political party or a perfectly respectable small religious sect.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we do not believe the process should be governed by ideological political correctness but by a sensible, level-headed approach to assessing the ability of potential adopters to take on an adopted child.
We publish today the draft national standards. They will set out clearly what adopters can expect from the assessment process, including the criteria to be used. The standards and code of practice that will back them up will ensure that assessment decisions are made on a clear and consistent basis across the country. That is certain to mean that inappropriate questions will not be posed. If they are posed, a performance management of the whole process would pick that up.
One of the important developments that we shall take forward is to set up a review mechanism. If the application of adoptive parents is rejected, they will have the right to a fully independent review of the case. An independent body appointed by the Secretary of State would convene a review panel to look again at all the evidence and make a new recommendation to the agency, either in support of or against the original decision. The adoption agency, which will still be the body responsible for placement, will have to take account of any new recommendation before making a final decision.
Clearly, we hope that in many cases the issue will not need to go that far, because the adoption process should be handled in a professional and acceptable way, but at least there is a backup for the circumstances that my noble friend mentioned so that parents can ask for the case to be reviewed.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister's Statement and the documentation that goes with it. It is good to know that the Government are fully committed to facilitating and supporting adoption. I very much hope that they will be successful
842
in that endeavour. The Minister also mentioned foster care, which is equally important, particularly long-term and semi-permanent fostering. We hope that both aspects of care will cope with a greater number of children.
However, large numbers of children will remain in children's homes. Will the Minister assure us that the staff in those homes are not being forgotten? What do the Government have in mind for their training and their pay and conditions? Work in children's homes must not be seen as a dead-end job.
How do those issues relate to the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000? Will there be more resources for improving standards in children's homes?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue of the management of children's homes. He is right that some children will continue to reside in children's homes. At the moment about 6,500 children are resident in children's homes in England. We need to do everything that we can to ensure that they receive the effective care and support that they need. We all know that there have been a number of inquiries into children's homes over the past few years that have shown considerable failings, not least in the lack of support from local authorities for the staff and managers working in those homes and in the quality of training of the staff who work there. The Quality Protects programme is the start of a process of investing and prioritising the provision of children's services and ensuring a more professional approach, backed up by the monitoring and performance management with which the Social Services Inspectorate is concerned in relation to the overall performance of local authorities.
In addition, the general social care council will have an important role in raising standards among the 1 million people who work in the care industry. When it is established, it is likely to concentrate initially on qualified professional social workers and then on residential care workers, including the staff of children's homes, because those are important priorities. The process of improvement will make that possible, provided that we can at the same time attract more good people into the social care workforce, which is a tremendous challenge for the Government and for individual employers.
Perhaps I can take this opportunity to clarify a point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The £66 million within the Quality Protects programme is not ring-fenced for adoption services, but it is part of the Quality Protects specific grant. That is what I meant by ring-fencing. We will expect local authorities to spend the necessary money to ensure that adoption services are properly organised and run. The performance management process will pick up any problems.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I greatly welcome the Statement. I briefly declare my interests. First, I have had lifelong contact with adoption. My mother was in social work and in her time she probably placed more

843
children for adoption than anybody else in England and Wales. Also, in the past 35 years of my professional life I have daily come into contact with prospective adoptive parents.
I have a couple of important points to make that cannot be overplayed. The first is the situation with social workers. It is very welcome that efforts will be made to improve their status, because there are clearly major problems with the way in which adoptive parents are handled, often insensitively and sometimes almost arrogantly. That is a pity, not least because many infertile people who would undoubtedly be very good parents do not regard adoption as a path that they should follow. I suspect that there are a lot of prospective parents who would be prepared to adopt children, even at an older age, if there were better support at their initial contact with social services. The Government's measures on that will be greatly welcomed.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, emphasised the tremendous importance of the formative years, particularly the first year of life. That is when neurological connections are made. It is very beneficial if babies can be got into a stable relationship at that stage.
I have one brief question for the Minister. A number of couples who cannot adopt in the United Kingdom seek adoption outside the UK. Do the Government have any plans to improve the counselling, advice and regulation for such couples?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right that we need to think about how to increase the number of prospective adoptive parents. There is clearly a shortage at the moment. To reach our target we shall need to encourage more parents to come forward as adopters. The most effective way to do that will be by ensuring that the process is sympathetic, supportive and efficient. Many of the problems that we currently face with the shortage of adoptive parents stem from the number of hurdles that they have to go through, which can lead them to becoming discouraged and finding the process very off-putting. If we get that right, I am sure that we shall be able to attract more parents to adopt. That must be encouraged.
My noble friend may recall the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, which provides a statutory basis for the regulation of intercountry adoption to afford children living abroad the maximum protection from adoption trafficking. The Act created a framework of minimum standards to be applied by countries that have ratified, so that intercountry adoption takes place only when it is in the best interests of the child. A commencement order under the 1999 Act was made on 10th January 2000 and came into effect on 31st January 2000. It provides a much more effective regulatory system. The White Paper proposes no further structural changes to intercountry adoptions, but fairer, faster and more transparent new adoption standards will impact on adoption agencies that approve adopters for overseas adoptions.
844
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I. too, thank the Minister for the extremely important reform that is being put forward today. However, wish to take up the matter of the term "politically correct". That term is often used in the media—even in this House—to cover up the discussion of important issues. I know of no serious investigation that has been carried out into children who are brought up outside their culture, but we know of many children who have suffered enormously as a result of being brought up thus.
In the early days we used to ask: can a Protestant bring up a Roman Catholic child to be a Roman Catholic child? When we talk about political correctness and opening the way for white parents to adopt black children, I ask how we would feel if white children were adopted by Asian or Caribbean families in this country. As we are now saying that we shall not look at "politically correct issues"—I do not believe that we should use that term—I wonder what support will be given to parents who adopt outside their race, to ensure that the children are brought up in a manner that is fitting to their culture. A serious problem exists in relation to children who do not know who they are. They listen to comments and suffer as a result of sometimes unintentional racism within the home. We should consider how they feel about that.
One morning I was present in a church whose very good vicar had brought up a black child in his white family. That child hanged himself in the church on his 21st birthday and left a note that I would not dare to repeat in this House. It was a most painful experience. I should like the Government to consider what they are saying on this issue and how they respond to it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, one must distinguish between a number of cases where local authorities have made inappropriate decisions and arbitrary judgments about who is suitable to be an adoptive parent and who is not. I believe that the guidance which will come out of the national framework will enable a consistent approach to be taken.
However, I recognise that my noble friend has raised a particularly important point. Prospective adopters are asked to consider all aspects of their own background. I believe that it is right that they do so when deciding on the type of children whom they are prepared to adopt. That helps the adoption agency to match a child with a family which best meets the child's needs, including educational, cultural and medical needs and the need for contact with the birth family.
Social workers are advised that children's birth heritage and religious, cultural and linguistic background are all important factors to consider in finding them a new family. The best family for a child will often be one that best reflects the child's birth heritage. Councils should be proactive in monitoring their local population of looked-after children to enable them to recruit permanent carers who can meet the children's needs.

845
I also believe that the child's welfare is paramount. No child should be denied loving adoptive parents solely on the ground that the child and the parents do not share the same racial or cultural background. I also say to my noble friend that the support mechanisms that will be put in place, under which adoptive parents will be assessed, will provide a way in which some of the issues that she raised can be tackled.

Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [H.L.]
12.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill seeks to clarify two points arising out of the Access to Justice Act 1999 where it has become apparent that the powers taken are probably insufficient to maintain the current levels of legal assistance available to those involved in criminal investigations and proceedings.
First, there is a doubt that the interaction of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act allow for advice and assistance to take the form of advocacy in certain proceedings. Secondly, the Bill seeks to ensure that advice and assistance is available to those involved in criminal proceedings, rather than only to those involved in criminal investigations.
As your Lordships know, the provision of criminal legal aid is governed by the Legal Aid Act 1988. That Act makes it possible for those involved in criminal proceedings or investigations to receive advice and assistance, including limited representation at a court or in certain other hearings. That is known as "advice by way of representation" or, more commonly, as "ABWOR".
The Government always intended that that form of limited representation should continue to be available when the relevant provisions of the Access to Justice Act are brought into force on 2nd April this year. These provisions replace criminal legal aid with representation orders from the criminal defence service. The criminal defence service is to be administered by the Legal Services Commission, which is to replace the Legal Aid Board.
It was during the drafting of the detailed secondary legislation necessary to support the new criminal defence service scheme that my officials raised doubts as to whether the Access to Justice Act did all that was intended. As noble Lords will no doubt recall, the Access to Justice Bill, as it then was, was amended considerably in response to issues raised by both Members of Parliament and your Lordships. One inadvertent result of those amendments appears to be that the continued provision of limited representation will probably not be possible.
Therefore, this Bill clarifies the extent of the Legal Services Commission's duty to fund advice and assistance as part of the new criminal defence service
846
from April 2001. The limited form of representation for which the Bill provides will be known as "advocacy assistance".
I hope that it may be helpful if briefly I clear up any confusion that may have arisen between the terms "criminal defence service" and "salaried defence service". The criminal defence service is the name given to the service which provides all forms of publicly funded legal help for individuals who face a criminal investigation or prosecution. The vast majority of expenditure on the criminal defence service—in the region of £430 million per year—will be needed to pay independent solicitors and barristers who represent those accused of criminal offences.
The salaried defence service will be a tiny part of the criminal defence service. It will also be administered by the Legal Services Commission. The Government believe that a mixed service with some directly employed lawyers and some private practitioners will provide the best service to the public. The salaried defence service will be very small for the foreseeable future. We are planning to open only six offices during the pilot phase, compared to the 3,000 or more solicitors' firms which will have a contract with the Legal Services Commission for the provision of criminal defence services.
The Bill affects only the services which can be provided—it does not distinguish by whom—but, from what I have said, it follows that in the vast majority of cases advocacy assistance will be provided by private practitioners.
Advocacy assistance will form the basis of the court duty solicitor scheme. That scheme provides that, where an individual is remanded in custody or where there is a risk of imprisonment, a duty solicitor at court can give advice and representation at the first hearing. The benefits of the scheme are that vulnerable individuals are represented and, for the criminal justice system as a whole, delay will be avoided in cases where there is no time for the individual to apply for a full representation order.
Advocacy assistance will be available to a prisoner who appears before a parole board hearing or to an individual who faces imprisonment as a result of non-payment of a debt. In a letter generally supporting this Bill, the President of the Law Society, Mr Michael Napier, sought reassurance on one aspect—that is, on those who face imprisonment as a result of non-payment of a debt. I can say to the House—and I do so on Second Reading—that those who face such a sentence of imprisonment as a result of non-payment of a debt are dealt with by the provisions of this Bill.
The second point which the Bill addresses is to ensure that advice and assistance is available for those involved in criminal proceedings as well as in investigations. Section 13 of the Access to Justice Act currently refers only to investigations. It is arguable that once an individual appears in court. he is no longer under "investigation".

847
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a small but important Bill which clears up any doubt about whether the Legal Services Commission will have the power to fund advice and assistance as it was originally intended.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has spoken, as I understand it, to both the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, who have kindly indicated their support for the Bill and have agreed to facilitate a fairly smooth passage through this House. I am grateful to them and hope that your Lordships in general will agree that the Bill should have a smooth and speedy passage, reaching the statute book before the Access to Justice Act is brought into force in April next year.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bach.)
12.41 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am tempted to use the old judicial formula of saying "I concur", sitting down and saying nothing more. Indeed, I intend to be very brief indeed on this.
There is no doubt that the old ABWOR scheme was extremely useful. It provided a cheap and relatively informal but useful method of providing a limited degree of assistance in certain circumstances. It would, of course, be most unfortunate if it turned out that similar assistance by way of advocacy were not available under the Access to Justice Act. For that reason, I entirely support the aim of the Bill.
Again, I support entirely the idea that the category of those entitled, under Section 13 of the Act, should be widened to include a group of people who are the subject of criminal proceedings, other than "investigation".
The Minister referred to the salaried defender service. That is something which we opposed strongly during the debates on the Access to Justice Bill and we continue to oppose it in principle. Of course, it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this Bill and, therefore, I do not propose to take up the time of your Lordships' House in repeating our objection to the setting up of a system for public salaried defenders. Therefore, I am happy to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
12.43 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this Bill arises from the unintended consequences of the relationship between Sections 13 and 14 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, consequences which the Government readily acknowledge.
Under the Legal Aid Act 1988, the initial advice and assistance available to those facing criminal proceedings includes limited support in court. By contrast, it is unlikely, as the Minister has said already, that Section 13 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 will now allow the Legal Services Commission to fund advocacy services in situations such as making a bail application or representing an accused person who is at risk of being imprisoned.
848
In addition, help granted in accordance with Section 14 and Schedule 3 to the Act will no longer be available to individuals in the circumstances covered by the existing assistance by way of representation (ABWOR) arrangements which form the basis of the duty solicitor scheme.
In short, the Act fails to provide assistance in many of the areas in which it is presently available, thus derogating from existing individual rights. Moreover, the particular rights concerned are almost certainly protected by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights with which we were assured, at the time of its enactment, that the Act would conform.
I do not propose to embroider my observations on what the Government have readily acknowledged to be a clear breach of their human rights obligations. But it is important now to ensure that those regrettable and serious defects are rectified as soon as possible.
However, an error of that magnitude serves to amplify the Opposition's frequently expressed concerns about the quality of representation that the public will receive from the criminal defence service. Those are directed in particular to the proposals to establish a salaried criminal defence service. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, in the course of the debates on the Access to Justice Bill, his party opposed in principle a salaried criminal defence service. The Opposition did likewise.
During the passage of the Access to Justice Bill through your Lordships' House, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor envisaged a salaried service playing a role only where there was clear evidence that the private sector was unable to provide, in a particular location, services of an acceptable quality and quantity. Can your Lordships' House be reassured that that commitment will continue to be honoured?
Can your Lordships' House also be reassured that before establishing salaried defence lawyers in a particular location, a proper cost/benefit analysis will be undertaken so as to compare the merits of such an initiative with the alternatives available through the private practising profession?
Will the Minister further assure your Lordships' House that the Government have every intention of respecting the guarantee contained in Section 15(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 that no one can be compelled to be represented by a CDS salaried lawyer?
I hope that the Minister will go some way to restoring our confidence in the Government's handling of criminal defence matters by giving unequivocally positive responses to each of those questions.
12.48 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for their support for the Bill. It is an important Bill because it protects the rights of individuals involved in criminal proceedings to receive advice and assistance at the same level as is available now.

849
The background to this is that the Access to Justice Bill contained all the relevant clauses on advice and assistance but, as I said, the Bill underwent a large number of significant amendments during its passage through Parliament. It was while working out the detailed secondary legislation necessary that officials concluded that the most probable construction of the Act as it now stands omitted the power to provide advice and assistance in all the circumstances where that is presently available.
The fault was basically a technical one. While we did not spot it, it is right to say that nor did anyone else.
We know the concerns that have been expressed in this House about the setting up of a salaried defence service. We are confident that, in time, it will prove a success and that the fears for it expressed today, quite legitimately, by noble Lords will, in the end, come to nothing.
I repeat that it is not our intention to move to a full scale salaried defence scheme. Initially, we shall establish six offices to see how they work in the context of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. That is to be compared with the 3,300 independent firms currently in England and Wales.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for kindly giving way. The noble Lord mentioned the intention of the Government to establish a number of salaried criminal defence service offices in particular locations in England and Wales. Is he in a position at this stage to tell us whether in his opinion those will be locations where the provision of equivalent services by the private practising sector is inadequate?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to be able to give that information to the noble Lord. The commission has appointed a team of researchers headed by Professor Lee Bridges, director of the Legal Research Institute at the University of Warwick. The LSC is in the process of agreeing the research programme with Professor Bridges and his team and identifying the cities and towns in which to establish the first salaried defence service offices.
The commission is also in the process of recruiting professional lawyer heads for each salaried service. As I have stated, in our view the important role that the service will play will be very small compared to that which independent solicitors and barristers will continue to play in our criminal justice system.
We have had these debates before. Nothing has altered. It is incumbent upon the House to give the scheme a chance. Let us see how it works. If it does not work well, no doubt that will be seen pretty quickly. If it works well, perhaps there is a future for it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for giving way again. I think that he will have seen the direction of my previous question to him. The point is that before the locations are identified as sites which merit a salaried defence
850
service, the Government should undertake an exercise which identifies them as locations which require salaried defenders because of the scarcity of private practising lawyers.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am unable to tell the noble Lord that that will be the basis upon which we decide where the pilot schemes will be tried. I can say that a number will be in urban areas. As I understand it, there will also be at least one in a semi-rural or rural area in which concern has been expressed in the past over whether such a scheme would work well. I am unable to give the noble Lord the answer that he requires. However, he can be assured that we will be careful about where we set up the pilot schemes. We want them to have every chance of success. We certainly do not want them to compete unfairly with independent solicitors.
That is all I intend to say today about the salaried defence service. Perhaps I may say again that I am grateful for the attitude taken both inside and outside the House by both noble Lords who have spoken.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Regulatory Reform Bill [H.L.]
12.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill will provide a major tool for this and future governments to reform entire regulatory regimes and to tackle unnecessary, overlapping, over-complex and over-burdensome legislation. It builds on the acknowledged strengths of the deregulation order-making procedure, including the rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of proposed orders, and provides additional safeguards. It facilities reducing the burden of regulation.
The clauses in the Bill can be briefly described as follows. The first group, Clauses 1 to 3, contains the main regulatory reform order-making power. Clause 1 sets out the order-making power and the context within which it will operate. Clause 2 explains what is meant by "burden" and related terms, and Clause 3 sets out the tests that have to be met by proposed orders, and limits the level of penalties that can be imposed.
The second group of clauses is concerned with the mechanics of order making. Clause 4 provides that orders shall be made by affirmative resolution, and sets out the subordinate provisions order-making procedure. Clause 5 details the consultation process required for each proposed order, and Clause 6 details the information that the Minister must provide to Parliament when the proposed order is scrutinised. Clause 7 sets out the disclosure arrangements for representations made during consultation. Clause 8 details the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny of draft orders.

851
The third group, Clauses 9 to 11, makes provision for Ministers to make codes of practice in relation to enforcement matters, and the fourth and final group of clauses, Clauses 12 to 15, deals with supplementary matters.
The principles in the Bill received a great deal of close attention before being put to the House today. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of this House, and its sister committee in another place, each reported on the consultation exercise undertaken in March 1999 and then on the subsequent government response. They reported once informally and privately on an early draft of the Bill, and twice formally on the Bill's publication in draft as Command Paper 4713 in April 2000. The Lords committee reported on it again last month in its report on its work in the 1999–2000 Session, and in its commendably thorough report earlier this week to your Lordships on the three delegated powers that make up the Bill. It comes before your Lordships benefiting from that thorough and immensely helpful scrutiny.
Our Bill is evolutionary in approach, building on two propositions. I refer first to the deregulation order-making power in Sections 1 to 4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. That was described at the time by the committee now chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, as
"unprecedented in time of peace".
Experience has taught us the value of the new kind of amendable secondary legislation created by the 1994 Act.
Secondly, the Bill seeks to convert the little-used enforcement provisions in Section 5 of the 1994 Act into a reserve power for Ministers to make a code of enforcement practice. We are committed to securing continuous improvement in service delivery. In enforcement matters, we shall continue with a voluntary approach asking enforcers to sign up to our enforcement concordat. That seeks to promulgate best practice.
The reserve code-making power would be used if we encountered problems with the voluntary approach and saw the need for improvement; for example, in cases where there was a persistent and demonstrable failure of enforcement practice by enforcers.
As your Lordships will have spotted, the Bill is purely enabling, containing nothing more than two order-making powers. One of the powers, the proposed regulatory reform power, is wide in scope, and I know that this House will want to scrutinise the issues raised thoroughly.
Perhaps I may now set it in context. Regulation is important. Getting it right first time is important, as is ensuring that the benefits must justify the costs. But the ability to change legislation subsequently to reflect changes in the world around us is just as important. There is no easy answer. Our approach to regulatory reform has to be broadly based. We have appointed regulatory reform Ministers in each of the main regulatory departments to account for their department's regulatory activities. The Panel for Regulatory Accountability is pursuing vigorously its
852
remit of modernising the regulatory system, simplifying existing regulation and easing regulatory pressures on business and the public sector. We have set up the Small Business Service so that for the first time small businesses have a clear advocate inside government. We benefit from the ever-watchful eyes of the Better Regulation Task Force chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—I am particularly glad to see the noble Lord in his place today—and we are bringing forward this Bill.
Your Lordships may ask what is wrong with the current deregulatory order-making power. After all, the 1994 Act introduced the procedural innovation of the super-affirmative order-making process. It is well engineered, providing for robust scrutiny of the deregulation process.
There have been some notable successes. The Bills of Exchange Order (1996/2993) saved the banking industry tens of millions of pounds in costs by removing an unnecessary statutory requirement for the processing of cheques; and the check-off order (1998/129) removed the need for three-yearly reauthorisation of deduction of trade union subscriptions from pay, thereby reducing costs for business.
Although the process has worked well, limitations identified in the power mean that, with only 46 orders to date, it has been something of a disappointment in terms of the scale of the deregulation delivered. The peak year of activity was 1996 with 23 orders, tailing off ever since—but not because of lack of will; rather, the supply of simple statutory burdens on business that the 1994 Act was designed to remove is drying up. We can only fish for deregulation orders in the pool of pre—1994 legislation.
We want to do more and we need the right tools for the job. We intend preserving the strengths of the existing deregulation process. First, thorough and effective consultation will remain the gateway to the order-making process; secondly, the two Houses will be true co-equals in the scrutiny process—highly controversial or party-political measures will naturally remain more suited to debate on the Floor of the House; and, thirdly, the rigours of the scrutiny process will also be preserved and enhanced. Each proposed order must undergo an intense scrutiny. After consultation, it has to go before a committee in each House not once, but twice, with Ministers required to provide detailed explanatory material in justification.
But, for all its innovation, the deregulation order-making power has turned out to have considerable weaknesses. There are not many small and discrete burdens in statute that can be easily repealed; rather, the real burdens stem from outdated, overlapping and over-complex regulation. To tackle that, we need a wider—ranging reform power so that we can over-haul and reduce burdens on business. It is not only business that will benefit, but also individuals, the voluntary sector, charities and the wider public sector too.
The ability to remove burdens from the wider public sector should not be seen as a charter for the Government to abrogate their responsibilities. Neither

853
we nor the committees have found a satisfactory way to differentiate between proposals that would remove minor administrative burdens from government and those that would, for instance, remove a Minister's duty to provide essential public services. The Bill therefore provides that Ministers will not be able to remove burdens that fall solely on themselves or their departments. Somebody else would have to benefit too.
We should like to see a shift in gear. Until now the deregulation process has produced generally small, but significant, proposals. We should like to see this high quality scrutiny process used for more substantial items, such as reform of fire safety legislation currently spread over 120 Acts; or reform of weights and measures legislation. Those are the sorts of worthwhile reforms that are well overdue and may not otherwise see the light of day. The Prime Minister announced an initial tranche of 22 proposals that could be taken forward as regulatory reform orders. Today I am pleased to be able to tell the House that I have placed in the Libraries a list of a further 27 measures to illustrate the Bill, bringing the total to date to 49.
The Bill also removes the artificial limitation on reforming post—1994 legislation. But we have provided that the order-making power should apply only to legislation which is more than two years old. The two-year waiting period should address the possible temptation to resort immediately to corrective order-making if we cannot get our legislation right first time.
The Bill redefines "burden" to include any limit on the statutory powers of any person. This is an important change. We envisage that regulatory reform orders should be able to deal with circumstances where people do not have the legal authority to do perfectly sensible things. In line with our National Childcare Strategy, for example, we propose to enable school governing bodies to offer after-hours childcare, which at present they can do only if they provide education at the same time. This is something for which many schools have asked.
We want the Bill to bring about the sensible reform of regulatory regimes, and such rebalancing will often involve the redistribution of burdens. That cannot happen without the ability to make new provisions imposing a burden. But that is why any proposal to increase burdens will be subject to additional safeguards laid down in the Bill. First, the new burden must be proportionate to any benefits, considered in general terms, which are expected to result from its creation. This means that Ministers cannot impose new burdens without being able to show clearly that they are justified by the benefits.
Secondly, the order as a whole must strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected by the new burden. So, if a Minister were to seek to rebalance an entire regulatory regime, it is likely that a small number of people might be faced with increased burdens. But, under the Bill, the Minister has a duty to show that a fair balance is being
854
maintained; that the additional burden on a small number of people is justified by the greater public benefit of simplifying the entire regulatory regime.
In addition to those stringent tests that apply only where new burdens are proposed, the Bill requires all draft orders to be tested against two other safeguards. First, as was the case with deregulation orders under the 1994 Act, no order may reduce or remove any necessary protection. This was a key concept under the 1994 Act and has been seen to work well. Your Lordships have not hesitated to criticise proposals under that Act that they did not believe maintained this protection and in each case the government of the day amended their proposals to take account of your Lordships' views.
Secondly, no order may prevent anyone exercising an existing right or freedom which,
"they might reasonably expect to continue to exercise".
That is a familiar concept in terms of case law on the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, a proposal might be seeking to reduce the regulatory burdens on the retail trade, but one effect of that might be to reduce some consumer rights. The order could not legally proceed unless it could be shown that consumers had no reasonable expectation of continuing to enjoy those rights. In each case, the consultation process will explicitly seek views on the safeguards, and the scrutiny process in the committees will then examine the conclusions.
So we are proposing a broad power; it has to be, to enable us to achieve the sensible reforms I mentioned. But, as we have widened the power, so we have also toughened up the safeguards. I should add that those safeguards are real; they are on the face of the Bill and they are legally binding.
The Bill has been framed to respect the devolution settlement. It is fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I signed the Section 19 Human Rights Act statement as I consider that the proposed powers do not require anything to be done that is contrary to the Human Rights Act 1999.
I am particularly grateful to the two committees—the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and its sister committee in another place. They made a significant contribution to the Bill's development. I recognise, of course, that this Bill will entail a considerable increase in the workload of the scrutiny committees and I am sure that at some stage the House will consider the issue of resourcing.
In their recent report on the delegated powers in the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee raised the serious matter of an amendment to provide for a sunset provision including limiting the operation of the Act to a maximum period of five years, unless renewed by an affirmative instrument for a further period.
We carefully considered that proposal, but I must tell the House that we see serious difficulties with the "sunsetting" of the Act itself. We fear that it would stem the flow of orders, particularly towards the end of the period. Departments would be loath to commit

855
the considerable resources needed to begin the order-making process where they were unsure that the powers would be available to their Minister.
This is a Bill with very important consequences. I look forward to your Lordships' views not only on matters of detail but also following the report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on the important points of principle it raises.
In summary, the Bill will provide a valuable tool for this and future governments to tackle unnecessary, overlapping, over-complex and burdensome legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
1.10 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in rising to speak to the Bill, perhaps I may first thank the Minister for his introduction and pay tribute to the Select Committees of both Houses which have over a period of two years considered with care the Government's proposal to amend the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
First, I want to put down an important marker. We are committed to deregulation and supportive of all measures which effectively—and I use the word —effectively" with care—reduce both the cost and bureaucratic burden of red tape. To that end, we do not oppose the Bill in principle but there are a number of important issues which are of considerable concern arid which we shall want to debate in detail during later stages. Indeed, given that there are fewer than four days to Christmas, the fact that so many noble Lords are present today to speak in the debate indicates the importance that we all attach to the possible implications of the Bill.
We introduced the 1994 Act in the face of vehement opposition by the then Labour opposition which described it among other things as "monstrous" and "a constitutional outrage". That Act is clear in its intent. It enables what one might call "a one-way street" to facilitate deregulation; hence its name. What we have before us now is a proposal for a two-way street which will allow the imposition by orders of new burdens, new costs and new regulations; hence its name, "Regulatory Reform".
It is worth noting that there was considerable discussion at the outset of the consultative process on the Bill with regard to the sensibility of changing the name of the Select Committee in the House of Commons from "Deregulation Committee" to something more akin to "Better Regulation Committee". That is a clear indication of the Government's thinking. It certainly reflects the Government's action, given the enormous increase in regulations in the past three and a half years. Indeed, the British Chambers of Commerce have calculated the extra burdens on business of regulation as £10 billion during this Parliament. Those costly burdens are thanks in large part to this Government signing up to the Social Chapter as well as all those home-grown regulations attaching themselves, for example, to our
856
utilities. As a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal, entitled "Britain is regulating itself to death", states:
"The burden of regulation is one of the main criticisms of Labour's record in government",
and
"It is important to rip out whole rafts of the regulatory regime where such regulation is no longer necessary".
We say "Amen" to that!
That brings me to the real intent of the Bill. Are the Government sincere in their stated desire to deregulate or is this more regulation by another supposedly more expedient means? Should we agree to the widening of a power to allow Ministers to decide whether it is right to introduce new legislation by orders, by committee, in essence behind closed doors, by secondary means? It is one thing for secondary legislation to strike down burdens; it is another for secondary legislation to add burdens, especially financial ones.
There is a risk, notwithstanding the obligation to consult, together with the procedures expressed in the Bill, of a new Act being used for broader purposes than those for which it is presently said to be intended. The risk should, we believe, be considered in the context of a concern expressed on a number of occasions by members of both Select Committees and which relates to the role of Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, stated in evidence on 30th June 1998:
"The impediment to better regulation seems to me to be departmental. I am amazed how little control of the day-to-day running of government the Prime Minister and the centre have over departments. Departments are notoriously vertical in their approach towards regulation rather than horizontal. This is a weakness of the British system".
The unprecedented increase in the number of regulations since that was said in 1998 confirms that neither the Better Regulation Taskforce, the Government's Small Business Service nor even the right honourable Mo Mowlam's Star Chamber has yet succeeded in changing that culture. I believe that we must all keep that in mind during the passage of the Bill.
Furthermore, another factor which causes us real concern with regard to approving in principle the widening of the powers of the executive, and which relates to the proposed procedures for scrutinising draft orders, is the degree of oversight provided by the committee which rests on a "convention". It is a convention which dictates that if the committee rejected the proposal or requires it to be amended, appropriate steps would be taken to comply with the committee's wishes.
This Government have shown themselves almost proud of their willingness to dispense with conventions, and when pressed by the Select Committee the Minister appeared to hedge his bets. When asked what would be an appropriate matter for this so-called "streamlined" procedure, he could merely answer that he could not define such a matter but would know it when he saw it.
While one may have complete confidence in the judgment of the Minister, the same might not be said of others who follow in his footsteps. In short, any

857
guarantee based upon a convention is not much of a guarantee. Indeed, it would be quite easy to imagine situations where the truncated procedure could be invoked under a guise of its being "appropriate" for a particular matter and the convention would wither away, as have so many other conventions during this Parliament.
Turning to the Bill, I would like to raise some of the issues that we shall want to consider in detail at the Committee stage. The Bill, at Clause 1(1)(b), provides for the imposition of burdens. Therefore, in legislation directed to the reduction of burdens, there is immediate provision for the imposition of burdens which affect any person in the carrying on of an activity but is,
"proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its retention".
The key word "proportionate" has, as your Lordships will know, a quasi technical legal meaning, although it is far from precise. It means that an appropriate balance is struck between the interests of the individual and the public interest and that a particular burden is no greater than that which is judged necessary to achieve a particular object.
What is missing in the formulation in Clause 1(1)(c)(ii) is a primary requirement that the imposition of a burden should be necessary as well as proportionate. We believe that both conditions should be satisfied because it is possible for a burden to be proportionate but unnecessary.
In Clause 2, the word "burden" is interpreted imaginatively to embrace a restriction, requirement or condition, including one requiring the payment of fees or preventing the incurring of expenditure. That is a very different definition from that found in Section 1(5)(b) of the 1994 Act. That definition referred to a burden as one requiring the payment of fees and allowed the procedure set up in the Act to repeal such a requirement. This accords with the more conventional notion of a burden as an imposition, including one requiring the payment of fees.
By contrast, the definition in this Bill turns the conventional notion of "burden" on its head and defines the burden as something which prevents the charging of fees or of incurring expenditure. If one starts from the individual, this is better described as freedom from an imposition. If one starts from the view of the state, preventing a charge is obviously a fetter or burden on state power.
The marked difference of approach revealed in our language in 1994 and what is proposed in this Bill is a very eloquent way of noting the fundamental difference between promoting and preserving the rights of the individual, which is our focus, and extending state power, which is the Government's focus.
Yes, there may be many situations in which it is entirely right to levy a charge or to allow an expenditure where the existing law does not allow for that. It is quite another question to authorise such
858
charges using procedures which by their nature were designed speedily to eliminate the burden of regulation.
Moving on to Clause 3, we are not persuaded that the so-called limitations on order-making powers actually provides much of a limitation on the exercise of ministerial power. While we support the need to prevent the removal of any necessary protection, it is equally important to ensure that any new order does not impose any unnecessary protection, thereby adding to the burden of regulation. In essence we believe that the Minister must never lose sight of the fact that extra regulation must be necessary before making any assessment of how the regulatory burden is to be imposed.
We also have some concerns with regard to Clause 4 with the distinction between ordinary provisions, which require the protection of an affirmative resolution of each House, and something called a subordinate provision. The latter can go through on the nod without any consultation and be subject only to a negative resolution. What Ministers, and also their departments, might consider consequential, transitional or supplemental might actually be vital to those who may be more directly concerned with the proposal in hand.
That said, we would be more receptive to subsequent amendments to an existing order being treated in this way. At least there would already have been some consultation in relation to the principle and initial level of fees or requirements. The important point is that the so-called incidental details, when taken together, may tip the balance when considering issues of necessity and proportionality and it is right that the Minister should be informed by those most directly involved who are likely to be consulted as to the wisdom of the proposed action.
With regard to codes of practice, we are curious as to why, if a person is in breach of a particular provision, that person's position should be any different as a result of the failure of the enforcement officer to comply with the provision of any code of practice. If the basic regulation is too harsh or bites on too many irrelevant and incidental matters, the right solution is surely to amend the legislation. The fact that the enforcement officer may have taken zealous steps to enforce the law ought to be irrelevant. If the ccde contains the necessary procedural steps before liability can be established, those steps should be set out in the appropriate regulation. If the steps are not necessary, why should any court or tribunal take into account failure to abide by any code setting out such steps?
We believe that the whole process of deregulation can and should be further strengthened. To that end, we believe that there should be a requirement on the face of the Bill for a regulatory impact assessment to accompany any new regulations. Furthermore, we entirely agree with the House of Lords Select Committee in its suggestion of an additional potential safeguard in the form of a sunset provision which could limit the operation of the Act to a maximum

859
period of five years, unless renewed by an affirmative instrument for a further period. To that end, I would inform the Minister that we do not agree with him that this would create difficulties. We believe that the importance attached to the sunset clause would easily outweigh such potential difficulties. The provision should also, as suggested by the committee, require a report on the operation of the Act to be laid before Parliament at the same time as a draft affirmative renewal instrument, thereby ensuring that the Act is kept under frequent review and that the powers have been both appropriately and effectively used.
In conclusion, while we agree with the House of Lords Select Committee when it states that the potential gains are considerable, we are also very concerned to ensure that sufficient safeguards are put in place to avert any potential abuse of the power. We therefore give a very cautious welcome to the Bill, and look forward to careful consideration of the detail, including assurances from the Minister that we can rely on more than trust and constructive relationships before the Bill is passed.
1.24 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I should like to start very briefly by explaining my own position on this Bill. I am of course a member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The unanimous view of the committee was that this Bill raises important issues which need to be fully debated in your Lordships' House. However, the committee felt that it was inappropriate to express any collective view on the merits of the Bill and the committee agreed that because it did not take a collective view its members should be free to express their own individual views or, as in my own case, speak on behalf of their own parties in this debate. I would like to add that the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, asked me to express his regret that he is unable to be present today. He would very much have wished to take part in this debate.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 has undoubtedly proved useful. Annex A contains a list of 46 deregulation orders which have been confirmed since the 1994 Act came into force. Perhaps two more should be added to the list: the Sunday Dancing and Sunday Licensing orders are awaiting affirmation. It is hoped that one of them will receive affirmation today. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the number of orders has slowed down noticeably during the past couple of years.
Appendix C to the memorandum by the Cabinet Office, which is published as Annex 2 to the Second Report of the Delegated Powers Committee for the current Session, contains a list of proposals which the Government either intend to implement or say could be implemented under the new Bill. There are 10 on that list which they intend to bring forward and 14 which they say could be brought forward. I now understand from what the noble and learned Lord said that there is a further list which has been placed in the Library. Some of these could be implemented under
860
the 1994 Act; for example, the proposal to remove the remaining restrictions on the size of partnerships. However we accept that some desirable reforms would involve the shifting of burdens from one body to another or the creating of new burdens in place of old, and that this cannot be done under the existing Act.
We have no doubt that making deregulation easier is a desirable objective. We support the Bill in principle: my noble friend Lord Razzall made that clear during the debate on the gracious Speech. We have received briefings from several organisations who support the Bill, such as the Local Government Association, the CBI and the Law Society. We have received no briefings against it, so it obviously has wide support outside your Lordships. House. However, the Bill is of constitutional importance, as the committee said, and it needs to be looked at with great care.
The Bill gives greater powers to government to legislate by order rather than by statute. The orders are of course subject to parliamentary control. Indeed they are in a sense subject to greater control than a statute would be as the right of your Lordships' House to reject an order is absolute, as was established during the last Session, and is not subject to the Parliament Act. It will of course take up less time—perhaps one day of debate, whereas even a modest Bill might take three or four days.
It is often said that the principal weapon of an Opposition in facing a clear majority in the other place is its power to delay, and it could be said that the Bill, by giving greater power to legislate by order, reduces the power of the Opposition to carry out its constitutional duty of opposing. I do not myself accept that argument. This Bill should be used mainly for relatively minor and uncontroversial reforms which, if they cannot be done by order, will not be done at all because parliamentary time will not be found for them. I therefore do not believe that the Bill weakens the powers of the Opposition.
Here we are developing a new form of order, the super-affirmative order, which appeared for the first time in the 1994 Act. There is now something very similar in the form of remedial orders under Section 10 and Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act for the purpose of correcting incompatibility of primary legislation with that Act. We believe that a super-affirmative procedure is a good idea. It gives greater flexibility and creates a useful new tool for revising relatively uncontroversial primary legislation.
The procedure provided by Clauses 4 to 8 provides an opportunity for very wide consultation; for example, it enables the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee to take evidence in public from Ministers or interested parties, as the 1994 Act already provides. In some ways orders under the Bill will receive better scrutiny than many public Bills under present circumstances and, therefore, I have no complaints about the procedure in Clauses 4 to 8. I also have no complaints of any substance about the enforcement procedure which is dealt with in Clauses 9 to 11.

861
But there are some matters which will need to be considered very carefully at later stages of the Bill. As to that, we share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The first matter which concerns me is central to the nature of the powers which the Bill confers on the Government. Clause 1(1) sets out four objects for which an order may be made and each can be used independently of the others. Paragraph (a) is concerned with the removal or reduction of burdens; paragraph (b) deals with the re-enactment of provisions which impose burdens; and paragraph (d) is concerned with the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies. I see no objection to those provisions as they now stand.
However, paragraph (c) is objectionable. It provides that one of the objects of proceedings under this Bill is,
"the making of new provision having the effect of imposing a burden which—
(i) affects any person in the carrying on of the activity, but
(ii) is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its creation".
Taken by itself, that provision would enable an order to be made to increase burdens without any offsetting removal of other burdens. I can see that some such power is needed to enable existing burdens to be shifted from one body which is now subject to them to a more appropriate body, but I am unhappy with a free-standing power to impose new burdens. I believe that the thrust of the Bill should be deregulation. As the noble and learned Lord said in his introduction, the Bill is intended to facilitate a reduction in the burden of regulation. Therefore, we should consider whether the operation of Clause 1(1)(c) should be limited to circumstances in which it is necessary to create new burdens in order to remove or reduce other burdens.
The second matter is whether the references in Clause 3 to the Minister's opinion should be deleted. Clause 3(1), for example, provides that,
"An order under section 1 may be made only if the Minister making the order is of the opinion that the order does not
(a) remove any necessary protection, or
(b) prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise".
The question is whether the test should be the subjective opinion of the Minister or an objective, factual test. The important difference is that the Minister's opinion can be overruled only by the court on judicial review if it is irrational, but if it is a factual, objective test the court could substitute its own view on the footing that the Minister's view, though not irrational, was wrong. I noted that in opening the debate the noble and learned Lord spoke as if the requirements in Clause 3(1) were objective.
One factor in this is that in practice the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee expresses its own view as to whether, for example, a proposed order removes any necessary protection. If the Minister and the committee disagree it may be difficult to get any orders through. Clearly, that issue requires debate in Committee.
862
The third matter which has already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is whether, as the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee suggested—it did not make a recommendation—there should be a sunset clause together with provision for a review of the legislation on the face of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord said that he did not agree with that, but that is plainly an issue which needs to be debated in Committee.
I turn finally to the matter which causes me the greatest concern. It proved impossible during the consultation process to come up with a draft which would confer on the Minister powers only in appropriate circumstances. The committee accepted that that could not be done. It is of the greatest importance that there are effective safeguards to prevent an inappropriate use of the powers under the Bill. As matters now stand, I believe that safeguards do exist, especially in your Lordships' House where any government is unlikely to have a compliant majority. Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes and paragraph 3.13 of the Cabinet Office memorandum, to which I have already referred, refer to an undertaking that the Government will accept a decision of your Lordships' House to reject an order. I hope that in winding up the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will confirm that that undertaking still reflects the view of the Government.
The safeguard does not rest solely on that undertaking or convention but on the fact that, as clearly shown in the previous Session, in the last resort your Lordships' House has the power to veto an order which is not subject to the Parliament Act. In effect, it confers on your Lordships' House the power to say that it is inappropriate for a particular matter to be dealt with by order and if the Government want to get it through they must take it away and deal with it by way of primary legislation. The problem here is that it is generally believed that the Government are likely to seek to impose the proposals in the Wakeham report after the next general election. Recommendation 41 of that report reads:
"Where the second chamber votes against a draft instrument, the draft should nevertheless be deemed to be approved if the House of Commons subsequently gives … its approval within three months".
If that was implemented any vote by your Lordships' House to reject a statutory instrument, particularly any order under this Bill, could be overruled immediately by a vote in the other place. That would make the existing safeguards against inappropriate use of the power under the Bill almost valueless.
I quite understand that the Government cannot now make any statement about how far, if at all, the Wakeham recommendations will be implemented. However, can they give noble Lords any reassurance that the rights of your Lordships' House to veto the inappropriate use of powers under this Bill will be preserved whatever view they may take of the Wakeham report in general? If no such undertaking can be given, I have serious concerns that the

863
safeguards are inadequate. Those concerns may affect the extent to which we wish to press amendments to restrict the powers in the Bill.
1.39 p.m.
Lord Haskins: My Lords, in the light of three years at the coal face as chair of the Government's Better Regulation Task Force I believe it is helpful for me to comment on the purpose and value of the Bill. But before so doing, I should like to make four general observations about regulatory issues in a modern society.
First, increasing regulation somewhat contradictorily goes hand in hand with increasing affluence, a safer society and increased education. That curious paradox was also experienced by the founders of the National Health Service who thought that by making the nation healthier they would also save costs in providing that health service. Unfortunately, their success was undermined by the fact that we all started living too long.
Secondly, the pursuit of a risk-free society can lead to very bad counter-productive regulatory proposals. Thirdly, the culture of government bureaucracy, including a public accounts committee and a media which are intolerant of any regulatory failure—so different from the private sector—drives the system toward over-prescriptive gold-plated regulation. Fourthly, the parliamentary process itself can lead to excess of regulation which can prove wholly impractical when it is implemented. Recently this House approved an amendment restricting the use of extended dog leads in the countryside. It is an amendment which is unlikely to stand the test of time and, I suspect, will come to haunt some unfortunate law-enforcer in the future.
The Bill is a vital element in the Government's strategy for improving the quality and controlling the quantity of regulations. There are four strands to the Government's approach in this matter. The first is to test the need for regulatory intervention, which is done by extensive consultation with all interested parties. I am delighted that the Government have accepted our recommendation that that consultation should take a minimum of three months. The second strand is fully to evaluate the costs and benefits of any regulatory proposals. The third is to ensure that the regulation can be enforced effectively. If it cannot be—for example, the poll tax—do not regulate. Fourthly, in the case of an existing regulation, we should check whether it is still relevant.
The Government, with much encouragement from the task force, have put in place a number of checks and balances to make sure that these tests are rigorously pursued. First, the key departments have been asked to make one of their Ministers specifically responsible for the regulatory process in that department. Secondly, the regulatory impact unit in the Cabinet Office makes sure that the cost/benefit exercise is carried out on all significant regulatory proposals. That procedure is called the regulatory impact assessment.
864
Thirdly, the Better Regulation Task Force has established five principles of good regulation—transparency, proportionality, accountability, consistency and targeting—which are widely used to test new and existing regulation. The task force also publishes reports—eight this year—making recommendations to Ministers on how regulatory problems can be improved.
The strength of the task force lies in its independence and the credibility of its published reports. In its responses to our reports, the Government have accepted all but six of our 264 recommendations, although we shall be pressing to make sure that acceptance becomes commitment. The Prime Minister has been strongly supportive of the approach and work of the task force. He has also set up a regulatory reform panel, chaired by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The other members include the Chief Financial Secretary, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, the Chief of the Small Business Service David Irwin and myself. The panel calls Ministers to account for controversial regulatory proposals.
So far, so good. Departments and Ministers are now much more aware of the pitfalls of poor regulation, particularly with regard to costs and effectiveness. There can of course be a political aspect to the need for new regulation—for example, the Social Chapter or rail safety; although I would argue that a worthy political goal, such as greater entitlement to parental leave, must be tested in terms of cost and effectiveness.
However, that is still not enough. To achieve real change Parliament must have the capacity to amend, improve or get rid of outdated and over-complex legislation in a more expeditious way than currently prevails. The Bill will significantly improve that process without undermining Parliament's powers to scrutinise government initiatives.
Regulations on the statute books can be unsatisfactory for all kinds of reasons: they may have been introduced too hastily without giving enough thought to unintended consequences which then emerge in the light of experience; or they may have been drafted badly, confusing both enforcers and those being regulated. Rapid scientific and technological change can make regulations obsolete, even though at the time they seem to make perfect sense. The regulation of e-commerce where the speed of change is breathtaking is a striking example of that. Changing public perceptions can make regulations redundant, irrelevant and ineffective. The laws against Sunday trading were largely ignored and ultimately amended, requiring a considerable amount of somewhat irrelevant parliamentary discussion in the process.
The parliamentary process itself is a major obstruction to reforming and modernising defective existing regulation. Until 1994, regulations which had required primary or secondary legislation to get onto the statute book had to go through exactly the same process if they were to be reformed or repealed.

865
Most departments have in their locker an ambitious package of legislative proposals for which they are allocated a restricted amount of parliamentary time. They inevitably have to prune their ambitions and prioritise, and, understandably, but unfortunately, departments always prefer introducing new, and, to them, important legislation, as opposed to getting rid of irrelevant existing stuff.
The previous Government started to address this problem with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act of 1994 (the DCOA). That was a step in the right direction, but the powers under the Act have not often been used by the Government and Parliament.
The Bill is designed to increase Parliament's capacity to modernise the Government's regulatory framework in an efficient but, also, democratic way. Parliament rightly would be very suspicious of giving the Government too much power to amend or abandon existing legislation without proper scrutiny. Indeed, some have already suggested that the wide order-making powers of the Bill are anti-constitutional. But I do not agree. In addition to widening the powers of the DCOA, the Bill adds to the tests and safeguards governing their use. The new powers will be wide enough, but no wider than is required to deal with the regulatory reform which the Government wish to achieve.
All proposals for orders will have to undergo extensive public consultation. Following that, the Commons and Lords deregulation committees will simultaneously, but separately, consider the document for 60 days. It is estimated that the whole process should take nine months, not long in the legislative world, but not a procedure which unscrupulous Ministers can use to rush through radical change and bypass Parliament. Primary legislation could be enacted much more quickly than the Bill would allow.
The Bill strikes a proper balance between ensuring that proposals to modernise or withdraw existing regulation are properly discussed and tested by Parliament and its committees, and ensuring that essential and desirable reforms are carried out promptly, and without unnecessary and unreasonable bureaucratic obstructions.
Those are the technical aspects of the legislation. I want to move on to some examples of potential reforms under the Bill which would save time and money for ordinary citizens. Earlier this month I had a letter from a farmer pointing out that the British Wool Marketing Board was the last state-sponsored marketing board of its kind, and that he would be writing to the Office of Fair Trading asking for an investigation into how it handles its money. I thought it was a very good letter. MAFF has now suggested to the Cabinet Office that the wool board is an historic anachronism which could be scrapped under the Bill.
The Passport Agency has a database of all passport holders, but, at present, staff at the Department of Vehicle Licensing Authority are not allowed to use it to check the identity of people applying for driving licences. That means that anyone applying for a licence
866
must send their passport off to the DVLA in Cardiff for an identity check. This potential reform would allow DVLA to use the passport database and would save customers having to post off their passports with all the hassle and lack of security which that involves.
Over the past three years I have come across a number of existing or potential regulatory idiosyncrasies which might well benefit from being subjected to the powers of the Bill—the fact that a British loaf continues to exist, some absurd regulations about kneeling buses, and some potentially absurd regulations about the great British pint. However, the Bill is not just about removing obvious red-tape; one proposal is for the Department of Health to use the Bill to make much-needed changes to the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. Up to now payments have been made only to children who are 80 per cent disabled. The proposal now is to lower that point to 60 per cent. Parents would also be allowed to make a claim until the child is 21, an improvement on the current six-year limit. This admirable proposal could be introduced quickly and to the benefit of all under the new Bill.
In closing, I suggest that the Bill builds on the strengths and eradicates the weaknesses of the DCOA. The scope of that Act was restricted to dealing with legislation which had been enacted prior to 1994. This new Bill can be applied to any legislation which has been on the statute book for more than two years. Furthermore, whereas the present Act can address only regulations affecting business, the Bill will enable Parliament to tackle regulatory issues affecting citizens, charities and the public sector, in addition of course to business. I commend the Bill to the House.
1.51 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, whose commitment to better regulation is undoubted. Like many noble Lords, I welcome much of the Bill, but not all of it. When I was very young I had the good fortune in life to start a business from scratch—just me and one other—and build it up into a fairly substantial manufacturing public company. I could be described now, I suppose, as a "whizz-kid turned was-kid". But that gave me first-hand experience—something not everyone has had—of the application of regulation when it is done well and when it is done badly.
One of my criticisms of the Bill—the point was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—is that it abolishes Section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. That part of the Act attempted to introduce a fairer and better balance between the regulator and the regulatee at the point of application of regulations. In other words, it dealt with enforcement procedures. The Bill changes what are currently statutory enforcement procedures into a wishy-washy voluntary code called a concordat. That is a new animal to me.
The existing Act was rightly designed to prevent the over-zealous application of regulation. That does happen. All of us sometimes get out of the wrong side of the bed. That applies to regulators as well. All of us

867
find it difficult to admit that we are wrong. That also applies to regulators. I have seen examples of over-zealous regulation—the threatening of the closing of businesses—when the purported error on the part of the business was minimal and had been misjudged by the regulator.
To meet that problem the previous Bill brought forward some sensible procedural arrangements to try to achieve a better balance between the regulator and the regulatee at the point of application. It was designed to put right things that were going wrong and to ensure better regulation overall. It was designed to help to prevent the incorrect application of the law. A simple leaflet was issued to those organisations that had begun to adopt this procedure. It stated:
"You are entitled to fair and consistent enforcement action, clearly explained … The right, where it is suggested that you should do something, to receive on request a written explanation of what you need to do, by when and why (eg. scientific reasons or legal requirement)… The right, if any immediate enforcement action is taken against you, to an explanation in writing as to why this action was necessary … The right to have your point of view heard before action is taken against you, unless immediate action is needed … The right to know how to appeal if formal action is taken against you, wherever an appeal mechanism exists".
I find it difficult to see why any regulating officer could object to that. But the fact is that many do because it makes their job slightly harder, as it was meant to do. That very sensible statutory right of enforcement is now being substituted by a concordat which can be voluntarily adopted. So far it has been adopted by 75 per cent of the organisations, but not by the remaining 25 per cent of regulatory authorities. I should like the Minister to point out why it has not been more widely adopted. If it was designed to be voluntary, what are the problems that are preventing people from voluntarily adopting it?
It is true that the new concordat repeatedly uses the word "proportionality". That is at the heart of all good regulation. I welcome that emphasis in the new concordat but I do not welcome the fact that it is no longer statutory. In my view it will lead to many unfair applications of the law. In the subsequent debates in the Chamber on this matter I hope that the Minister will reconsider the nature of that concordat and certainly consider giving it more teeth with the overall aim of better and fairer regulation.
1.57 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, at the core of this important Bill there is an intriguing paradox. On the one hand, it is intended and supposed to alleviate, if not remove, the heavy hand of government or, in the words of the gracious Speech,
"to reduce regulatory burdens by removing inappropriate and overcomplex regulation".
On the other hand, and in order to achieve that objective, it proposes considerably to strengthen the hand of government and to give government unprecedented powers to legislate by order.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, also called the Bill a paradox— a curious paradox. He described it as if it was entirely inevitable. Currently, a certain amount of
868
scepticism is in place. It is striking—it remains striking despite the explanations offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—that very few deregulation orders have been made in the past few years. Indeed, in the first three years after the enactment of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, there were 37; in the past three years there have been nine. If we hold that against the fact, of which, as a member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, I am well aware, that there is a growing tendency for legislation to come before us which has enabling clauses for Ministers which in effect reduce the role of Parliament, a picture emerges which forces us in our role as a control and check on governmental power to be particularly attentive and to ensure that no mistakes which strengthen this double tendency are made in the future.
Having said that, I welcome the intention behind the Bill. The House should not be in doubt of my own support of the view that the deregulation element of the Bill is highly desirable. It is also only fair to recognise that there has been, if not unprecedented, then certainly highly desirable pre-legislative consultation on the Bill and on its effects. It appears that this will not be one of those Bills where we may expect dozens of government amendments in the process of our deliberations. I accept also that the "super-affirmative procedure" foreseen in the Bill provides important and, on the whole, satisfactory safeguards. However, it has to be said that some of the examples cited by the noble and learned Lord as candidates for deregulation are of quite major importance. The reference to fire services provisions in many places is both plausible and 'Indicative of the importance of possible action under the Bill once i t has been enacted.
I was also interested to see among the possible candidates for action under the Bill the reform of charity law, an area in which I am particularly interested. Indeed, there may be others. Some of the material sent to the committee from organisations such as the Law Society list matters of particular interest to particular groups. No doubt many others will submit such lists. In the light of that, and in the light of what I have referred to as the intriguing paradox at the core of the Bill, I believe that we have to be exceptionally attentive to the safeguards which we introduce for the operation of its provisions. Without wishing to repeat what others have said, I should like to emphasise two of those safeguards.
First, through the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, I think that the House will have to gear up towards a procedure of scrutiny which will impose new burdens on noble Lords. However, those burdens will be utterly necessary because they will concern our core functions. Some reference has been made to resources. The main resource which will be needed is time, but I am sure that your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will wish to spend the necessary time on the scrutiny of orders which emanate from this Bill. However, as a House we shall have to consider precisely how we shall

869
enable the committee to carry out its job properly and how the House will find the time to look at the recommendations made by the committee.
My second point refers to the "sunset clause". As my noble friend Lord Goodhart rightly pointed out, the committee did not intend to make a recommendation to the House, but it did want to put before the House the suggestion that there might have to be unusual further safeguards. I for one shall be interested to hear the views of other noble Lords on this issue.
My own view is that, contained in the suggestion put forward by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, there is one element which I would regard as a minimal requirement for additional safeguard. I refer to the second bullet point contained on page 7 of the committee's report which refers to the requirement that a report on the operation of the Act should be laid before Parliament in order to ensure that the Act is kept under frequent review. Perhaps I may suggest that, in theory at least, it should be possible to require such a report to be laid, even without a sunset clause in place. In that sense, we shall be able to discuss the various alternatives for further strengthening the necessary safeguards to ensure that the beneficial effects of the Bill come fully into play on those from whom burdens are removed, but that the right of, and necessity for, Parliament to control important acts of government is equally fully observed and satisfied. Having said that, I hope that, after thorough debate, this Bill will in due course reach the statute book.
2.5 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. I agree with most of what he said and wish to reinforce some of the points that he made.
The fact that we are debating the Bill on the day before a Recess, indeed on the last sitting day of this millennium—and doing so in a very cold Chamber—should not detract from the fact that it is a major constitutional Bill.
As we have already heard, there is a general welcome for the Bill in terms of what it is intended to achieve, or rather, for the purposes for which the Government state that it will be used; that is, to remove unnecessary regulations from the statute book. However, the means designed to achieve that end are profound in their constitutional implications. Contrary to what one or two noble Lords have suggested, this Bill is not a modest extension of the provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. It confers what the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has rightly described as an "unprecedentedly wide power". The Government have conceded that the scope of the Bill is broad. On that there is no dispute.
What we are called upon to do is to consider the relationship between means and ends. The position is
870
admirably summarised by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in its latest report on this measure:
"The potential gains are considerable—but so too, without stringent safeguards, would be the risks inherent in this unprecedentedly wide power. We consider the essential question for the House is whether the potential gains of effective regulatory reform can be achieved whilst providing sufficiently strong safeguards against potential abuse of the power".
That encapsulates the problem. The committee, like the deregulation committee in the other place, has done an excellent job in delineating the nature of the problem. It is for noble Lords to decide whether the costs outweigh the benefits.
There are two principal problems with the Bill as presently drafted. The first concerns the powers conferred by the Bill; the second concerns the safeguards against abuse of those powers. They are obviously related but, for reasons I shall explain, they may be considered separately.
As to the powers conferred by the Bill, they are excessive in two respects. They take the Bill way beyond being a deregulation Bill. Indeed, the Title is instructive—the Regulatory Reform Bill—not, as in 1994, a deregulation Bill. As identified by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the problem here is subsection (1)(c) of Clause 1. This confers a power to introduce an order to make a new provision imposing a burden. If Ministers were to ignore the other subsections of the clause—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, they are independent of one another—this has the potential to be an extended regulation Bill rather than a deregulation Bill. I realise that this power can be exercised only in relation to legislation which has the effect of imposing burdens. However, that is not much of a restraint.
Which brings me to the second component of the problem—that is, the definition of a burden. Under Clause 2 a burden is defined so broadly as to encompass most legislation. Most Acts create a restriction, requirement or condition, and even the definition offered under the clause is not exhaustive. We thus have a situation where a Minister may seek, by order, to impose or remove a burden—a burden that may be onerous and constitute a criminal offence.
The Government have made plain that the intention is to use the powers conferred by the Bill to get rid of regulations that are not controversial and do not impact, for example, on essential elements of our constitutional arrangements. The provisions of the Bill allow Ministers to go way beyond what they intend to do. The language of the Bill does not meet the intention.
The solution to the first element of the problem is to remove or considerably amend subsection (1)(c) of Clause 1. The solution to the second element is to bring the language into line with the limited intent. That, I appreciate, is a mammoth task. The Government have sought to find the language to limit the provisions to what they intend to do but have found it an impossible task. So, too, has the Delegated Powers and

871
Deregulation Committee. As the Committee explains in its second report of this Session—which is its latest report—on this Bill:
"The Committee has searched, over an extended period, for a way of limiting the order-making power contained in this Bill whilst at the same time enabling the substantial reform of the statute book which it would facilitate. Neither we nor the Government have found a satisfactory way of doing this".
It may be that it is an impossible task, but we must not let this Bill through simply on the basis that we believe it to be so. We must test the provisions, through amendments, to see if the powers can be limited to those which the Government claim they wish only to use. I have discussed this with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Since that discussion I have had one or two ideas for amendments, which may be brought forward to allow us to test it. That is the way forward. It may not be perfect and we may not meet hat particular task.
If we fail in that, then we have to look at the safeguards in the Bill. In other words, if we cannot limit the scope of the order-making power, then we have to ensure that the power is not abused. There are essentially three forms of safeguard identified in the Explanatory Notes—self-restraint by Ministers; statutory interpretation by the courts; and scrutiny and potential veto by Parliament.
Let me take those in reverse order. The scrutiny undertaken by both Houses of orders under the 1994 Act is far superior to any other scrutiny of secondary legislation. We can indeed learn a lot from it. The procedures adopted by your Lordships' House are especially rigorous. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, mentioned, in addition to two-stage scrutiny by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, there is the capacity to table an amendable motion. There is scope to strengthen aspects of our procedures, but in so far as there is a problem for your Lordships' House, it is not primarily in terms of procedures but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, have mentioned, it is in terms of resources. To scrutinise orders under the Bill may require a significant boost to the resources of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
As for the potential to veto an order, the ultimate power of each House, there is always the possibility of the Government employing their majority in the other place. As has been touched upon, that places a particular responsibility on this House as the body to prevent an abuse of power. It bolsters the case for the House as presently constituted and operating. This House is likely to prove a far greater deterrent to the abuse of the order-making power than is the other place. If this measure is to be properly policed it is essential to protect this House.
As for statutory interpretation by the courts, this is clearly an important safeguard. The formal safeguards written into the Bill are to be delineated by the courts. The safeguards, as such, are welcome, but it means that we are dependent on the courts at some point in the future to determine the line between what is proportionate and what is not, what is a fair balance
872
and what is a legitimate expectation. The courts may or may not take a view sympathetic to the Government's position. I prefer, as far as it is possible to do so, to circumscribe Ministers' powers clearly and precisely by statute rather than by giving too much discretion to judges. Nonetheless, I accept that this form of safeguard is worth having. Ministers can be challenged by the courts.
The other safeguard is that of self-restraint by Ministers. This is the weakest safeguard. The noble and learned Lord the Minister tends to proceed on the basis of seeing the good side of everyone, or at least the good side of Ministers and officials. We saw that in the Freedom of Information Act and we see it in this Bill. One has to legislate on the basis that not everyone is well-intentioned. Ministers may consult—indeed they are required by the Bill to do so—but that does not mean that they listen. Assurances given by Ministers today may not be honoured by Ministers tomorrow.
The most effective way of taking temptation out of Ministers' way is to restrict the scope of the Bill in terms of the definition of burdens. If we cannot do that (or indeed, even if we can), we need to subject remaining provisions of the Bill to a test of potential exploitation—in other words, to ask: is this provision open to exploitation by Ministers? I gave as an example—one that was picked up by the Commons Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—the provision for subordinate provision orders. There is the danger that important changes may be slipped in by this route and escape parliamentary deliberation—not even, as was suggested, just nodded through; they would not reach that stage. At a minimum. the orders should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We must look at other provisions with an equally critical eye.
I appreciate that the Minister will argue that, if there is an attempt to exploit the provisions, the other safeguards will kick in. That is not necessarily the case in respect of all provisions: subordinate provision orders could be used to circumvent the scrutiny afforded to other orders under the Bill. Hence the importance of the potential exploitation test. Furthermore, in practice, political realities mean that once Ministers have gone public with a proposal they may sometimes be reluctant to withdraw it and may persist in the face of informed opposition. This places particular pressure on this House to exercise the ultimate power of veto. It is far better to remove or limit the temptation in the first place.
For the reasons I have given, it is essential that we subject the Bill to the most rigorous scrutiny. The fundamental constitutional issues that it raises prompts me to conclude with a proposal as to how we might proceed in the future. It picks up and extends a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, but deals with it in a somewhat different way from those touched upon. Why not, in Bills that impose substantial burdens, make the burdens subject to sunset provisions, with renewal subject to scrutiny and recommended continuance by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—or committees, as I suspect

873
it may well become? That way of proceeding will obviate the problem at the heart of the Bill; namely, seeking to change primary legislation by order.
That, though, is for the future. Our immediate concern must be to get the Bill right. On that there is agreement between the two sides. It will require a major effort on the part of your Lordships during the remaining stages. That is, in large part, why we are here.
2.17 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, as someone who has been involved in regulation and its enforcement for many years, I start out rather more wary than your Lordships about a Bill which will make it more possible than it has been in the past to reduce and eliminate regulation. The regulations with which I was concerned as Director-General of Fair Trading covered a wide range of law enforcement to promote such desirable principles as adequate competition in industry, consumer safety, and trying to ensure that consumers were not misled or cheated. I believed then, as I do now, that the kind of law and regulations to which I have referred are vital in today's complex market-place in order to ensure that markets work properly and fairly.
So I start out with a positive attitude—which I did not detect, for example, in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I start with an assumption and belief that in this modern world many valuable things can arise from regulation. Of course, I realise that in some spheres, as the Minister made clear, regulation is unnecessary, over-elaborate, overlapping and confusing. So I certainly favour the principles in the Bill to get rid of over-burdensome, outdated and ineffective regulation and to improve on the legislation of the previous government in 1994. I recognise also the detrimental and adverse financial effect that over-detailed legislation and regulation can have on the endeavours of British management, especially the management of small businesses, in terms of simply keeping abreast of legislation and regulation, whether from Westminster or from Brussels. I have in mind small businesses in particular, because they clearly do not have the resources of larger businesses to keep abreast of such matters. I should just like to mention the word "compliance" in that respect. Compliance with the regulations that govern industry today is a job that requires the most tremendous amount of effort.
However, in so far as concerns are held by your Lordships about this Bill—I listened with especially great interest to the previous speaker the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—I am encouraged by the fact that this Bill does not deal merely with the simplistic matter of deregulation and getting rid of old regulations that we can cast on one side because they are of no value. Instead of being simplistic like the 1994 Act, this Bill has what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to as a "two-way street". But whereas the noble Baroness attacked it, I believe that
874
it provides a great advantage because it can deal with a whole raft of regulations that may in some way adversely affect industry and the community.
One does not just want to get shot of it all; one wants to bring it up to date, to replace it and to take advantage of the greater knowledge and experience that has arisen as a result of such regulations in order to reform it. It is most appropriate. The fact that this is not just a deregulation Bill is not a matter for disagreement and dislike: it is a regulatory reform Bill. With wider powers, which I value, it is appropriate that there should also be wider safeguards. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, reminded us—and, indeed, as has often been mentioned in other contexts in this House—we should all bear in mind that parliamentary procedures upon which both we and the other place have singularly failed to improve very much are really quite inappropriate for dealing with the mass of regulation that ought to be reformed. Therefore, to some extent it is faute de mieux, but it is also essential in this new millennium that there should be adequate procedures with appropriate safeguards, other than by way of primary legislation because that is clearly not enough.
I have one concern that I should like to flag up, so to speak, for the attention of the Minister. The Deregulation Committee in the other place expressed concern about the power in Clause 4(3) to make "specified provisions" of an order into "subordinate provisions". That subsection permits measures of regulatory reform to be designated as "subordinate", thereby enabling them to be subsequently amended without being subject to the very stringent and desirable provisions in Clauses 5 to 8 of the Bill. The Deregulation Committee in another place reported against the negative resolution procedure for subordinate provisions of an order.
I turn now to the other matters with which I should like to deal. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, is not now in his place. He is the only other speaker thus far today to concern himself with Section 5 of the 1994 Act. My concern arises in the following way. I wonder whether the use of the new powers will swing the balance too far against regulation and its enforcement. The noble and learned Lord mentioned Clause 3(1) in his opening speech. Much will turn on those words and how they are interpreted by him and his successors; and, indeed, by other Ministers. An order may be made only if the Minister believes that the order does not, "remove any necessary protection".
One aspect of the 1994 Act that seems to me to have been unsuccessful—judging by the fact that it was only ever used once—is Section 5. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, did not mention the complete failure of that section. It was intended to protect businesses against overzealous enforcement by regulators. For example, Ministers were given powers to require enforcers to give notice that they were minded to take enforcement action before actually doing so.
According to paragraph 17 of the present Bill's Explanatory Notes, at the end of 1996, when the Conservative government proposed to apply Section 5

875
to trading standards and other fields, trading standards officers of local authorities and others expressed concern that to require them to give that "minded to enforce" notice before actually taking enforcement notice could be readily manipulated by rogue traders.
The Bill proposes a voluntary agreement by enforcement officers to an enforcement concordat. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, described it as a wishy-washy approach: a concordat which, according to the Explanatory Notes, is to be drawn up by representatives of business, consumers and the enforcement community to ensure that business is given adequate warning of likely enforcement orders, that the enforcement is proportionate, and so on.
I hope that the Minister will assure me that the figure of 75 per cent referred to in the Explanatory Notes is not a round figure. Perhaps it has been increased since the Explanatory Notes were written. Seventy-five per cent of local authorities have signed up to the concordat. That is why the Government are taking only a reserve power in the Bill to set out a code of enforcement if the voluntary approach fails. I believe that a 75 per cent adoption of a concordat is not good enough, especially when one considers that one purpose is to ensure consistency of enforcement across the many local authorities in the country. If 25 per cent of local authorities through apathy, bloody-mindedness, or for whatever reason, have not signed up, it seems likely that the Government will have to use the reserve powers. We shall be back to the failure of the 1994 Act with a Section 5 which was largely unused.
This is my real concern. Clearly, every effort is being made to ensure the good behaviour of enforcement officers. I have nothing against that, whether it is done by concordat or statutory means. It represents best practice. Of course we want enforcement officers to behave. The Government's consumer White Paper—I somewhat unhappily remind them that it is 18 months old and that no such Bill was mentioned in the gracious Speech—states:
"Most businesses want to comply with their obligations and look to the authorities to assist them in doing so".
But the requirements being laid upon enforcement officers could enable—it was the worry in 1996—manipulative rogue traders to continue their misconduct for longer periods than otherwise to the detriment of consumers. The Government, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, are fond of the phrase "light touch regulation". Light touch and better regulation are apt for the great majority of., but not all, traders. In taking action against the miscreant minority, I do not want enforcers to be hobbled from taking necessary strong measures. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
2.29 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the aim of reducing regulatory burdens.
876
However, reading the Bill I was reminded of a line from Horace:
"The mountains laboured, and brought forth a ridiculous mouse".
We have waited a long time for a real deregulatory measure. What we have is a relatively insignificant Bill in terms of deregulation.
One of the biggest concerns of businesses today is the burdens placed on them by the Government. Those burdens increase every year—they do not abate, or even stand still. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, of which I am a council member, carries out annual surveys on the effects of burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises. Those surveys show that the costs go up year by year. In the latest survey, small businesses estimated that over the past year it cost them £8,600 to introduce new regulations. Even for micro-businesses—those with fewer than nine employees—the figure was £3,600. Across the economy, that amounts to many hundreds of millions of pounds just for one year of additional regulation for small businesses.
However, money is not the only issue. The real cost to the economy is in the effort that is diverted away from running successful businesses. Every hour spent on regulation is not spent on innovating new products and services, marketing or streamlining business processes.
The Small Business Research Trust has estimated that small businesses spend around 25 hours per month dealing with the processes forced on them by the Government. That is around three working days per month lost to the economy for wealth creation. Just think what could be achieved if that time could be liberated.
I had hoped to find in the Bill a genuine desire to reduce burdens on business, but it is far from clear that it will do so. The Bill allows burdens to be reduced, but places no obligation on the Government to initiate their removal. It does not even start to create an environment that will promote the removal of burdens. There is nothing in the Bill to require a Minister to initiate a reduction of regulatory burdens. The Government can continue to ignore representations made about the burdens imposed.
What about introducing an external impetus for the reduction of burdens? If the Government are serious about deregulation, perhaps the Bill should give powers to, say, the Better Regulation Task Force, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, or to the Small Business Service, to require Ministers to review regulatory burdens and then reduce them using the powers of this or another Bill, or to report to Parliament on why they have not done so. That would keep extra pressure on moving the burden of regulation in the right direction—downwards.
Several noble Lords have already referred to the provisions in the Bill to allow an increase in regulatory burdens. Any increase in regulatory burdens must be created in a direct way. The impact of regulatory

877
burdens is so important for the health of our economy that I hope that the Government will not seek to create a back-door method of harming British business.
If the Government pursue the ability to increase burdens, I hope that they will explain in detail how the assessment under Clause 3(2) is to be made. It requires the Minister to form an opinion that the proposed order strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of persons affected by the burdens—being created. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has already pointed out, that is a subjective test.
How is that fair balance to be judged? Let me take the example of the increasing use being made by the Government of the business sector as their unpaid tax collector and distributor of benefits. The Inland Revenue's research shows that it costs small businesses £279 per employee to administer PAYE, national insurance and statutory sick pay. That is before the significant increased costs of the working families' tax credit are taken into account.
The Government will doubtless say that it is in the public interest to collect tax and pay benefits at the least cost to the public purse, but how would the burden on those unpaid administrators of those systems be weighed in a fair balance? Would the indirect impact of diverting companies from their proper purpose of pursuing profitable business be placed on the scales? I hope that, when we consider the Bill in detail, the Government will be much more specific about the judgments of fair balance.
Clause 1 is designed to prevent legislation or orders being amended within two years. If there is to be a provision to increase regulatory burdens, I can understand why a two-year wait would be appropriate. However, if we are talking about reducing burdens, why should we wait a minute longer than is necessary? Surely a regulatory burden needs to be reduced as soon as it is apparent that it is too onerous. Who gains from waiting?
Clause 5 contains provisions about consultations, giving the Minister concerned very wide discretion. I am concerned that these are not effective enough. The Government's code of practice on consultation goes some way to improving matters. But would it not be safer if Clause 5 were to require Ministers to publicise widely that they are considering making an order which affects regulatory burdens?
The vast majority of regulatory burdens impact most severely on small and medium-sized entities. Even if the Government resist a wider publicity requirement in the Bill, I believe that they should think again about SMEs. Clause 5 is silent. Surely SMEs and their representative bodies should always be consulted in any consideration of the burden of regulation. As a minimum, the Government's own small firms service should also be consulted. I hope that the Government will consider reflecting on those points in the Bill.
I welcome the opportunity in the Bill to reduce regulatory burdens on business, and I look forward to discussing the details of the Bill in Committee. I hope that at that stage we shall have an opportunity to make
878
the Bill more effective in providing a more active approach to deregulation for the benefit of business. The Bill may remain a mouse in terms of its deregulatory impact, but I hope that it will not end up as a ridiculous one.
2.37 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, the Regulatory Reform Bill is welcomed by many people and institutions. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, mentioned the benefits that charities may hope to seek under the Bill. However, I want to concentrate particularly on business and especially on SMEs. This is a Christmas package to small businesses from the Government but, thankfully, not one wrapped up in red tape.
Previous governments said that they would do away with red tape. Noble Lords will recall that Mr Michael Heseltine was going to intervene before breakfast, lunch and dinner in order to light a bonfire of red tape regulations. As is so often the case with that particular gentleman, it rather turned out to be a bonfire of the vanities, as regulations increased and did not diminish under the previous administration.
The secret of this reform is the use of secondary legislation. The objection that has been raised that the Bill brings in certain constitutional issues should be considered. Nevertheless, I am satisfied, first, that the Bill has been introduced with the best purposes in mind. Secondly, I believe that sufficient safeguards are in place. I well recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that nothing could be removed from the face of the Bill which would be deemed to be a necessary protection and that existing rights or freedoms could not be revoked.
I also recall that at the time of the 1994 Act, referred to in the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was quoted in relation to that Act as stating that nothing would be done which might effect large and controversial measures. Therefore, I believe that safeguards are already in place.
However, it will have the effect of trying to overcome the problem of limited parliamentary time, where otherwise we might have used primary legislation to deal with matters which confront business, and small business in particular. So those who pursue the constitutional argument should also acknowledge the imperative need for reform of our own Parliament's rules and regulations. In our own case here in the House of Lords, too much is done in the Chamber and too little done in the off-the-Floor scrutiny committees. This Bill is a step in the direction of changing that particular procedure. I agree with some of the comments made earlier by my noble friend Lord Borrie about such reform.
I dispute also the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that what will happen is that more decisions are made behind closed doors. I believe that there will be an improvement in the forms of scrutiny which will make law-making more open.

879
Also curious is the fact that both Houses have a Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Why is that? Surely some rationalisation and concentration of great minds would be welcome in that regard.
The essential point is that small firms cannot for ever be waiting for Christmas. We need action now and this Bill supplies it. The Bill attacks red tape which can, from time to time, be simplified and rationalised. A very good example is given in the annual report of the Better Regulation Task Force chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. There he shows us, for example, the burden confronting small restaurants which need to be familiar with some 86 Acts of Parliaments before they ever serve up a dish. That is a veritable spaghetti junction of interleaving, interweaving and confusing legislation.
More examples are offered in the Bill's Explanatory Notes. However, I sound a word of caution. Example 22 refers to the removal of duplicatory requirements for the licensing of slaughterhouses for Acts which were relevant in 1974 and 1996. The good news is that £100,000 was thought to have been saved by that rationalisation. But those of us who recall the BSE tragedy know that the problem was compounded by the wrong kind of deregulation of abattoirs where the consumer was sacrificed to the farmers' lobby.
We need to find a happy balance between the needs and desires of business on the one hand and workers, consumers and those who want to support a good environment on the other. I reject the proposition from a Manchester law consultant's view of workers' rights which I found in some of the literature with which I was presented as background to this Bill where he made the declaration that a right for an employee is a burden for the employer. That is wrong. I support the Forum of Private Business's view of regulatory regimes: they need to be appropriate, consistent, simple, give guidance, demonstrate common sense and show understanding of the business environment. When those criteria apply, then the FPB says that such regulation,
"may well even provide a competitive advantage".
Incidentally, I praise the Forum of Private Business for the joint venture work that it has undertaken with the TUC; for example, in the HSE audit for small businesses or its current initiative, the "Comply as you Complete" campaign. Each of those initiatives demonstrates that sensible regulation can give added value.
We must ensure that the small business community does not confuse manifesto commitments of the Government, like the minimum wage, parental leave or working time directive, with the areas covered by this Bill—tidying up accumulated layers of law which, like congealed wax in the ears, have clogged up the smooth running of small businesses and sometimes made us deaf to their needs.
Compliance has been mentioned. Many of the laws governing business often impact on small and micro-businesses disproportionately, certainly in terms of compliance. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has already mentioned the ICA report which indicates that
880
there has been a 5 per cent increase in compliance costs. But when you look at micro-businesses with five people or fewer, there is a massive 112 per cent purported increase in those compliance costs. Something must be done about that. I recommend to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that she updates her Horace. In the computer age in which we live., a mouse is now an important business tool.
We do not want to throw out the baby of high standards for workers, consumers and the environment with the bath water of deregulation, and that need not happen. I believe that we should encourage the Government to consider tax breaks, for instance, for the smallest firms which are differentially affected in terms of costs and staff time in ensuring that their enterprises conform to the law of the land. Their task is harder than that of well-resourced big businesses.
Enforcement of the law is a pertinent issue for small firms. The Bill's proposal to permit Government to intervene with the enforcement authorities to ensure that such enforcement is neither disproportionate nor overbearing is welcome. A recent survey of the food sector by the Forum of Private Business reveals that three in five respondents felt that existing legislation represented a real threat to the viability of their businesses. That may well be an exaggeration, but perception is all. If you feel threatened, you may develop a bunker mentality, and the bunker is no place to do business.
I turn to the European dimension of the Bill. The Forum of Private Business rightly state that SMEs want to compete safely with large businesses and with their European neighbours in a safe and compliant environment. But the Bill makes no mention of Europe or the single European market with which those small businesses need to contend. It was, indeed, the Prime Minister's premier job for the next government as listed in his priorities in his Warsaw speech. There is no mention of the European Commission's SLIM programme, simplifying legislation in the internal market, which should run in parallel with and be complementary to the work we are doing here. There is no mention of gold plating; that frustration when legislation often emerges from Brussels in a slim and viable form and becomes encrusted in the process here. Some unpicking of that would be useful. I am sorry that it is not mentioned. We must stop being forgetful of the "E" word or Europe, or in time Europe will begin to forget us.
We also need to acknowledge that the whole process of framing laws on the Continent is different from ours. Unless we adjust, or at the very least intervene more assiduously in the law-making process in Brussels, we shall be condemned as letting down the home side, especially our small businesses. I have still not solved the riddle of the sands, whereby Britain is the most deregulated country in Europe, yet British business is much more vocal than its continental counterparts in complaining about red tape.
I turn to my sunset point. At the dawn of the Bill we are already talking of things crepuscular. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggests inserting a sunset

881
clause, but why? Markets are always changing. It is arguable that the most dynamic markets can never be completed because of their dynamism and change. Hence, why do we want to do away with a tool which will bring such help to British businesses at this early stage?
This is a good Bill which needs all the support it can get. I hope that before the end of the Parliament, the Bill will see the light of day.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall not follow the criticisms of existing legislative procedures made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, with his long experience of this matter, nor indeed his hyperbole. However, I am reminded that Horace said,
"I strive to be brief, and I become obscure".
There is a long list of speakers at Second Reading of a Bill of such scope. It is surprising that the usual channels agreed that it should be the last major business before the Christmas Recess.
My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth got it in one—make no mistake about it—this is a Bill of prime constitutional importance. It is not surprising that those stalwart watchdogs of ours—I cannot actually see them at the moment—from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee spent a great deal of time considering it. Despite its high strike rate, of which Michael Atherton to name but one would be proud, the Bill still leaves a lot to be desired.
I cannot think offhand of any recommendation that the committee has put forward that has not been accepted by the government of the day, more often than not without the need for the backing of your Lordships' House as a whole. It was therefore with some surprise that I noted the conclusion of its report on this Bill. It states:
"The main issue which the present draft Bill raises—the considerable widening of the power to legislate by order—is one for the House as a whole to decide".
In other words, it made no recommendation on the central theme, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will recall saying in relation to the major safeguard in the Bill—that of the burdens being proportionate—that it is like an elephant; we cannot describe it but we know it when we see it. It may, as he claimed, be an old saying, but, like many old wives' tales, it is untrue. I learned many years ago, in my time in Zambia, that from certain angles as night is falling, a small elephant with its trunk at rest can easily be confused with a rhinoceros.
That said, Christmas is almost upon us, so let us be charitable. Let us say that we can identify the noble and learned Lord's elephant. It is not being proportionate in my view that that is the elephant; it is the whole of the first four clauses of the Bill, especially Clause 1. You just have to look at it. It gives powers to reform legislation—unspecified legislation, so clearly that is either primary or secondary legislation—which
882
has the effect of imposing burdens affecting persons in the carrying on of any activity with a view, first, to their removal or reduction—that is basically what we have under the 1994 Act—and, secondly, to their re-enaction when they are proportionate to their retention. The obvious question there is: why bother? They are already on the statute book and in most cases can already be amended by order to take account of up-to-date circumstances.
Then we have the real elephant, the making of new provisions having the effect of imposing a burden not by primary legislation, but by affirmative instrument which in itself can subsequently be amended by negative instruments. I refer to subsections (3) to (7) of Clause 4. In the past I have dilated for far too long on the relationship between statutory instruments, whether the super-affirmative, the affirmative or the negative; it would be unkind to do so now. I have no doubt that I shall have plenty of opportunity during the subsequent stages of this Bill.
Lastly, Clause 1 refers to the removal of inconsistencies; anomalies which do not even have to be proportionate. Even if I understood, like at least one other noble Lord, what the word means in this context, why is not the great defence, which the noble and learned Lord sets such store by, included? Anyway, who is the arbiter of "proportionality"? The noble and learned Lord said it was legally binding. Is it the Select Committee of this House or of another place which will decide? Is it one or the other House of Parliament as a whole? If the new order gets through Parliament, is it justiciable? Will there be a defence upon which a judge, perhaps ultimately your Lordships in their judicial capacity, will have to decide? Who, in a word, is to identify the noble and learned Lord's elephant?
Even if the noble and learned Lord can answer those questions, the Select Committee states—mildly for the indignation I for one feel—that there are few limits to the power in Clause 1 to amend existing legislation and it goes much wider than the current deregulation power.
My noble friend Lady Buscome and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, mentioned that this Government have not used the present power very much. Indeed, I am informed that in the last Session of Parliament only one order was tabled, although ultimately it was split into two. Ironically, the last business today, before Royal Assent, is one. Is there really no more that can be done under the present Bill or, in relation to replacement, by the normal statutory order procedure?
To be fair, the Government have given examples of orders they would like to lay I refer to an order to simplify and rationalise the legislation governing fire safety, which we are told is enshrined in approximately 120 Acts of Parliament and a similar number of statutory instruments. Again, what is wrong with our normal procedure of a Consolidation Bill, with or without amendments, or a consolidating order? The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments receives them all the time.

883
I refer also to Example 4 on page 18 of the Explanatory Notes; that of allowing school governing bodies to provide "pure childcare", whatever that may mean! What is "impure" childcare? But let us pass that to one side. Currently, they would have to do that by primary legislation. I understand that there is no power in the Education Acts, with their endless amendments, to do it by order. Therefore, unless time for primary legislation is provided, it would not happen. I take the point, but I do not take the point that it is a suitable subject for an order, ever. Not only would it be new policy, it would impose an additional cost on the governors of the schools concerned.
What the Bill does is shift the burden of legislation from primary, with all the parliamentary time that takes, to the speedier process of an order-making power, ultimately enabling more legislation to be put on the statute book. Last night from the Library I obtained a list of the number of pages currently on the statute book and by how much it had increased in recent years. However, it would not be appropriate to read it out.
As regards sunset clauses, I have had the opportunity of representing Parliament at two Commonwealth conferences on statutory instruments where 1 have learnt of the growing acceptance across the Commonwealth of the widespread Australian use of them. I am sorry that the Government have turned their face to the wall on this. After all, neither the 1994 Act nor the present Bill allows the reform of recent Acts of Parliament. One of the best rationales of the Bill is that the 1994 Act is now out of date. A properly framed sunset clause would stop this Bill from suffering the same fate. The Government ought to welcome it with open arms, obviating as it does the need for another Bill in another five or six years' time.
Finally, the Government are relying on the protection of so-called "super-affirmative" procedure, with prior consultation on a draft and then referring it to your Lordships' deregulation Select Committee, the deregulation Select Committee of another place and the noble and learned Lord's elephant. I make no comment on the committee of another place—it would be invidious to do so—but with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon and his committee members, past and present, our Select Committee is already overburdened. At the very least, it would need a consolidation sub-committee to achieve the work it does now and the enormous volume of work which a subject such as the fire safety example in the Explanatory Notes would entail.
The noble and learned Lord may recognise an elephant when he sees one but I see an albatross!
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I rise to associate myself with the comments made by other noble Lords on the concerns for small and medium-sized enterprises. I speak today with a background of the regulations which brought many farmers and small country abattoirs to their knees. I read the Bill with them in mind and thought what it would do for them in terms of regulation.
884
For that reason, I turned to the principles of good regulation, referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, which his task force prepared. I found an excellent list of what we should be striving for and wondered whether those matters had been borne in mind in the drafting of the Bill. I want to make two points in order to illustrate that and to ask the Minister whether the draftsmen did in fact follow the principles when drafting the Bill.
There are two particular illustrations which I choose to take because of the interest in small businesses. The first is that where regulation disproportionately affects small businesses the state should consider supporting options for those who are disadvantaged. Clause 6 deals with what will be laid before Parliament when considering regulations and it refers to costs and benefits. However, no attempt is made there to define costs to large and to small businesses, and so the hidden costs to small businesses could be disguised by averaging out those costs. I think that is something that noble Lords may wish to consider as the Bill passes through the House.
The second issue is again on cost. One of the difficulties in the past has been that regulation has been brought in that applied to businesses, but resources have not been available to those agencies which are supposed to give support and advice on compliance Indeed, at a time, for example, when small food businesses such as restaurants and pubs were being hit with more and more regulations local authorities, who were supposed to advise and help them, were having their budgets cut. My question to the Minister is this: is he satisfied that the Bill as drafted follows all the principles of good regulation laid down by the excellent task force of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins?
3.1 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as we have heard, the statute book is a weighty tome and it is getting fuller by the minute. We have heard of the Bills that have been introduced during this Session. To take just one of them, the Private Security Industry Bill will bring 300,000 people under a new licensing regime. There are good reasons for looking at that particular industry, but we are seeing a very rapid rise in the amount of regulation.
Clearly, deregulation was at the core of the efforts by the last Conservative government to reduce burdens on industry, and it was a ground-breaking move to bring forward the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. That legislation has worked well although clearly there are limitations to the type of issue that could be addressed by it. Of course that Bill was, rightly, very tightly drawn. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, in introducing it to this House, said that Parliament was being asked to grant unprecedently wide powers and that there would have to be a leap of faith by Parliament to grant those powers. Against that was a very tightly-drawn piece of legislation with very tightly-drawn objectives to remove that burden. Even so, I clearly recall the response of what was then the

885
opposition Labour Party and of the description by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, of this measure as a constitutional outrage.
We see a measure being brought before Parliament now which is much wider in scope and objective than the relatively more modest Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. So I welcome the Labour Party to the table of deregulation. Clearly this is a very important Bill which has wide-ranging constitutional implications. This House, in particular, should give it extremely close scrutiny. We have heard powerful arguments from my noble friend, Lord Norton, among others about particular areas of concern. I would not follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, of, if I might say so, impatience over the time which scrutiny takes in your Lordships' House. The reason why we take time to debate issues on the Floor of the House is that we believe this House has a clear duty to scrutinise measures closely. The House has a powerful reputation in that particular field and I, for one, would not wish to see that role diminished.
The importance of the Bill has been underlined by the report of the work of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, to whom the House is in considerable debt.
Before we consider the detail of the Bill we should look at the Government's record on regulation and their attitude to Parliament. In this Bill the Government place great reliance on the super-affirmative procedure, which in turn means that they must accept decisions of your Lordships' House. I believe that events of the past month show that the Government are far from prepared to accept those decisions. I am glad that this Bill was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. He was associated with a number of measures on which your Lordships' House took strong views that were overruled. No better illustration of the attitude of the Government to Parliament, in particular this House, is the reintroduction of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, the arguments against which were so ably put by the Attorney-General before he entered government.
A great deal of regulation has been brought forward by the Government—for example, the Working Time Directive, the working families' tax credit strategy, trade union recognition and many more—where there is compelling evidence from reputable bodies, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants, about the great increase in financial burdens, particularly on small and medium size enterprises in ensuring that member firms comply with it. The background is a great increase in regulation and perhaps the cavalier treatment of Parliament. Therefore, we must be careful that we do not endorse what may be described as a smokescreen to give the Government some credentials in the field of deregulation while with the other hand they impose a greatly increased burden of regulation.
The main safeguards against the considerable powers which the Government invite Parliament to give them fall under the following categories: first,
886
parliamentary procedures, particularly those of your Lordships' House; secondly, criteria written onto the face of the Bill under which such measures can be taken forward; and, thirdly, the potential for challenge in the courts. Emphasis has been placed on assurances given by Ministers. While we accept those assurances, they are merely statements of intent by present government Ministers. I do not believe that we should legislate on the basis of promises.
My noble friend Lord Norton indicated areas in which greater safeguards could be written onto the face of the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee felt that considerable safeguards would be required not only in relation to promises by Ministers but amendments to the Bill. Many of the assurances are open to interpretation. We understand that the noble and learned Lord is minded to give assurances during consideration of the Bill, perhaps in Committee, that the legislation would not be used for constitutional measures. We accept that. However, there is a question of definition. What is a constitutional measure? The House will recall that during the passage of the Disqualifications Bill the noble and learned Lord described it as a very minor measure to fill a lacuna in legislation. Almost every other speaker who contributed to the debate took a contrary view and regarded it as a major amendment to our constitution. It is by no means clear——I believe that the Minister himself demonstrated it—that there is unanimity as to what is and what is not a constitutional measure.
We are asked to give the executive considerable new powers. We are not asked just to give it these new powers in the context of deregulation, because we know from the breadth of the Bill that at the same time regulation can be brought forward with no direct link to a deregulation measure. Perhaps in Committee there may be scope to explore whether such a link should exist.
This is an important Bill. We have heard some powerful speeches today as to why this House should give it very particular scrutiny. I look forward to the later stages of the Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I served on the first deregulation task force which looked into the legislation covering charities in the voluntary sector. I know how useful the 1994 Act was and is. Like other noble Lords, in the broadest of principles I welcome the Bill.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made clear, the Bill is about giving governments the power by secondary legislation to impose new burdens on society and organisations within it. The Government have readily accepted that to do so by secondary means is novel and potentially dangerous. I agree with noble Lords who urged the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to look at the issue of the potential of abuse wholly outside his own skin, so to speak, because we all know what a loveable and decent chap he is.

887
We can think of other elephants, perhaps not even elephants but rhinoceroses, of other persuasions and ilks. Like the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, I accept absolutely that the potential for ill here would be formidable unless we ensure that the safeguards against the new powers are adequate.
I should like to look at a few issues concerning that matter. The first is a rather dry matter in the Bill. Clause 1 sets out the objects of the Bill and some preconditions which must be satisfied before new burdens can be imposed. I refer particularly to Clause 1(1)(c)(ii) which states that no new burden can be imposed unless it,
"is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its creation".
We then turn to Clause 3 subsections (1) and (2) and find further preconditions for the imposition of new burdens. Noble Lords have spoken about the language, but I am particularly keen to understand what difference there is between the test in Clause 1(1), that is proportionality, and the test in Clause 3(2) which says that there should be no new burden unless, taking the new provision as a whole, they,
"strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected".
It is particularly important that the drafting of this piece of legislation is as crystal-clear as possible. Perhaps we should come back to those two vital provisions; and I wonder whether they would be better put in one clause rather than separated?
I should like to turn to consultation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said in opening the debate that the Bill provided for "thorough and effective consultation". It does not. In the Explanatory Notes it says that the Bill provides for thorough public scrutiny. On the face of the Bill one cannot say that. There is no consultation period provided, although there is the 60-day period before the matter enters Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord made those remarks in reliance upon the fact that the Government are developing a code of practice on written consultation generally. That code has reached an advanced stage. No doubt the Government intend to put it into a final form and will tell us that we can rely on it. Well, we cannot. It is of persuasive and not legally binding effect. I strongly believe that if we are proposing to allow secondary legislation to create new burdens for citizens the issue of prior consultation should be anchored in some minimum period of consultation in order for any new burden to be imposed. If we told that that is not possible because of the exigencies of government in this age, we should at least insist that Clause 6(2)(j), which specifies the document that must be laid before Parliament when consultation starts with the two committees, spells out what consultation must have occurred and requires the Government to specify any variation from their own code of consultation.
I turn now to the criminal penalties that can be imposed under the Bill. This issue has not so far been mentioned. I am not at all happy with the way things
888
are left. Clause 3(3) provides that an order under Clause 1 can create a new criminal offence provided it is not punishable on indictment with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. That provision exactly mirrors a provision in the 1994 Act and so the Government may be reassured that nothing new is happening. But that is not the case. The 1994 Act allowed the creation of new regulatory burdens only where they were "less onerous" than the existing burdens. The provision in that Act limiting criminal powers in the course of imposing these new but lesser burdens is in a wholly different context. In this Bill are talking about new and more onerous burdens. I am extremely unhappy about the thought that one could create an entirely new criminal offence in respect of an entirely new and unforeseen regulatory burden. We shall need to return to that point.
Finally, I should like to be a little more sanguine than many noble Lords appear to be about the satisfactory nature or otherwise of our present arrangements. First, I am struck by the fact that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee can consider only technical issues vis-à-vis delegation and deregulation. It cannot look at the underlying policy of substantial issue. That is not within its remit. That is precisely where we as a House, as a revising Chamber and as a watchdog should be at our most vigilant.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the capacity of this House to turn back a statutory instrument put before it. Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes states that,
"in the event of a motion hostile to a draft regulation order being agreed to by the House, the motion for the draft order would not be moved".
There is also the right, which has never been used, of an individual Peer to put a parallel Motion before the House which, if passed, would have the effect of torpedoing the whole statutory instrument. When he was cross-examined by the committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that it was clearly the "strongest ultimate safeguard". I am totally unimpressed by what the noble and learned Lord called the "strongest ultimate safeguard".
We all know that the way in which such statutory instruments are dealt with almost ensures that one could never muster sufficient votes to defeat the Government. They are often tabled on a Friday to a thin House. Scrutiny of the substance of draft statutory instruments does not fall within the remit of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I think that it is a blunderbuss remedy which has not been used precisely for that reason. As I have said, I am not happy about the safeguards currently available under the Bill for future impositions.
I wonder whether it would be possible to contemplate conferring on this House the power to amend a draft statutory instrument. At present, we have only an all-or-nothing blunderbuss remedy. However, that power is given in around 10 pieces of legislation: the Local Government Act 1933, the Emergency Powers Act 1920 and the Burma Act 1947. Those Acts are not modern; practically all of the relevant legislation was enacted before the last war. Nevertheless, I see no reason why we should not

889
contemplate introducing a provision in the Bill to allow a Motion which would amend a draft statutory instrument, thus allowing the House to vote on the amended resolution as a whole. That would be more constructive and would stand a far better prospect of appealing to both sides of the House. I put that suggestion to noble Lords as a point to which we should perhaps return during later consideration of the Bill.
Subject to those remarks, like other noble Lords, I hope that the Bill will eventually emerge in a form that we shall all be able to support.
3.21 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I sense that my popularity with noble Lords will be in inverse proportion to the length of my speech. I shall endeavour to oblige.
Once again, we are indebted to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation for the high quality of its work and the subsequent report. We have become accustomed to expect such high standards from the committee. The Bill is to be welcomed in many ways as easing the path of deregulation. However, I must echo the points made by my noble friends Lady Buscombe and Lady Noakes. This Government have spent the last three years wrapping more red tape round businesses and not, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, in a Christmas spirit. Last year, the Labour Government introduced over 3,400 regulations, the highest number on record. The Institute of Directors has estimated that, since coming into office, Labour has imposed an extra —2 billion a year on business. The Bill is effectively a housekeeper to help to keep the legislative home clean. Its effectiveness must not be compromised by a flood of unwelcome intruders entering the home in the form of new regulations, of which there is a regrettably increasing stream.
Perhaps I may cite one particular case where I feel that an improvement has been made over the 1994 Act. Under Section 3 of that Act, before making an order, the Minister is required to consult with parties likely to be affected by the order and other interested parties whom the Minister considers appropriate. This section will be replaced by Clause 3 of the new Bill which requires the Minister to be satisfied that the order does not,
"(a) remove any necessary protection. or
(b) prevent any person from exercising any right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise".
During the course of the 1994 Bill, I, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, spoke of the concerns expressed by Westminster City Council as regards damage to the environment and services which it expected as a result of the wholesale repeal of the Shops Act and the consequent removal of restrictions on late night shopping. We thought that we had made an eloquent case, but we were unsuccessful in preventing the Shops Act from being repealed in full.
890
I feel that the additional safeguards offered by Clause 3 of this Bill give much greater protection to those potentially adversely affected by any order. However, I have some misgivings about subjectivity, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Noakes; namely, the subjectivity of the proportionality test under Clause 3(3).
Turning to Clauses 9 and 10, the codes of practice were treated with a certain scepticism by my noble friend Lord Vinson but with more eloquent enthusiasm by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. These codes of practice have a certain attraction to Ministers as they require minimum consultation with relevant bodies and give a very wide measure of discretion to enforcement officers. Clause 9(2) could, for instance, be interpreted as giving legislative approval to the turning of a blind eye. While I note that these codes of practice are subject to negative procedures, I should like an assurance from the Minister that the code of practice route will not be used in substantially by-passing more effective scrutiny.
There was considerable misgiving at the time of the 1994 Bill that the then government's proposal would cut out the ability of parliamentarians to go through legislation, line by line, to make Ministers justify their actions, a role to which this House is admirably suited and which it performs, if I may suggest, to great effect. The Committee, in all fairness, stated that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee procedures have worked well and that parliamentary scrutiny, far from being inhibited, has been enhanced.
However, we read in paragraph 51 of the Select Committee's report that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, as it was then called, drew attention to the powers conferred on Ministers by Part I, Chapter I of that Bill, describing them as "unprecedented in time of peace". I think your Lordships will agree that since the inception of that Act these powers have not been abused, thanks in no small part to the diligence of the Select Committee. It is however the view of that Committee that,
"that power pales into insignificance when compared with the powers which are proposed to be taken by the draft Regulatory Reform Bill".
I am pleased to note that a number of safeguards and undertakings have been given by the Government. I shall particularly await the reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the Government intend to accept any rejection of an order. On the subject of the Wakeham Commission's proposal that a decision by this House can be reversed in another place I am less sanguine. It will, however, be our duty during the course of this very significant Bill to satisfy ourselves that these safeguards are adequate.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: My Lords, in 1993, I was asked to be an adviser to the President of the Board of Trade on the subject of deregulation. It was my responsibility to co-ordinate the deregulation

891
initiative and to set up task forces. It is in that capacity that I want, very briefly, to make a few points relevant to good regulation as well as to deregulation.
Seven task forces were set up, spread across industry and commerce, plus one other, set up a little later, on the subject of charity. After a year, we came up with 605 recommendations—recommendations not to deregulate but to improve regulation. In some cases it was a question of repeal and in other cases it was a question of simplification, which made it easier to follow the regulation and easier to oversee it. Of those 605 recommendations, all but 76 were accepted by the government of the time.
In addition to those recommendations, the task force as a whole set out three very simple principles: first, to make sure that, when framing a new regulation, you start out by measuring the impact of that regulation on small firms; secondly, that we should always avoid regulations that are out of proportion to the benefits to be obtained; and, thirdly, that regulations should be goal-based rather than over-prescriptive. Those who came as outsiders, as it were, were very impressed by the terrific political pressure for more regulation at all times. Ministers were always, of course, pleased to claim that they were "entirely behind deregulation and a reduction in regulations, but that in their department they had a particular problem which would require—and so on".
As I worked through the details, I was very aware of what might be called the political knee-jerk: that something must be done, that I must be seen, as a Minister, to be doing something. What can a Minister do, other than invent a new, ingenious regulation? And the quicker it is brought to the attention of the public the better, in order that the Minister can be seen to be the hero of the hour. As a businessman, I was aware over many years of the inefficiency of some regulations, of the need for many regulations, of the importance of their being easy to follow and easy to monitor.
What, during my year, was set up as a task force to keep up the momentum of deregulation came to an end with the change of government, and the very good title of "better regulation" was invented for what had formerly been "deregulation". So far as I was concerned, better regulation also included deregulation, but I was pleased to welcome the continuation of the task force with its broad brief.
I was even more pleased to note—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is not present to hear what I say—and to praise much of what the noble Lord's commission has done. It has adopted principles very similar to those that applied when I was concerned with deregulation. Usually the wording is different; however, I noted in the commission's last annual report that the wording was exactly the same in one important case: namely, the three words, "Think small first". For heavens sake, it is essential for us to think all the time of the effect on small business. Those of us in large businesses know perfectly well that the health and strength of an economy depends more than anything else on the health and strength of small
892
businesses, and on the ease with which they are created and the difficulties that can occur for a new business through foolish and badly drafted regulation.
Having had the experience at that time of welcoming many of the actions, policies and principles that are espoused by the present Better Regulation Task Force, I am conscious that it does not seem to have the clout that we had. We, after all, produced 605 recommendations in a year. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, told us earlier that he had proposed 264 in three years. I think we can concur that there was greater productivity in my case!
Perhaps I may make three suggestions that are relative to assessing the wisdom or otherwise of new regulation and the relevance and value of existing regulation. Looking at the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I say that because I favour deregulation, because I worked hard at it for a year, does not mean that I do not, as a businessman, recognise much of what he said about the importance to all business of sensible regulations. But experience tells me that there is a need today for a serious effort at risk analysis when it affects regulation. Before assessing the need for and importance of a new regulation, we want to have a clever, professionally refined discipline, with a credible intellectual rigour in terms of risk analysis.
Such information regarding the degree of risk that the regulation proposed is intended to alleviate should be published and be available for all to see. Moreover, before that risk analysis is made, government should consult in detail those who know most about the subject; that is to say, those who are most concerned. They should then publish that risk analysis so that others can see why it is in the public interest that a certain regulation be changed or a new one introduced. Transparency is another factor and one which the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, used in his annual report on better regulation. Transparency of risk analysis would make the importance of the new regulation easier to understand and to measure.
Compliance costs are also important. That has been included and I believe that it is now referred to as, "administrative cost compliance". When establishing good regulations, it is vital to include the cost of compliance. Before assessing the compliance cost, detailed consultation should take place. When dealing with Whitehall departments, I found that, very often, they had very little understanding of the real impact and consequence of what seemed on the surface to be perfectly reasonable regulations. So consultation must take place before the compliance cost is calculated.
I was also aware of the skill of officials to minimise the compliance cost whenever it was a matter about which they were particularly keen. Therefore, I suggest that there should, again, be transparency. Detail should be available for those concerned to see how the compliance cost was assessed and what principles were adopted. Thereafter, I believe that details of the compliance cost should be published before the regulation is finalised. Further, I believe that there should be independent verification of compliance cost assessments, together with an annual audit that could

893
go back on previous compliance costs to say whether certain aspects were either overstated or understated, and so on. We shall be living with new regulations for ever, so let us become good at understanding their impact. Let us have independent, professional audits of the methods used to assess compliance.
There is a case for undertaking a wholesale review of the spectrum of regulations, say, every five years— something along the lines of the 1993 initiative. This should involve perhaps as many as 10 task forces, coordinated by the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, so that much greater consultation can take place across the whole spectrum. In our day, we had 70 businessmen from small and large businesses. If the Government are really interested in having regulations that are needed and easy to follow, as well as being easy to oversee, a review every five or seven years would bring benefit to the economy as a whole because such regulations are bound to get out of date. Indeed, to use a popular word of the Government, it would be possible to modernise the regulatory regime every five or seven years.
Although I welcome the Bill in principle to the extent that it improves and deregulates, I question whether there is the necessary political will to lighten the burden on business imposed by over-regulation. I also question whether there is the ability to restrain EU directives, which increase that burden still further. Most of all, I welcome the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, that the Prime Minister takes a personal interest in deregulation. From my experience of the previous government—I am sure that this is true of any government—I know that deregulation, or better regulation, will never work significantly unless the Prime Minister is 100 per cent behind it and curtailing the Ministers' natural desire to introduce more new regulations.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will all agree that it has been an outstanding debate. It has underlined in particular, that most important characteristic of your Lordships' House: that a substantial number of noble Lords are Members of your Lordships' House in addition to what they normally do. That factor has been underlined today in the contributions made. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will have taken note of everything said by those bringing their experience to the subject in hand.
Perhaps most surprising was the reaction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to the suggestion that the Bill might benefit from a sunset clause. "Oh, no", he said. The consequence of a sunset clause would mean that officials would be reluctant to bring forward measures because they would fear suffocation at the end of the five years. What a vote of no confidence in the Bill! Surely the noble and learned Lord should have said, "How wonderful". Every five years the Government would have the chance to explain to the nation the terrific success of the Bill and
894
how much deregulating legislation had been passed. It would have been a splendid opportunity to advertise the success of the Bill and to demonstrate the complete confidence of the Government in gaining a new endorsement for it.
Her Majesty's loyal Opposition should be extremely flattered by the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill. In 1994, when the former government introduced a deregulation Bill, it was received with much vituperation from the then opposition Front Bench. But we should not be deceived into thinking that the Bill before your Lordships' House today is the same kind of Bill.
It is clear that the 1994 Bill was a genuine deregulatory Bill. It was a Bill exclusively addressed to reducing burdens. Not so this Bill, as so many noble Lords have explained. There are provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill to impose burdens in certain circumstances. If this measure is pursued with enthusiasm by this Government and future governments, we shall see a dramatic change in the ratio between primary legislation and delegated legislation.
In our constitution, the procedures in your Lordships' House and in another place play a particularly important role. We are not a nation which has entrenched political rights. A Back-Bencher in another place is presented with an insoluble dilemma. On the one hand, he or she is responsible for keeping the executive in power and, on the other, at the same time, for keeping the executive under control. In the modern world, where party organisation is so powerful, the choice that that Back-Bencher makes is almost invariably the same: to keep the executive in power.
In the circumstances of any government with a majority, the only way to scrutinise their actions and keep them under control is through parliamentary procedures. If a substantially greater proportion of business in your Lordships' House and another place is by delegated measures, it will lead to a reduction in Parliament's power to control the executive. We should be in no doubt whatsoever, therefore, that this is a measure of major constitutional importance; and it should be scrutinised as such by your Lordships' House.
In that context, two concerns have emerged today that ought to be looked at carefully throughout all the procedures in your Lordships' House. The first relates to the role of constitutional conventions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has made much of the fact that it is a convention in your Lordships' House that if the responsible Committee is unhappy with a particular measure under the deregulatory legislation, its decision is binding.
I hear what the noble and learned Lord says; but he is well aware that constitutional conventions last only for as long as the people who are party to them choose to make them last. He need only reflect on the constitutional convention of ministerial responsibility for the acts of a Minister's official. I think that I am right in saying that on only two occasions since the

895
Second World War has that convention been respected by Ministers of the Crown. Nowadays it is almost unheard of, even for a Minister who is personally responsible for something that goes wrong to resign. What confidence, therefore, should we have in the protection of a constitutional convention? We need a clearer commitment from the noble and learned Lord than that before we are prepared to buy it as a satisfactory means of control of the powers that have been granted to the executive.
What are those powers? The noble and learned Lord has said that he cannot define what subjects would merit the truncated legislative procedure, but he would know them when he saw them. Of course, while the noble and learned Lord is in government, we can be confident that he will exercise his usual mature judgment and restraint in deciding what should and should not be subject to this legislation; but what of his successors? That is an important question when guarantees are not written into statutes.
A number of your Lordships have rightly said that the Devil is in the detail of the Bill. Our approach to the Bill will depend on the extent to which we succeed in persuading the Government that our amendments are worthy of adoption.
In conclusion, I draw the attention of Labour Ministers to one or two specific matters in the text of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, with his penchant for instant solutions, might even give me an undertaking on some of these points. I claim no originality for what I am going to say, because many of your Lordships have already emphasised these points.
The first point relates to Clause 1(1)(c), which refers to:
"the making of new provision having the effect of imposing a burden which—
(i) affects any person in the carrying on of the activity, but
(ii) is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its creation".
The word "proportionate" should be supplemented with the word "necessary". It is not enough to require proportionality. If the Government want to introduce a new burden, they must first prove that it is necessary. Only then should the test of proportionality apply. I should be much obliged if the Minister would give me some help on that.
Clause 2(1)(a) gives a curious definition of a restriction or constraint as,
"preventing the incurring of expenditure".
I find that peculiarly worrying. It could easily be used by the executive as a licence to spend.
A number of your Lordships have already drawn the Minister's attention to Clause 3(1), where reference is made to the Minister making the order when the Minister is "of the opinion", and so on. There was some suggestion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the test is objective. I believe that it would help the House enormously if that could be confirmed in such a way that it had the status of a Pepper v. Hart undertaking.
896
My final point refers to Clause 3(2) and concerns a matter that was very well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, when he drew our attention to the expression,
"strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burden being created".
Is that, in effect, another definition of "proportionality" and is it an expression of what is already in Clause 1(1)(c)(ii)?
The Opposition look forward intensely to the Committee stage of the Bill in which we shall pursue our ends vigorously but, I hope, in a fair and sporting manner.
3.51 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am in the same minority as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. He and I both believe that this is the last year of the previous millennium rather than the first year of the new millennium. This debate is none the worse for taking place on the last day that this House sits in the last millennium. Indeed, the quality of the debate has given sufficient evidence of that for there to he no need for us to apologise in any way for its timing.
It is not only the quality but the diversity of the debate which will cause me some difficulty. I shall try to put my response into some kind of order by dealing, first, with constitutional issues and the scope of the Bill, then with questions of safeguards, then with questions of process, and then I shall deal to the best of my ability and within a reasonable time frame with a whole series of points raised by individual Peers.
The first, I suppose, constitutional issue which must be tackled is whether the Bill represents, as is alleged, a fundamental change in the balance between primary and secondary legislation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, described this as an intriguing paradox in that, in attempting to devolve power, we are, in his words, increasing the power of central government.
It is certainly true that the Bill introduces a powerful new tool for reforming primary legislation by means of secondary legislation. However, it is also true that the route for enacting parliamentary regulatory reform is unique—what is called the "super affirmative order", which provides for a uniquely high level of parliamentary scrutiny.
I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Harrison in making a judgment about the proportion of our business that should take place on the Floor of the House and that which should take place off it. But certainly, as, inevitably, a significant part of our activities takes place off the Floor of the House, it is important that we ensure that that which is carried on off the Floor should be as effective as possible and should represent and reflect the rights of individual Members of both Houses.
Therefore, I say to the noble Viscount, that this legislation does not undermine the position of primary legislation. That will continue to be the way in which the Government achieve their legislative ends. The restriction on the kind of subject which can be covered

897
by this Bill is set out clearly in Clause 1. I believe that significant safeguards exist which I shall be able to explain. Those safeguards protect the rights of the legislature in the face of increasing efforts of all Executives to diminish those rights.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in particular for his recognition of the degree of pre-legislative consultation which took place on the Bill. It has certainly led to very significant changes in the wording of the Bill since the earlier drafts.
Before I leave that point, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked whether there would be power to amend regulatory reform orders. Yes, indeed, that could be done because a Motion could be tabled and debated and, if it were passed, then the draft order would have to be amended. That is a significant change from the existing provisions relating to secondary legislation.
I do not think that I can help the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who asked about the potential effect of any legislation to implement Wakeham or any other longer term solution for the composition and powers of the House of Lords. We must frame this Bill to reflect the current situation and, if any changes were to be required as a result of further reform of the House of Lords, then they would have to be debated at that time.
I turn now to a very significant part of the debate which is the claim that this Bill imposes new burdens rather than removing them, which was the purpose, it is claimed, of the 1994 Act. I am greatly comforted by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, that, when he took up the baton in 1993, he took the view that he should be concerned not with deregulation but with improved regulation and by his approval of the phrase "better regulation" which is the title of the task force chaired by my noble friend Lord Haskins.
My noble friend Lord Haskins has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. There was only one seat available on his only train home and he had to take it. I am sure that the House will forgive him for that.
I find difficulty with the argument first used by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that in the 1994 legislation there was a one-way street and that it is somehow deplorable that this should be a two-way street; that somehow it is impossible to have better regulation which is achieved by exchanging some reduction of burdens with some increase in burdens, provided there are adequate burdens to ensure that any increase is proportionate. On occasions, one man's burden is another man's liberation. There is no simple spectrum which says the less burden, the greater net benefit there will be. As the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will confirm from his experience, sometimes there must be regulation in order to protect certain interests. If, in removing the gross burden of regulation, you have sometimes to add other burdens, that is a price worth paying.
898
A number of noble Lords talked about the burden of regulation in this country, but the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was forced to use an example from the United States' press rather than something closer to home.
I say as clearly as I can to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who raised this issue in particular, that this Government are not more inclined to regulate than previous administrations. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said in horror that we had over 3,400 regulations in 1999. In 1995, there were 3,367 regulations, so it is not a very great increase. Even if it were, I remind him that almost none of this regulation has any impact on business.
I simply rebut the accusation that this Government are increasing burdens on business by regulation. There is no significant change in the number of regulations. Where there have been increases in the burden on business—I acknowledge that there have been, particularly with the minimum wage and the Working Time Directive—I challenge the Opposition to say, as they did at the beginning but do not say now, that they are opposed to the minimum wage and the Working Time Directive. I notice that they have been conspicuously silent on those matters in recent months.
There is no sinister motive in the Bill behind the provision in Clauses 1 and 3, that on some occasions and in certain circumstances there may have to be an increase in burden. While people will in general find burdens eased, it is inevitable that some will find them increased, but only proportionately and in ways that preserve necessary protection, strike the right balance between the rights of the individual in society and preserve rights and freedoms that people could reasonably be expected to enjoy.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that the word "appropriate" should be added, although I notice that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not suggest that. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, say that the word "necessary" should be added. I do not believe that there would be any significant improvement in the wording of the Bill by either of those changes, and I am not able to give him the undertaking that he seeks.
Despite the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, this is not a free-standing power to impose new burdens. It is a strictly limited power, for the purposes that I have explained. Any additional burdens would have to meet the strict requirements of the new safeguards: proportionality and fair balance. It would also have to be consulted on, including seeking the views of those who could be adversely affected.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, expressed doubt about the effectiveness of consultation. There is provision for parliamentary control of the way in which the consultation would be carried out. It would have to be acceptable to the Committees of both Houses. There is always a temptation to treat consultation as supporting the prejudices of those carrying it out. However, I believe that the safeguards provided here are adequate for the purpose.

899
There was an accusation that somehow the regulatory impact assessment system was not working and that it should be extended further. I am not sure which was the more significant accusation. We are determined that the regulatory impact assessment should provide a reliable estimate of the costs and benefits of proposed regulation. In August 2000 we published tough new guidance to departments on impact assessment. We believe that the regulatory impact assessment system provides a better and more robust analysis than the rudimentary system of compliance cost assessment which we inherited. All proposals under the Bill must be accompanied by a full assessment of costs and benefits.
I refer to the use of the word "appropriate". There is always a suspicion—not about this marvellous Minister of State for the Cabinet Office who sits behind me—that some future wicked Minister of State for the Cabinet Office or some future wicked Member of the Government would use this legislation to do unspecified wicked things. I notice again that the committees did not recommend any changes to the Bill in that respect. Perhaps I may say, in a most friendly way, that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was particularly paranoid about that.
On the contrary, the Bill contains robust safeguards against misuse. The fact of mandatory and thorough public consultation and rigorous two-stage scrutiny by committees would make it a curious vehicle for the Government to use to do "wicked" things. A government who had a majority and were determined to do wicked things would be more likely to do them by primary legislation. In any case, under this Bill Ministers would have to show that the order preserved necessary protection; that it did not violate anyone's legitimate expectation that they could continue to enjoy any specific right or freedom; and new burdens would have to be proportionate and maintain a fair balance between conflicting interests.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he accept that everything he said relates to the first time round, to the primary order? Subsequent to that, under Clause 4, there are likely to be, in many if not in most cases, supplementary orders flowing from the primary order. Therefore none of what he said about the processes attached to the primary order will last the test of time. By definition, the primary order will have to be amended at some stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was going to come to that point. It was raised not only by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, but also by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and my noble friend Lord Borrie. The noble Lord is referring to the subordinate provisions.
In our view those provisions are key to the regulatory reform order-making process. In order to secure it, we are open to suggestions for amending that part of the Bill. Perhaps we could provide for such orders to be made by either positive or negative resolution. Either type of order could flow from this
900
provision. But we rely on the advice of the committees in each instance as to whether or not matters should be identified as subordinate and, if so, which procedure is appropriate. This is a matter we can certainly debate in Committee. But it gives me the opportunity to repeat the assurance given by my noble and learned friend in May of last year. At that time the Government undertook to continue to respect the convention that no measure under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act should be forced through in the face of the committee's opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Viscounts, Lord Goschen and Lord Bridgeman, asked for that assurance and I am happy to repeat the undertaking today.
I turn to the issue of sunset provisions. There are two kinds of sunset provision. They can apply to the Bill as a whole or they can apply to individual orders. We listened carefully to what was said about sunset provisions. Of course it is always an interesting idea and was canvassed in the course of the passage of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. It is raised again in the 18th report of our own Select Committee. But we see serious disadvantages in accepting a sunset clause for the whole Bill. My noble and learned friend clearly set that out.
The difficulty is that departments which are to be encouraged to use the regulatory reform order procedure will be persuaded to do so if they see that procedure as continuing into the future. If they think that they have not reached the point of putting a measure before Parliament before the sun sets—perhaps a considerable time before the time of sunset is advertised in the meteorological reports—then they will not do it. We might have—if we had, for example, a five-year sunset—only a three-year effective period.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is it possible to overcome that problem to a large extent by, for instance, allowing the renewal order for the Act to be passed, say, 12 to 18 months before the sun was due to set?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion and no doubt an amendment can be tabled and we can debate it. But it was not so much the time scale that concerned rne, though I used the timescale as an advantage. The difficulty is the uncertainty as to whether the provisions will continue. We accept that there is concern about the matter and that there are arguments, which we would like to debate in Committee, about the review of these important powers and at what stage that should be undertaken. I do not in any way want to close off debate on this important matter.
I noticed that the previous government opposed an amendment to the 1994 Bill as it went through Parliament and my present judgment is that they were right to do so. It introduces a note of uncertainty into the future of the power, a constraint which makes it less effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, made a different point about a sunset order for all orders on the face of the Bill. That may happen and it may be appropriate

901
to do that. We are doing it for Part I of the Electronic Communications Act 2000—I shall be speaking to that in a few moments—and we have done so for the Football Disorder Act 2000. But we must balance the benefits of ending outdated regulations against the burdens of uncertainty and change. I am not convinced that a blanket sunset provision for orders would be appropriate, although I would not want to set the face of the Government against sunset orders where they seem to be appropriate.
I appreciate everything said by my noble friend Lord Harrison about the dangers of gold-plating European legislation and the many other valuable points he made about it. However, the Bill is concerned with domestic legislation and if we began to widen the scope we should be in serious trouble.
I turn to the issue which was raised in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Norton. I am not accusing them of being paranoid, any more than I was really accusing the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, but it is a fear of the control-freak government. No one is suggesting that this Government are a control-freak government—people shy away from that and quite right, too! However, I must emphasise that the legal safeguards on what is proposed in the Bill are very strict. I have already referred to the need for proportionality, for necessary protection, for a fair balance and for not damaging reasonable expectations. If we were to flout any of the restrictions and safeguards, we should be under risk of successful judicial review and we would hardly use a measure of this kind for that purpose.
I turn to the question of whether the Minister should make the decision and the fear that such a decision would mean that the test was not objective. That was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart. It is for the committees to accept or reject that decision and therefore it comes back to the legislature rather than to the executive. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, recognised that the necessary protection is a concept taken over from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and it has been seen to work well. Where the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee and its sister committee have criticised proposals, in each case the Government have amended them to take account of the committee's views.
I turn to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, who has had to leave because he has the last seat on the last plane. He said that we should stick to Section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act but my noble friend Lord Borrie rightly reminded us that the old Section 5 procedures were, in the event, hardly used. In December 1996 there was a consultation exercise on its use. The feedback for the enforcers was that enforcers—mainly local authorities—felt that the "minded to" provisions involved in Section 5 were too bureaucratic and could be manipulated by illegitimate businesses. Instead, we preferred to draw up the enforcement concordat,
902
which was the result of extensive consultation with business, the voluntary sector, the enforcement community and consumer groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, asked whether the 75 per cent figure for those who signed up to the concordat was correct. My answer is twofold. First there is a full list of those who have signed up on the Cabinet Office website. Secondly, the figure is rising. We are on target for 85 per cent compliance by the end of this year. I am sure that we can beat that. Surely under those circumstances it is better to secure agreement to a concordat rather than reviving provisions that were not effective.
There may well be other issues that noble Lords have raised that ought to be responded to, but in view of the hour, I think that your Lordships would wish me to write to those noble Lords to whom I have not responded. I see the Opposition Chief Whip expressing his approval.
The Bill is enormously important. None of us would be here unless it were. We have been very interested in and grateful for the comments that have been made, particularly as almost everybody—except, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—said that they supported the general principles behind it. Let us ensure that when the Bill leaves this House those general principles, which have achieved widespread approval, survive and that the detail is as good as it can be.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Companies Act 1985 (Electronic Communications) Order 2000
4.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had thought that those noble Lords who were so keen on the constitutional principles might be interested in staying to hear something about how it works in practice. However, the draft order removes obstacles in the Companies Act 1985 to electronic communications made by a company and its members. This is the first order brought forward under Section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000. After describing the order's main provisions, I shall set out the Government's current plans under Section 8 of the Act.
A number of provisions in the 1985 Companies Act either require communications to be made in writing or are unclear as to whether electronic means can be used. The draft order amends those provisions. The order will permit three types of electronic communications: from companies to the Registrar of Companies when they are incorporating or reregistering; from companies to their shareholders—for example, sending out the annual report and accounts;

903
from shareholders to their company—for example, when the shareholder is appointing a proxy. As required by the Electronic Communications Act. the draft order is permissive. It enables but does not require companies and shareholders to use electronic communications. Companies must ask their members to opt into electronic communications rather than to opt out. The order sets out how a company may satisfy its obligations under the 1985 Act by sending electronic rather than hard copies of documents. For example, when sending the annual report and accounts the company must have been notified by the shareholder of an address for electronic communications. By sending the report and accounts electronically the requirement in the Act to send the copy is satisfied, and no further paper copy is required.
The order leaves considerable flexibility for companies and their members to decide on the best means of electronic communication and the method for agreeing to it. Companies need that flexibility to accommodate their varying circumstances and adapt to developments in technology, so guidance rather than legislation is appropriate. I welcome the initiative of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators in preparing best practice guidance for companies that choose to take advantage of the order. That guidance was published in December this year.
In accordance with the undertaking given by the Attorney-General last year, I confirm that in my view the proposed amendments to the Companies Act are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. This order is a good example of the way in which Section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 can be used to reduce burdens on companies and individuals while improving the service that they provide or receive. Section 8 contains a power to remove obstacles in other legislation to the use of electronic communication and storage in place of paper. That is a major element in delivering the Government's policy to promote electronic commerce and meet their target for making government services available electronically. That includes connection to the Internet of all schools and libraries by 2002, with 100 per cent of all government services to be deliverable on line by 2005.
Our current plans for the use of Section 8 include orders for the following purposes: to facilitate electronic conveyancing; the electronic submission of trade statistics to the Office for National Statistics; to permit the electronic submission of a statutory off-road declaration in respect of a vehicle; to allow electronic authentication of public records for court proceedings; to give legal recognition to the official legislation website version of statutes; and to allow the electronic submission of information by oil companies under the Petroleum Act 1998. The Electronic Communications Act will at last bring the statute book into the information age of the 21st century. The draft order before us was widely welcomed by companies when it was issued for consultation earlier this year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Deputy Chief Whip for his explanation of the order. I have discussed this matter with my noble friends. We find nothing controversial in this order and, therefore, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition I happily accept it. Perhaps I may say to the Government Chief Whip that when we deal with the next four orders my response will be fairly similar. On this occasion short speeches are probably desirable.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I too am happy to accept the order which is plainly desirable in the interests of modernisation and keeping up with the development of e-commerce. We believe that we can approve this order without reservation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000
4.23 p.m.
Lord Whittyrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th November be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations relate to changes that the Government propose to make to the packaging regulations. Revised recovery and recycling targets for the years 1999 and 2000 were announced in January 1999, but the Government have kept under review the targets for 2001 so that they can assess what they should be in the light of further work on the packaging data and the returns for 1999. That work has now been done. The proposed targets for 2001 are: 56 per cent recovery and 18 per cent material-specific recycling of packaging waste. The regulations are intended to enable the UK to meet the mandatory targets in the EU directive on packaging and packaging waste; that is, 50 per cent recovery, 25 per centrecycling and 15 per cent recycling for each type of packaging material. Those European targets must be met next year.
The other part of these changes in regulations relates to the scheme fee mechanism. The Government propose to change the mechanism according to which the registration fee paid each year by members of compliant schemes is determined. We propose that from January 2001 there should be an annual flat registration fee of £460 for each compliant scheme member regardless of the size of the scheme. That replaces the sliding scale mechanism according to which the higher the number of members in the scheme the lower the fee paid by the scheme members. We believe that that will be generally welcomed particularly by smaller businesses. I beg to move.

905
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th November be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mink Keeping (England) Order 2000
4.25 p.m.
Lord Carterrose to move, That the order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this order on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hayman. The Mink Keeping (England) Order 2000 has already been made and will come into force when it has obtained the approval of both Houses. The order is made under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 and will ensure that mink are kept securely to prevent their escape into the wild. It replaces the existing order, which expires on 1st January 2001.
Last month the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 received Royal Assent and fulfilled the Government's pre-election pledge to ban fur farming. The order we are debating today will have no effect on the banning of fur farming under that Act and the ban will go ahead after a winding-down period of at least until the end of 2002. During that winding-down period, we need to ensure mink continue to be kept securely. If the order is not renewed mink farming will be deregulated. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would then not have the powers to enforce the stringent security conditions that are required to prevent farmed mink from escaping into the wild. That situation would be unacceptable to the Government and to anyone who is concerned about the environment.
I must stress that neither the order nor the regulations cover welfare issues. Those are dealt with under separate legislation. We shall, of course, continue to ensure that fur farmers comply with the welfare requirements which will remain in force while the industry is winding down.
Previous mink keeping orders covered Great Britain as a whole, but, following devolution, the Mink Keeping (England) Order 2000 will cover England only. Separate orders are being made in Scotland and Wales to renew their powers to enforce security conditions. The keeping of mink will be prohibited absolutely in those areas where there is currently neither a feral mink population nor any mink farms; that is, all off-shore islands, excluding the Isle of Wight, which already has a mink farm. That is the reason for the exclusion. The purpose of the absolute prohibition in these areas is to prevent the establishment of feral mink populations. Mink keeping can continue in all other areas of England under licence until the end of the winding-down period under the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, when fur farming will be banned absolutely in England, and, in fact, in Wales, as the Act also applies there.
Under the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, the
906
earliest that a ban can be brought into force is 1st January 2003. While this might suggest renewal of the order for two years only, I propose a three-year order as that will allow some flexibility as to when the ban is brought into force without the need to renew the order. A modified form of mink keeping order will still be needed when fur farming is banned to permit the licensed keeping of mink and coypu for special purposes such as exhibition and research.
The order is essential in order to maintain the powers needed to enforce the stringent security conditions required to prevent farmed mink from escaping into the wild. Until fur farming is prohibited, applications for licences will be considered in the usual way and licences will be issued where the required standards have been met.
My noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn gave an undertaking to this House that, when moving regulations which are subject to affirmative procedure, Ministers will always inform the House whether they are satisfied that the instrument is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In accordance with this undertaking, I can confirm that it is the Government's view that the provisions of the Mink Keeping (England) Order 2000 are compatible with convention rights. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999-2000].—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have two brief points. First, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip for mentioning the Isle of Wight. That caused me some problems because I could not understand why the Isle of Wight was mentioned and not other islands. He has now dealt with that point.
Secondly, I have a point about compensation. Compensation will be offered in due course following the passage of the Act this year in relation to mink-keeping. Mink farmers are very concerned as to when they will get compensation, particularly as the breeding season will arrive in about March. Can the noble Lord say when they will get compensation because it is of concern to them in terms of their farming operations?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip. I am dealing with only the one order today; I think that he is dealing with four or five. I am sure his fellow Whips and his shadow Ministers are grateful to him.
With regard to compensation, the advertisement has been placed for the independent consultant who is required. It is hoped that he will be appointed by the end of January. All farms will be visited by 21st February.
The noble Lord mentioned the breeding cycle. It is intended that there will be three months of consultation on the draft order from around June onwards. It is hoped that the statutory instrument to deal with compensation will be laid in October.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUTELSAT (Immunities a and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2000
4.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th October be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the European Telecommunications Satellite Organisation—EUTELSAT—is based in Paris. It was established in 1977 and ranks as one of the world's leading satellite operators, with reach across Europe, Africa, large parts of Asia and connectivity with America. EUTELSAT provides TV and radio broadcasts and pioneered the delivery of Internet services. It also provides capacity for corporate networks, satellite news gathering, telephony and mobile voice, data and positioning services. Forty-eight countries are shareholders in EUTELSAT, the largest being Italy, with 20.3 per cent, followed by France, with 20 per cent, and the UK, with 19 per cent.
The draft order will enable the Government to notify their acceptance of the amendments to the convention and the operating agreement relating to the European Telecommunications Satellite Organisation—EUTELSAT. These amendments were presented to Parliament, in Cm. 4572, in February 2000, under negative procedure, by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The present draft order is made under the International Organisations Act 1968 and will give effect in UK law to those additional privileges and immunities, which we are obliged to confer under the convention and operating agreement, as amended.
As an intergovernmental organisation, EUTELSAT already enjoys the usual privileges and immunities, including tax free status, under the EUTELSAT (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1988. Agreement was reached in 1999 for EUTELSAT t o be split into a privatised French company and a residual, three to four person, intergovernmental organisation to oversee its obligation to provide public service telephony. The former will be called EUTELSAT SA (Societe Anonyme), to distinguish it from the latter which will retain the title EUTELSAT.
The draft order will exempt the residual intergovernmental organisation, after EUTELSAT is put on a commercial footing, from all customs duties on goods and publications of the organisation imported by the organisation into the UK in the course of its official activities. It does not apply to or affect employees of EUTELSAT or any other individual connected with EUTELSAT. The newly formed commercial company, EUTELSAT SA, will not enjoy any privileges and immunities.
In accordance with Section 1(6)(a) of the International Organisations Act 1968, the privileges and immunities conferred by the draft order are no greater in extent than those required by the convention and operating agreement, as amended, or those authorised by the Act.
908
I very much hope that your Lordships will approve this modest, non-controversial order. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th October be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order 2000
4.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November be approved [9th and 36th Reports. from the Deregulation Committee, Session 1999–2000].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it falls to me to move the final order of the millennium year and I suppose that in a way it is a quite good one to move. One might describe it as the "boogey on down, bop 'til you drop order". What lies between people having a good time on New Year's Eve and not having a good time on New Year's Eve is actually us, because if we do not approve the order we will not be going to the Paradox, the Zap Club, the Catfish Club or the Fridge; nor will we be taking our pleasures in the Ministry of Sound. People will be marching on the ministries to demand better deregulation. Having listened to some of the earlier debate, I guess that it is good and perhaps novel for the Home Office to be bringing forward a measure which does away with a regulation and perhaps does something to enhance my department's reputation as no longer being the home for blue meanies. This is the order that helps in that respect.
The order is designed to allow commercial dancing on Sundays for the first time in over 200 years. As I have explained, this will greatly benefit nightclubs, discotheques and charities which cannot currently charge for entry to a public dance on Sundays. The order achieves the change by removing dancing and musical accompaniment to such dancing from the scope of the Sunday Observance Act 1780.
The order will therefore sweep away an antiquated and unnecessary prohibition which has no place in a modern, multi-faith society. The 1780 Act has already been disapplied in respect of most other forms of public entertainment, so there can be no justification for retaining special provisions for dancing only. The order would enable people to enjoy commercial dance events, subject to licensing rules for public entertainment, whether they be a discotheque or a tea dance.
The House will want to note that this order does not alter permitted licensing hours on normal Sundays, which currently end at 10.30 in the evening. Licensing hours on normal Sunday evenings and early Monday mornings are the subject of a separate order which we hope that the House will consider in the new year.

909
We believed that it was sensible to separate the two orders because there was little or no controversy about allowing people to dance on Sundays, while issues of public protection do arise in respect of the related licensing hours. Anxieties expressed earlier this year, during the parliamentary scrutiny of the original draft of this order, focused on "hours" and not on "dancing".
All sides of the House will want to ensure that the Sunday dancing order comes into force in time for this New Year's Eve, which falls on a Sunday, so that public events involving dancing can go ahead on that special day. On each New Year's Eve, most licensed premises obtain "special orders of exemption" which, if granted by local magistrates or by the Commissioner in the case of the Metropolitan Police District, allow the sale of alcohol beyond normal permitted hours. So where premises have a special order of exemption and a public entertainment licence, the provisions of this order will enable them to charge for a dance on New Year's Eve and enjoy a drink or two, or perhaps several more, as well.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee recommended approval of the draft order on 29th November; it was approved in another place yesterday. For all of those good reasons, and the fact that I shall certainly want to go dancing on New Year's Eve, I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November be approved [9th and 36th Reports from the Deregulation Committee, Session 1999–2000].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not a dancing man and I do not intend to join the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in the Catfish club or any of the other establishments he mentioned.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps on another occasion we could celebrate in some other way. As I said, I do not intend to dance on Sunday and I do not intend to oppose the order. I have only one question to put to the noble Lord: why has the order come to this House so late? We have reached 21st December. The year comes to an end on Sunday, 31st December. No doubt the noble Lord's noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will wish to dance in the Dome, if there are to be any celebrations there. Could not this order have been brought forward somewhat earlier?
Despite its lack of political controversy, I understand that some people do feel quite deeply about this matter. Given that, I wonder why the order could not have been brought forward slightly earlier so
910
that it could have received a somewhat fuller discussion than it will receive on the last day before we break up for Christmas.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I have already warned the Government Chief Whip that I may have within me a speech lasting half an hour on this subject.
Lord Carter: My Lords, would the noble Lord object if we now adjourn for Christmas and allow him simply to carry on?
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord did warn me that I would have to switch off the lights if I did so.
It is entirely appropriate that Lord McNally of Blackpool and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, should take the last waltz on this occasion. My claim to expertise in dancing stems from the fact that I used to sell chicken sandwiches in the Tower Ballroom while Reginald Dixon played and the merry throng danced.
This is an important order. It is absolutely ridiculous that we should still need to deregulate an Act from 1780.
I draw attention to the reports that show that throughout the 20th century this Act has been slowly picked apart. Each time it was picked at—the Sunday opening of cinemas, the Sunday opening of bars and so on—it was suggested that civilisation as we know it was bound to come to an end. But, lo and behold, it did not.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made the point that we have always previously taken the view that the Sunday licensing and Sunday dancing issues were linked. We therefore expressed our willingness in principle to accept a deregulation proposal that reflected this reality. We may talk about tea dances, but dancing and drinking go together and it was silly—or perhaps a little cowardly—to have separated the two. I can only assume that it will help the hip-flask industry and that old stand-by at tea dances, whisky in the teapot.
I understand the concerns about public order. Instead of clinging on to these absurd regulations and imposing blanket bans, public order should be maintained by proper policing and the withdrawal of licences from pubs and dance halls which cannot maintain it. It is interesting that the report mentions the Scottish experience, where Sunday has clearly established itself as the third most popular trading night of the week.
I welcome the order as part of a process—which should be accelerated—where people are able to spend their leisure time and money as they think fit, rather than being nannied by ancient laws. That process should move forward. Where there are concerns for public order, there should be other powers for the police and local authorities to clamp down on miscreants; we should not try to impose blanket refusals. We should allow people to do those things which are perfectly within their rights and add to their general enjoyment.

911
On a previous occasion, we found out that on Sunday afternoons the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, read the local government journal. Now the House has on public record a full list of the clubs of which he is a member.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, as a semi-professional musician, perhaps I may say how much I welcome this order. It will benefit me and thousands of others who earn their livings as musicians and the providers of discotheque music. It has not been a problem for me in the past, but I have never played the Tower Ballroom in Blackpool. I am, however, free for this New Year's Eve.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would like me to work through it, I have a four-page brief containing an explanation of why this order has taken so long to reach this stage. It started its life before Parliament on 17th January this year, but many representations were made and there was a lot of discussion in the deregulation subcommittee which held it up a little. But we have now got there. If we pass this order—as I am sure we will—this New Year we will be able to enjoy jazz and—
Lord McNally: My Lords, in regard to the deregulation sub-committee, if one looks at its membership, one can be absolutely certain that none of its members had to declare an interest.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is being a little unkind. Perhaps they should declare an interest.
No matter whether you enjoy the last waltz or boogying on down to the latest sounds, I am sure we are doing something which everyone will acclaim. Whether it is jazz or funk, I am sure that we will all want to be there. I hope that your Lordships will agree to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adjournment
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I rise to move the adjournment of the House for the Christmas Recess, I find myself brimming over with seasonal good cheer, so perhaps I may say a few words of thanks and appreciation. Before doing so, I can tell my noble friend Lord Bassam that I intend to read Hansard with great care in relation to the previous order. His apparently encyclopaedic knowledge of night-clubs is the sort of information a Chief Whip needs to have about his colleagues!
As ever, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords the Opposition Chief Whip and the Leader of the Opposition for their constructive approach to the management of business and their unfailing good nature. In a House where the usual channels must operate by agreement, it is a great advantage when
912
they are themselves agreeable. I include also the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Craig of Radley in these remarks. It has been a pleasure doing business with them all.
I should also like to record my warmest thanks to the staff of the House who serve us so diligently. In so doing, I know that I speak for the whole House. The staff have had to work extremely hard over the past year. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in expressing our appreciation for the work that they do. So much of that work is invisible, but is none the less important for that. Members of the House do realise that Bills are not printed by magic, that corridors do not clean themselves and that late night meals are not conjured out of thin air. Indeed, on one occasion, after an all-night sitting, we had a marvellous breakfast provided for us. I wish all the staff of the House a happy and relaxing Christmas.
I am sure that noble Lords share my delight that I have been able to arrange matters so that none of us will have to be here—unless we want to be— for a full three weeks and one day. I hope that your Lordships will enjoy the break. I wish everyone, both Peers and staff, a very happy Christmas and a good New Year.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for his remarks about myself and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the constructive approach that we have taken. I hope that it really has been constructive. We all accept that the Government must get their business through; but they must also allow us a reasonable amount of time to discuss the vast array of business that they bring before us.
I endorse everything that the noble Lord said about the staff of the House. We owe them an enormous debt of thanks, particularly after the Session that we have just been through. I am thinking especially of the spillover period which began at the end of September and went on until the end of November, when we sat more or less until midnight virtually every night. We owe the staff enormous thanks for the vast amount of work that they put in, allowing the Government to get their business through. We must say, however, that it was the Government's own fault for bringing so much business forward, and was due in particular—I see the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, sitting next to the Chief Whip—to the vast amount of legislation that we had from the Home Office. Perhaps the Home Office could cut down the amount in future. I shall not comment on the look that appears on the face of the Government Chief Whip. Perhaps the Home Office will not only reduce the amount of legislation that it brings forward but also make sure that it is properly drafted.
I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for allowing us, after discussions between the usual channels, a good three-week break. All of us in this House, whether Members or staff, are well in need of that break. I certainly need it; I think the Government

913
Chief Whip needs it; as does the deputy Chief Whip and many others. We all look forward to coming back on 15th January.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, it was a great 18th century Englishman who said: "I look upon every day to be lost in which I do not make a new acquaintance". Bearing that sentiment in mind, I say on behalf of my colleagues that this first year after the partial reform of this House has been a rich and full one. That could not happen without the wisdom and cheerfulness of this House, which has been maintained in this first year. It would not be maintained, were it not for the support that we have from all those who serve us in this House: Doorkeepers, those who clean, and all the others.
Over the several years in which it has been my duty to give a Christmas message, I have always made it a habit to select some area where I feel that special recognition is required. This year I have chosen the Office of Black Rod. It has done excellent work over a very difficult period. Black Rod and his staff—and this has nothing whatever to do with the small space that he allows me and my friends who come here on two motorised wheels rather than four, to park our machines—are not always appreciated for the breadth of area that they cover and the polite service that they give, sometimes under considerable strain.
914
Having said that, on behalf of these Benches I should like to join other noble Lords and wish the whole House, especially those who serve us, a very happy Christmas and, as the Scots say, a good New Year.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the Government Chief Whip for the kind words that he said about me. On behalf of all Cross-Benchers—perhaps too numberless to name this afternoon—I should like to say that we associate ourselves very much with all the plaudits that have been made and the thanks that have been expressed to the staff and to all those who support us in our work.
As has been said, it has been a very busy time with very many Friday sittings. I had hoped that the Government Chief Whip would have thought it right to avoid Friday sittings in the future; but, clearly, that New Year resolution has yet to pass his lips. Indeed, we shall sit on Friday 19th of January. The last time that the House sat on a Friday in January was in 1997, when one of the Bills that never found its place on the statute book was the harassment Bill. If that Bill had come through we might not be sitting on Friday 19th! Nevertheless, I thank the whole House on behalf of all Cross-Benchers for the support that we have received and wish everyone not only a happy and peaceful New Year, but also a very happy Christmas.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at nine minutes before five o'clock until Monday 15th January next.

  Asylum Applicant Interviews, Liverpool
  Asylum Applicant Interviews, Liverpool
  Asylum Seekers, Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Asylum Seekers, Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Volunteers Working with Children: Criminal Record Checks
  Volunteers Working with Children: Criminal Record Checks
  Football Disorder Prevention
  Football Disorder Prevention
  Supply Teaching by Working Holidaymakers
  Supply Teaching by Working Holidaymakers
  HM Prison, Brixton: Chief Inspector's Report
  HM Prison, Brixton: Chief Inspector's Report
  Export of Works of Art Reviewing Committee: Annual Report
  Export of Works of Art Reviewing Committee: Annual Report
  House of Lords Smoking Policy
  House of Lords Smoking Policy
  London Underground: Delay Incidents
  London Underground: Delay Incidents
  Nato Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  Nato Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Iraq: Export of Demining Equipment
  Iraq: Export of Demining Equipment
  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Palestinian Schools: Damage and Closure
  Palestinian Schools: Damage and Closure
  European Union: Community Incentive Measures
  European Union: Community Incentive Measures
  Iraq: Forcible Expulsions
  Iraq: Forcible Expulsions
  Belfast Agreement
  Belfast Agreement
  Pakistan: Election Undertakings
  Pakistan: Election Undertakings
  Cameroon: Local Elections
  Cameroon: Local Elections
  General Pinochet: Judge Garzon's Diary
  General Pinochet: Judge Garzon's Diary
  Overseas Territories: Adult Homosexual Acts
  Overseas Territories: Adult Homosexual Acts
  Rosyth: Proposed Continental Ferry Service
  Rosyth: Proposed Continental Ferry Service
  Internet Protocol Version 6
  Internet Protocol Version 6
  Lawful Business Practice Regulations and Data Protection Act
  Lawful Business Practice Regulations and Data Protection Act
  Public Guardianship Office
  Public Guardianship Office
  Appeals against Conviction
  Appeals against Conviction
  Serving Judges: Publication of Memoirs
  Serving Judges: Publication of Memoirs
  Northern Ireland: Legal Aid Budget Increase
  Northern Ireland: Legal Aid Budget Increase
  Disqualifications Act 2000: Irish Government Support
  Disqualifications Act 2000: Irish Government Support
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Irish Commission of Human Rights
  Irish Commission of Human Rights
  European Defence Force
  European Defence Force
  Chinook Helicopter ZD 576
  Chinook Helicopter ZD 576
  European Court of Justice: Judgments in Proceedings against UK
  European Court of Justice: Judgments in Proceedings against UK